DOCSLIB.ORG

WYCF 2020 Annual Report

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
WYCF 2020 Annual Report 2020 WYOMING COMMUNITY FOUNDATION ii Contents Dear Friends, When you look back on 2020, I bet you’ll agree it was a tough year. It’s easy to recount all the bad that WYCF Grantmaking 2020 ...........................................................1 happened. With your support though, so much good Your Generosity at Work came from it. Because of you, our state and nonprofit Bridging the Gap One Basket at a Time .............................2 community remain strong. Campbell County Opportunities Fund You are the reason Wyoming communities continue Wyoming Shoots for the Stars ...............................................4 to thrive in good times and in bad. When the nonprofit Wyoming Afterschool Alliance community that you and I rely on felt like it was Local Boards and Advisory Committee Grants .................6 crumbling, you helped build it back up. A Standard for Success .............................................................8 Because of your support in 2020, WYCF was able Wyoming Women’s Foundation to shift focus and meet the changing needs your Learning About the Outdoors, Outside Their Doors......10 community faced. The causes you care about were Looking Back, Looking Forward ...........................................12 shown a little extra love when they needed it most. Wyoming KIDS Count Data Book Your generosity helped children and families receive Impacts of COVID-19 on Wyoming Families ......................14 weekend meals over the summer. Your support meant moms working for their degree were able to access Legacy, Key Club, & President’s Circle Members ..........17 childcare and find help with housing to make college A Legacy for Leaders ................................................................18 more affordable. Donations from you have provided Leadership Wyoming Legacy Endowment Fund a path for Wyoming kids to become innovators and Honors and Memorials ............................................................20 tackle all that’s ahead. Donors & New Funds ................................................................22 After reading about all the good of 2020, I hope you Financials ......................................................................................24 know that you helped Wyoming communities and nonprofits thrive. In the good and bad times, the care Volunteers Boards .....................................................................25 you have shown Wyoming will make a difference for Current Staff ..............................................................Back cover years to come. I have no doubt, people like you will continue to build a better Wyoming no matter what comes our way. Thank you! Craig Showalter, President Wyoming Community Foundation iii 2020 ANNUAL REPORT WYCF GRANTMAKING: Your Generosity at Work Grants by Fund Type Agency Fund Grants $2,195,720 Field of Interest Funds $2,140,331 Donor Advised Fund Grants $1,179,507 Donor Designated Fund Grants $74,352 Scholarship Grants $338,549 Special Projects Grants $507,552 Unrestricted Grants $267,925 Total grantmaking: $6,703,936 Donor Advised Fund Agency Grants by Region: $2,005,808 Grants by Region: $1,020,083 Northeast Northeast Northwest $706,220 Northwest $114,715 $629,669 $69,150 Central Central $151,396 $351,627 Southwest Southeast Southwest Southeast $221,161 $119,701 $74,512 $123,775 Statewide agency grants made: $177,661 Statewide grants made: $286,305 International, Mutual/ Human Public, Societal Arts, Culture Environment Education Health Faith-Based Foreign Membership Services Benefit & Humanities & Animals Affairs Benefit All Grants by Program Area: $1,908,710 $1,285,052 $1,189,794 $841,187 $492,509 $206,779 $79,906 – $6,703,937 Agency Grants by Program Area $326,563 $600,839 $416,859 $484,861 $15,620 $86,115 $82,436 – Donor-Advised Grants by Program Area $399,154 $317,587 $100,790 $74,827 $107,140 $73,500 $104,260 $150 $2,100 WYOMING COMMUNITY FOUNDATION 1 Bridging the Gap One Basket at a Time CAMPBELL COUNTY OPPORTUNITIES FUND Edible Prairie Project That’s why the Edible Prairie Project was created. andemic, drought, and hail all came fast and EPP is a nonprofit that bridges the gap between local furious to market farmers in some Wyoming communities in 2020, not to mention challenging food sources and those in need of food. They give supply chain issues. But WYCF grantee Edible Prairie people access to local, quality food, and help members Project (EPP) weathered each storm and solved these of their community who are hungry. They do this problems in one of their toughest years yet. through two main programs: Veggie Baskets and Summer Weekend Meals for Kids. The reason EPP worked so hard to overcome these difficulties: they are passionate about helping their “People get really excited about what’s going to be community. in their Veggie Baskets,” says Erin. “We like to see the creative recipes people come up with using their “Megan and I have worked in local food for a long produce, and [the baskets] support local growers.” time,” said Erin Galloway, executive director of Edible Prairie Project, of co-worker and co-director Megan Veggie Baskets provide local produce to customers each Taylor. “There was nothing bridging the gap between week, using a pay-what-you-can pricing model. All local food and food insecurity. We [Campbell County] EPP customers receive the same quantity and quality of also didn’t have a weekend food program for kids and produce regardless of the price paid. At least 40% of the families in the summertime,” she said. baskets are reserved for SNAP/WIC families. 2 2020 ANNUAL REPORT STATS FACTS EPP’s original goal was to 11 serve 100 children. Because EPP’s network of the increased COVIDdemand stemming from , of growers who 370 contribute to their over different Veggie Basket children throughout the program. course of the program2,210 received a total of weekend food bags. The Edible Prairie Project seeks to support independent family-scale farmers, ranchers, and agricultural producers in Campbell County who self-identify as female, military veteran, new and beginning, Erin Galloway and Megan Taylor of Edible Prairie Project. Black/African American, Person of Color, and/or socially disadvantaged. “The Veggie Baskets I received each week were “We got to see the kids’ faces and talk with parents. always filled with fresh and wholesome local Week after week we were told ‘thank you,’” Erin produce,” says Mary, a Veggie Basket customer. “The says. “Parents told us at the end of the summer how variety was amazing, which introduced me (and my much it meant, and that keeps us doing the work we kids) to new veggies and some direction on how they are doing.” can be used in meals.” EPP now has volunteers and continues to engage The Veggie Basket program was EPP’s flagship with their Campbell County community to help feed program, but Erin and Megan knew there was more hungry families. Even after all 2020 threw their way, that needed to be done to help families in need. They EPP is still working as hard as ever, and is ready for partnered with stores and organizations in Campbell what’s next. County to set up Summer Weekend Meals for Kids. “Awareness of food insecurity is a big issue,” says Then the world stopped with COVID-19. Erin. “People are not aware it’s in their communities, EPP didn’t stop though. They were still there for and it’s easy to ignore,” she says. kids and families when they needed it most. Erin and Because of you, a grant from WYCF made EPP’s work Megan handled about 90% of the summer program possible. It helped local food sources thrive while alone, serving more kids than originally planned. giving people the food security they need and deserve. WYOMING COMMUNITY FOUNDATION 3 Wyoming Shoots for the Stars hen you’re stargazing in Wyoming, Seven participants from across the state regularly meet it’s easy to picture new worlds full of over Zoom. Each has the goal of learning to inspire possibility. Watching satellites and students to develop a STEM mindset through making. stars cross dark Wyoming skies stirs the Participants are youth educators from 4-H programs, imagination. Our Wyoming sky is famous afterschool programs, art galleries, community centers for its inspirational views, day or night. and makerspaces. The Wyoming Afterschool Alliance (WYAA) is using In our state, where sparkling night skies spread over that spirit of imagination to inspire young women and girls in Wyoming. mountains and plains, the Moonshot is a particularly wonderful analogy. WThrough the Million Girl Moonshot (MGMS) program, part of the larger MakeHER program, WYAA and “Around age 11, girls are most at risk for opting out its partners are capturing the attention of middle of STEM education experiences,” says Jane Crayton, school youth - and girls in particular - through youth Coe Makerspace Coordinator at the University of development opportunities and STEM education. Wyoming. “It’s really important to start building It’s a collaboration with the University of Wyoming confidence in STEM prior to that age, and definitely at Coe Student Innovation Center (CSIS) makerspace and that age. MakeHER is an intervention, but it will also Wyoming 4-H, and is administered by WYAA. provide students real-world experience.” 4 2020 ANNUAL REPORT STATS FACTS 84% Each host program receives an $800 grant of parents agree that MakeHER programs along with a small provide kids opportunities travel stipend to pay to learn life skills, like for materials, supplies the ability to communicate and work in teams.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological
    U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Locatable Mineral Reports for Colorado, South Dakota, and Wyoming provided to the U.S. Forest Service in Fiscal Years 1996 and 1997 by Anna B. Wilson Open File Report OF 97-535 1997 This report is preliminary and has not been reviewed for conformity with U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) editorial standards or with the North American Stratigraphic Code. Any use of trade, product, or firm names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government. CONTENTS page INTRODUCTION ................................................................... 1 COLORADO ...................................................................... 2 Arapaho National Forest (administered by White River National Forest) Slate Creek .................................................................. 3 Arapaho and Roosevelt National Forests Winter Park Properties (Raintree) ............................................... 15 Gunnison and White River National Forests Mountain Coal Company ...................................................... 17 Pike National Forest Land Use Resource Center .................................................... 28 Pike and San Isabel National Forests Shepard and Associates ....................................................... 36 Roosevelt National Forest Larry and Vi Carpenter ....................................................... 52 Routt National Forest Smith Rancho ............................................................... 55 San Juan National
    [Show full text]
  • Sensitive and Rare Plant Species Inventory in the Salt River and Wyoming Ranges, Bridger-Teton National Forest
    Sensitive and Rare Plant Species Inventory in the Salt River and Wyoming Ranges, Bridger-Teton National Forest Prepared for Bridger-Teton National Forest P.O. Box 1888 Jackson, WY 83001 by Bonnie Heidel Wyoming Natural Diversity Database University of Wyoming Dept 3381, 1000 E. University Avenue University of Wyoming Laramie, WY 21 February 2012 Cooperative Agreement No. 07-CS-11040300-019 ABSTRACT Three sensitive and two other Wyoming species of concern were inventoried in the Wyoming and Salt River Ranges at over 20 locations. The results provided a significant set of trend data for Payson’s milkvetch (Astragalus paysonii), expanded the known distribution of Robbin’s milkvetch (Astragalus robbinsii var. minor), and relocated and expanded the local distributions of three calciphilic species at select sites as a springboard for expanded surveys. Results to date are presented with the rest of species’ information for sensitive species program reference. This report is submitted as an interim report representing the format of a final report. Tentative priorities for 2012 work include new Payson’s milkvetch surveys in major recent wildfires, and expanded Rockcress draba (Draba globosa) surveys, both intended to fill key gaps in status information that contribute to maintenance of sensitive plant resources and information on the Forest. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS All 2011 field surveys of Payson’s milkvetch (Astragalus paysonii) were conducted by Klara Varga. These and the rest of 2011 surveys built on the 2010 work of Hollis Marriott and the earlier work of she and Walter Fertig as lead botanists of Wyoming Natural Diversity Database. This project was initially coordinated by Faith Ryan (Bridger-Teton National Forest), with the current coordination and consultation of Gary Hanvey and Tyler Johnson.
    [Show full text]
  • Reviewing Officer for Thomas Tidwell, Chief of the U. S. Forest Service
    Reviewing Officer for Thomas Tidwell, Chief of the U. S. Forest Service Attn: EMC Administrative Reviews 1400 Independence Avenue SW, Mailstop 1104 Washington, DC 20250-1104 Dear U. S. Forest Service Chief Thomas Tidwell FOREST SERVICE COMMENTS Thank you for this opportunity to comment on the proposed Shoshone National Forest Plan and addendum Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). As a native of Wyoming and long-time rancher and back country outfitter the Shoshone has been of great personal importance to me and my family. My mother and father, an early physician in the Cody country since 1940, acquired the 7D Ranch in Sunlight Basin in the 1950s. And I personally own a working cattle ranch located on the Greybull River upstream of its junction with the Wood River. My comments center on 5 areas: 1. Motorized use in Francs Peak and Wood River. 2. Illegal mountain bike trail in the Dunoir Special Management Unit 3. The need for recommendations in the plan for additional wilderness designations 4. Wild & Scenic Rivers 5. Enforcement 1. Proposed motorized use in the Wood River and Francs Peak area. This critical high country habitat gives protection for the Grizzly, Mountain Sheep, bird life including blue grouse, ptarmigan, lynx and even the possibility of expanded range for elusive wolverine. Francs Peak itself is the highest of all mountains in the Absaroka Range. The trails proposed the the local ORV organization for year-round motorized vehicles would impact 37,000 acres in the Wood River and 5,900 acres in Francs Peak for winterized use. The new motorized management areas that the Forest Service proposes would significantly impact the vast majority of the Wood River roadless area and roughly a third of the Francs Peak roadless area.
    [Show full text]
  • Bighorn Sheep 2015 Bighorn Sheep 2006
    TABLE I BIGHORN SHEEP HARVEST STATEWIDE BY TOTAL HUNTERS 2015 NUMBER TOTAL VALID ACTIVE HARVEST REC. HUNTER DAYS/ LICENSES* HUNTERS RAM EWE LAMB TOTAL DAYS SUCCESS HARVEST STATE TOTAL 196 193 154 0 0 154 1,831 79.8% 11.9 RESIDENT 143 140 106 0 0 106 1,553 75.7% 14.7 NONRESIDENT 53 53 48 0 0 48 278 90.6% 5.8 *Equals licenses sold per regulations through the draw and medical carryover (MCO) adjustments, governor licenses, supertag, trifecta licenses and refunds. TABLE II BIGHORN SHEEP TEN-YEAR COMPARISON OF STATEWIDE HARVEST 2006 - 2015 YEAR 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 VALID LICENSES* 219 238 242 251 263 258 271 220 220 196 RESIDENT 160 177 178 186 194 191 202 166 163 143 NONRESIDENT 59 61 64 65 69 67 69 54 57 53 NUMBER ACTIVE HUNTERS 219 237 242 251 263 249 249 213 217 193 RESIDENT 160 176 178 186 194 180 180 157 160 140 NONRESIDENT 59 61 64 65 69 69 69 56 57 53 TOTAL HARVEST 186 201 194 196 211 181 212 187 169 154 RESIDENT 135 151 141 141 150 125 147 134 119 106 NONRESIDENT 51 50 53 55 61 56 65 53 50 48 TOTAL RECREATION DAYS 1,654 2,225 2,230 2,032 1,867 2,029 2,152 1,609 1,889 1,831 RESIDENT 1,323 1,739 1,799 1,728 1,595 1,548 1,800 1,223 1,513 1,553 NONRESIDENT 331 486 431 304 272 481 352 386 376 278 DAYS/HARVEST 8.9 11.1 11.5 10.4 8.8 11.2 10.2 8.6 11.2 11.9 RESIDENT 9.8 11.5 12.8 12.3 10.6 12.4 12.2 9.1 12.7 14.7 NONRESIDENT 6.5 9.7 8.1 5.5 4.5 8.6 5.4 7.3 7.5 5.8 ACTIVE LICENSE SUCCESS 84.9% 84.8% 80.2% 78.1% 80.2% 72.7% 85.1% 87.8% 77.9% 79.8% HARVEST METHOD FIREARM 99.9% 99.0% 100.0% 99.0% 98.1% 99.4% 98.6%
    [Show full text]
  • Bighorn Sheep Disease Risk Assessment
    Risk Analysis of Disease Transmission between Domestic Sheep and Goats and Rocky Mountain Bighorn Sheep Prepared by: ______________________________ Cory Mlodik, Wildlife Biologist for: Shoshone National Forest Rocky Mountain Region C. Mlodik, Shoshone National Forest April 2012 The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or part of an individual’s income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TTY). To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20250-9410, or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TTY). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. Bighorn Sheep Disease Risk Assessment Contents Background ................................................................................................................................................... 1 Bighorn Sheep Distribution and Abundance......................................................................................... 1 Literature
    [Show full text]
  • 1 of 8 Casey Mcquiston, Resources Staff Officer Shoshone National Forest 808 Meadowland Ave. Cody, Wyoming 82424 August 2, 2017
    Casey McQuiston, Resources Staff Officer Shoshone National Forest 808 Meadowland Ave. Cody, Wyoming 82424 August 2, 2017 Purpose: BRG’s Official Comments For the Record to the Supplemental Draft EIS (Use of Domestic Sheep, Goats, and Pack Goats) Dear Mr. McQuiston, The Bighorn Restoration Group’s (BRG) mission is to advance the conservation and restoration of bighorn sheep throughout the southern Wind River Mountains. BRG therefore would like to offer the following official comments for the record to the Supplemental Draft EIS (Use of Domestic Sheep, Goats, and Pack Goats). If, as stated in the July 28th public meeting, the SNF chooses to extend the deadline for comments past the current August 10th deadline to define other possible alternatives to the Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement (SDEIS), BRG may also submit additional comments at that time. July 28th, 2017 Public Meeting Outcomes BRG especially appreciates the Washakie Ranger District (WRD) of the Shoshone National Forest (SNF) hosting the public meeting on July 28th, 2017—complete with hired mediator—to aid the U.S. Forest Service and other interested parties in better understanding the complex concerns involved in this issue from the point of view of all interested parties in attendance. BRG was very pleased with the win/win dynamics and cooperative, collaborative, and accommodating tone of the meeting. We also appreciated and concur with the willingness of all parties involved to pursue and promote a final decision that seeks to formulate an agreeable ruling, which integrates and maximizes all stakeholder concerns and interests. This meeting was very informative, useful, and enlightening with the following notable findings: The disease transfer science between domestic animals and wild bighorn sheep is complicated and imperfect.
    [Show full text]
  • Mountain Ungulates
    Chapter 5 Genetic Attributes and Research Interests Elizabeth P. Flesch, Tabitha A. Graves, Robert A. Garrott, Sarah R. Dewey, and Carson J. Butler THE GENOMICS REVOLUTION AND YELLOWSTONE Genetic research and engineering have infiltrated our daily lives in countless ways. New advances due to genomics are in the news almost every day. Genomics involves identifying the structure and function of genomes, which consist of the genetic infor- mation in individuals. Prior to the 1980s, scientists had a limited ability to study genetic material called DNA, which is short for deoxyribonucleic acid. Unlike today, they could not identify criminals using forensics, diagnose certain medical conditions and inherited diseases, or genetically modify plant crops for resistance to diseases and drought. In 1985, scientists invented an approach to make many copies of a small amount of genetic material. Scientists called this replication a polymerase chain reaction (PCR). A microorganism, Thermus aquaticus, discovered in a Yellowstone hot spring, provided the critical ingredient, Taq polymerase, to make this reaction possible. Taq polymerase assists in the steps necessary to replicate DNA and can withstand the heat necessary for the procedure. Today, laboratories produce many versions of this enzyme for a wide range of studies and applications. The technology that emerged from studying a Yellowstone hot spring now helps us understand, manage, and conserve the web of life in the Yellowstone area and throughout the world. 88 Greater Yellowstone’s Mountain Ungulates WHAT IS DNA AND HOW DO WILDLIFE BIOLOGISTS USE IT? Just as in people, DNA provides the instruction book for life within bighorn sheep and mountain goats.
    [Show full text]
  • Department of the Interior Miscellaneous Field Studies United States Geological Survey Map Mf-1597-A Pamphlet Mineral Resource P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR MISCELLANEOUS FIELD STUDIES UNITED STATES GEOLOGICAL SURVEY MAP MF-1597-A PAMPHLET MINERAL RESOURCE POTENTIAL OF THE NORTHERN PART OF THE WASHAKIE WILDERNESS AND NEARBY ROADLESS AREAS, PARK COUNTY, WYOMING By John C. Antweiler, Douglas W. Rankin, Frederick S. Fisher, Carl L. Long, and J. David Love, U.S. Geological Survey and Carl L. Bieniewski and R. Craig Smith, U.S. Bureau of Mines STUDIES RELATED TO WILDERNESS Under the provisions of the Wilderness Act (Public Law 88-577, September 3, 1964) and related acts, the U.S. Geological Survey and the U.S. Bureau of Mines have been conducting mineral surveys of wilderness and primitive areas. Areas officially designated as "wilderness," "wild," or "canoe" when the act was passed were incorporated into the National Wilderness Preservation System, and some of them are presently being studied. The act provided that areas under consideration for wilderness designation should be studied for suitability for incorporation into the Wilderness System. The mineral surveys constitute one aspect of the suitability studies. The act directs that the results of such surveys are to be made available to the public and be submitted to the President and the Congress. This report discusses the results of a mineral survey of the northern part of the Washakie Wilderness and nearby roadless areas, Shoshone National Forest, Park County, Wyo. The area was established as a wilderness by Public Law 88-577, September 3, 1964. The nearby roadless areas were classified as further planning areas during the Second Roadless Area Review and Evaluation (RARE II) by the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Yellowstone Grizzly Bear Investigations 2010
    Yellowstone Grizzly Bear Investigations 2010 Report of the Interagency Grizzly Bear Study Team Photo courtesy of Steve Ard Data contained in this report are preliminary and subject to change. Please obtain permission prior to citation. To give credit to authors, please cite the section within this report as a chapter in a book. Below is an example: West, K. 2011. Observation flights. Pages 17–19 in C.C. Schwartz, M.A. Haroldson, and K. West, editors. Yellowstone grizzly bear investigations: annual report of the Interagency Grizzly Bear Study Team, 2010. U.S. Geological Survey, Bozeman, Montana, USA. Cover: Elk Fork drainage, 17 Jul 2010. Photo courtesy of Steve Ard. YELLOWSTONE GRIZZLY BEAR INVESTIGATIONS Annual Report of the Interagency Grizzly Bear Study Team 2010 U.S. Geological Survey Wyoming Game and Fish Department National Park Service U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks U.S. Forest Service Idaho Department of Fish and Game Eastern Shoshone and Northern Arapaho Tribal Fish and Game Department Edited by Charles C. Schwartz, Mark A. Haroldson, and Karrie West U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey 2011 Table of Contents INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................. 1 This Report ............................................................................................................................................. 1 History and Purpose of the Study Team ................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Bighorn Sheep PERIOD: 6/1/2016 - 5/31/2017 HERD: BS201 - CLARKS FORK HUNT AREAS: 1 PREPARED BY: DOUG MCWHIRTER
    2016 - JCR Evaluation Form SPECIES: Bighorn Sheep PERIOD: 6/1/2016 - 5/31/2017 HERD: BS201 - CLARKS FORK HUNT AREAS: 1 PREPARED BY: DOUG MCWHIRTER 2011 - 2015 Average 2016 2017 Proposed Population: 546 600 500 Harvest: 16 18 18 Hunters: 20 20 20 Hunter Success: 80% 90% 90 % Active Licenses: 20 20 20 Active License Success: 80% 90% 90 % Recreation Days: 194 166 175 Days Per Animal: 12.1 9.2 9.7 Males per 100 Females 31 0 Juveniles per 100 Females 31 0 Population Objective (± 20%) : 500 (400 - 600) Management Strategy: Special Percent population is above (+) or below (-) objective: 20% Number of years population has been + or - objective in recent trend: 1 Model Date: 02/11/2016 Proposed harvest rates (percent of pre-season estimate for each sex/age group): JCR Year Proposed )HPDOHV\HDUROG 0% 0% 0DOHV\HDUROG 12.3% 12% Total: 2.8% 2.5% Proposed change in post-season population: +3.5% 0% 185 186 187 Page 1 of 1 2011 - 2016 Postseason Classification Summary for Bighorn Sheep Herd BS201 - CLARKS FORK MALES FEMALES JUVENILES Males to 100 Females Young to Tot Cls Conf 100 Conf 100 Year Post Pop Ylg Adult Total %Total% Total % Cls Obj Ylng Adult Total Int Fem Int Adult 2011 536 0000% 0 0% 0 0% 00000±0 0 ±0 0 2012 542 026 26 19% 77 57% 31 23% 134 274 03434±9 40 ±10 30 2013 550 0448% 30 61% 15 31% 49 289 013 13 ±9 50 ±19 44 2014 500 025 25 18% 91 67% 20 15% 136 274 027 27 ±7 22 ±6 17 2015 600 416 20 26% 47 61% 10 13% 77 302 93443 ±14 21 ±9 15 2016 600 0000% 0 0% 0 0% 00000±0 0 ±0 0 188 https://gfi.state.wy.us/JCR/frmSummaryRDisplay.aspx 3/6/2017 2017 HUNTING SEASONS CLARKS FORK BIGHORN SHEEP HERD (BS201) Hunt Season Dates Area Type Opens Closes Quota License Limitations 1 1 Sep.
    [Show full text]
  • Geology* Paleontology, and Correlation of Eocene Volcaniclastic Rocks, Southeast Absaroka Range, Hot Springs County, Wyoming
    Geology* Paleontology, and Correlation of Eocene Volcaniclastic Rocks, Southeast Absaroka Range, Hot Springs County, Wyoming GEOLOGICAL SURVEY PROFESSIONAL PAPER 1201-A Geology, Paleontology, and Correlation of Eocene Volcaniclastic Rocks, Southeast Absaroka Range, Hot Springs County, Wyoming By T. M. BOWN GEOLOGY OF THE ABSAROKA RANGE, NORTHWEST WYOMING GEOLOGICAL SURVEY PROFESSIONAL PAPER 1201-A Relations of Eocene volcaniclastic rocks and Eocene fossils date the sedimentary and structural evolution of the southeast Absaroka Range, clarify correlations with adjacent areas, and aid in timing large-scale events of gravity faulting UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE, WASHINGTON : 1982 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR JAMES G. WATT, Secretary GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Dallas L. Peck, Director Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data Bown, Thomas M. Geology, paleontology, and correlation of Eocene volcaniclastic rocks, southeast Absaroka Range, Hot Springs County, Wyoming. (Geological Survey Professional Paper 1201-A) Bibliography: p.71 Supt.ofDocs.no.: II9.I6:1201-A 1. Geology, Stratigraphic Eocene. 2. Volcanic ash, tuff, etc. Wyoming Hot Springs Co. 3. Mammals, Fossil. 4. Stratigraphic correlation Wyoming Hot Springs Co. 5. Geology Wyoming Hot Springs Co. 1. Title. II. Series: United States. Geological Survey. Professional Paper 1201-A. QE692.2.B68 55I.7'84'0978743 80-607125 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Washington, D.C. 20402 CONTENTS Page Abstract -------------------------------------------------
    [Show full text]
  • Water and Soils
    SHOSHONE NATIONAL FOREST FOREST PLAN MONITORING REPORT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2005 NOVEMBER 2006 Prepared by the Shoshone National Forest Planning Staff The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or part of an individual’s income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720.2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, DC 20250-9410, or call (800) 795.3272 (voice) or (202) 720.638s (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. Introduction........................................................................................ 1 Water use............................................................................................ 1 Watersheds ........................................................................................ 2 Forest products ................................................................................. 3 Livestock grazing .............................................................................
    [Show full text]