6 results on '"Ranger Station"'
Search Results
2. Healthy Water is Well Water : Homemade Water Filtration
- Author
-
Szutkowski, Toni M., Capraro, Mary Margaret, editor, Whitfield, Jennifer G., editor, Etchells, Matthew J., editor, and Capraro, Robert M., editor
- Published
- 2016
- Full Text
- View/download PDF
3. A novel application of hierarchical modelling to decouple sampling artifacts from socio-ecological effects on poaching intensity
- Author
-
Soofi, M., Qashqaei, A.T., Trei, J.-N., Shokri, S., Selyari, J., Ghasemi, B., Sepahvand, P., Egli, Lukas, Nezami, B., Zamani, N., Yusefi, G.H., Kiabi, B.H., Balkenhol, N., Royle, A., Pavey, C.R., Redpath, S.M., Waltert, M., Soofi, M., Qashqaei, A.T., Trei, J.-N., Shokri, S., Selyari, J., Ghasemi, B., Sepahvand, P., Egli, Lukas, Nezami, B., Zamani, N., Yusefi, G.H., Kiabi, B.H., Balkenhol, N., Royle, A., Pavey, C.R., Redpath, S.M., and Waltert, M.
- Abstract
Poaching is a global driver of wildlife population decline, including inside protected areas (PAs). Reducing poaching requires an understanding of its cryptic drivers and accurately quantifying poaching scales and intensity. There is little quantification of how poaching is affected by law enforcement intensity (e.g., ranger stations) versus economic factors (e.g., unemployment), while simultaneously accounting for imperfect detection. Using extensive data of poaching events (i.e., seizures) and censuses of nine ungulate species across the PAs and unprotected lands of Iran from 2010 to 2018, we developed a single-visit hierarchical (N-mixture) model to accurately estimate annual poaching of Iranian ungulates and to differentiate between social and ecological effects on annual poaching intensity. We found that poaching detectability increased with numbers of ranger stations. A recent surge in poaching (2013–2018) coincides with rising unemployment rate. We estimated that 19,727 ungulates (95% confidence interval 11,178–36,195) were poached across the country during 2010–2018. Poaching intensity was positively related to unemployment rate, road density, and ungulate abundance. Our simulations demonstrated that the Poisson and Negative binomial N-mixture models had adequate performance when the conditions of Sólymos et al. (2012) were satisfied, in particular, when at least one covariate is unique to both the detection and abundance parts of the model. Overall, we suggest that single-visit models offer unique insights into understanding the link between poaching intensity, economic conditions, and law enforcement in large-scale landscapes while accounting for imperfect detection of poaching events.
- Published
- 2022
4. A novel application of hierarchical modelling to decouple sampling artifacts from socio-ecological effects on poaching intensity.
- Author
-
Soofi, Mahmood, Qashqaei, Ali T., Trei, Jan-Niklas, Shokri, Shirko, Selyari, Javad, Ghasemi, Benjamin, Sepahvand, Pooriya, Egli, Lukas, Nezami, Bagher, Zamani, Navid, Yusefi, Gholam Hosein, Kiabi, Bahram H., Balkenhol, Niko, Royle, Andrew, Pavey, Chris R., Redpath, Steve M., and Waltert, Matthias
- Subjects
- *
POACHING , *UNEMPLOYMENT statistics , *ECONOMIC impact , *PROTECTED areas , *DEMOGRAPHIC change , *CONFIDENCE intervals - Abstract
Poaching is a global driver of wildlife population decline, including inside protected areas (PAs). Reducing poaching requires an understanding of its cryptic drivers and accurately quantifying poaching scales and intensity. There is little quantification of how poaching is affected by law enforcement intensity (e.g., ranger stations) versus economic factors (e.g., unemployment), while simultaneously accounting for imperfect detection. Using extensive data of poaching events (i.e., seizures) and censuses of nine ungulate species across the PAs and unprotected lands of Iran from 2010 to 2018, we developed a single-visit hierarchical (N-mixture) model to accurately estimate annual poaching of Iranian ungulates and to differentiate between social and ecological effects on annual poaching intensity. We found that poaching detectability increased with numbers of ranger stations. A recent surge in poaching (2013–2018) coincides with rising unemployment rate. We estimated that 19,727 ungulates (95% confidence interval 11,178–36,195) were poached across the country during 2010–2018. Poaching intensity was positively related to unemployment rate, road density, and ungulate abundance. Our simulations demonstrated that the Poisson and Negative binomial N-mixture models had adequate performance when the conditions of Sólymos et al. (2012) were satisfied, in particular, when at least one covariate is unique to both the detection and abundance parts of the model. Overall, we suggest that single-visit models offer unique insights into understanding the link between poaching intensity, economic conditions, and law enforcement in large-scale landscapes while accounting for imperfect detection of poaching events. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
- Published
- 2022
- Full Text
- View/download PDF
5. An Axis Through Nature: Ranger Station at Pandapas Pond
- Author
-
Todd, Alan Curry, Architecture, Jones, James R., Galloway, William U., and Rott, Hans Christian
- Subjects
ellipse ,axis ,nature ,layers ,ranger station ,Jefferson National Forest ,Pandapas Pond ,LD5655.V855 2007.T633 - Abstract
My thesis is a human intervention into the tranquil and natural environment of Pandapas Pond and the Jefferson National Forest. Although the form of the intervention embraces the landscape and natural land formations, its purpose is to take the visitor along a path that translates the experience from one of participation to that of observation of the parkâ s surroundings. This is both an investigation of an architectural integration with the site and a partial separation of the inhabiter from his/her natural surroundings. Master of Architecture
- Published
- 2007
6. Historic Cultural Resources in Relation to the Central Arizona Water Control Study
- Author
-
Stone, Lyle M. and Ayres, James E.
- Subjects
AZ U:3:4 (ARS) ,Redwood Canal ,AZ U:16:27 (ASM) ,Glendale, AZ ,AZ U:15:9 (ARS) ,AZ U:8:5 (ARS) ,AZ V:5:6 (ARS) ,AZ U:6:31 (ARS) ,Mesa, AZ ,Fort Reno Road ,AZ U:16:94 (ASM) ,AZ U:6:59 (ASM) ,Granite Reef Dam ,1920s ,Tonto National Monument ,AZ U:6:99 (ASM) ,AZ U:16:1 (ARS) ,AZ V:13:23 (ASM) ,Ranch ,AZ U:8:85 (ASU) ,AZ O:14:128 (ASU) ,Cabin ,AZ U:6:44 (ARS) ,Mine Prospect ,Town of Cline ,AZ V:13:63 (ASM) ,Canal ,AZ V:13:42 (ASM) ,AZ U:6:4 (ARS) ,AZ U:3: 71 (ASU) ,AZ U:6:23 (ARS) ,AZ T:3:12 (ARS) ,AZ U:6:10 (ARS) ,KA Ranch ,AZ U:16:177 (ASM) ,AZ U:3:9 (ARS) ,Dam Construction Facility ,AZ U:8:51 (ASU) ,AZ V:5:1 (ARS) ,1910s ,Sheep Bridge ,AZ U:6:46 (ASM) ,New River ,AZ V:13:2 (ARS) ,AZ U:8:64 (ASU) ,Phoenix, AZ ,City ,Adam's House Site ,Ramada ,AZ U:16:223 (ASM) ,AZ V:13:36 (ASM) ,AZ U:8:80 (ASU) ,AZ U:6:50 (ARS) ,AZ U:6:17 (ARS) ,Dam Construction Camp ,Gila (County) ,AZ U:16:75 (ASM) ,Fort McDowell ,AZ U:6:9 (ARS) ,Homestead ,Historic ,AZ U:6:25 (ARS) ,Cobble Hearth ,AZ U:6:2 (ARS) ,AZ U:6:2 (ASU) ,AZ U:6:28 (ARS) ,Factory / Workshop ,AZ U:6:108 (ASM) ,AZ U:6:120 (ASM) ,Building Materials ,AZ T:3:8 (ARS) ,1940s ,AZ U:3:11 (ARS) ,Archaeological Feature ,AZ O:14:1 (ARS) ,AZ U:2:300 (ASU) ,AZ U:16:73 (ASM) ,Town / City ,Canal or Canal Feature ,AZ U:2:5 (ARS) ,AZ U:16:8 (ARS) ,Fort McDowell Indian Reservation ,AZ U:4:1 (ARS) ,Lake Pleasant Inn ,House Site ,AZ U:8:70 (ASU) ,AZ U:6:4 (ASM) ,AZ U:6:52 (ARS) ,Water Storage ,Verde River ,Processing Site ,Apache Junction, AZ ,Roasting Pit / Oven / Horno ,AZ U:8:21 (ASU) ,AZ U:6:129 (ASM) ,Fort ,Phoenix-Prescott Road ,Superior, AZ ,Oven ,AZ U:6:43 (ASM) ,AZ U:6:165 (ASM) ,AZ U:6:14 (ASM) ,AZ U:2:7 (ARS) ,AZ U:8:133 (ASU) ,1930s ,AZ U:6:163 (ASM ,AZ V:5:9 (ARS) ,AZ V:13:61 (ASM) ,AZ U:6:49 (ARS) ,AZ U:8:8 (ARS) ,Corona's House Site ,Horseshoe Dam ,Roger's Ranch ,Indian Camp ,AZ U:4:3 (ARS) ,Tank ,Tom Hall House ,Sycamore Creek ,AZ V:13:4 (ASM) ,Scottsdale, AZ ,AZ U:6:112 (ASM) ,AZ U:6:164 (ASM) ,Uranium Mine ,AZ U:16:6 (ARS) ,Florence, AZ ,AZ U:8:2 (ARS) ,AZ V:5:97 (ASU) ,AZ U:16:7 (ASM) ,AZ U: 8: 36 (ASU) ,AZ O:14:3 (ARS) ,AZ U:6:41 (ARS) ,Agricultural or Herding ,AZ U:3:7 (ARS) ,AZ U:6:3 (ASM) ,AZ U:6:11 (ASM) ,AZ U:6:64 (ASM) ,Funerary and Burial Structures or Features ,AZ U:2:140 (ASU) ,AZ U:6:39 (ARS) ,Arizona dam ,AZ U:6:27 (ARS) ,AZ U:16:4 (ARS) ,AZ U:6:47 (ARS) ,Beardsley Canal ,AZ U:8:7 (ARS) ,AZ V:13:38 (ASM) ,AZ U:6:33 (ARS) ,AZ U:16:2 (ASM) ,AZ U:16:114 (ASM) ,AZ U:6:109 (ASM) ,Arizona (State / Territory) ,Florence-Casa Grande Canal ,House ,Stewart Mountain Dam ,AZ U:3:2 (ARS) ,Commercial or Industrial Structures ,AZ U:2:4 (ARS) ,AZ U:6:56 (ASM) ,AZ U:6:46 (ARS) ,Stage Station ,19th Century ,Chandler, AZ ,AZ T:3:6 (ARS) ,Structure ,AZ U:16:3 (ARS) ,Indian Work Camp ,AZ U:6:34 (ARS) ,AZ O:14:2 (ARS) ,AZ U:3:8 (ARS) ,AZ U:8:63 (ASU) ,AZ V:13:1 (ARS) ,AZ U:6:45 (ASM) ,Stockade Enclosure ,AZ U:6:35 (ARS) ,AZ U:6:38 (ARS) ,AZ T:3:5 (ARS) ,Highway Maintenance Station ,AZ V:5:93 (ASU) ,Rock Store ,Salt River ,AZ T:3:10 (ARS) ,AZ V:13:37 (ASM) ,1900s ,AZ U:8:10 (ARS) ,AZ U:6 :66 (ASM) ,AZ U:2:30 (ASM) ,Shed ,AZ U:16:166 (ASM) ,AZ U:6:71 (ASM ,AZ U:8:1 (ARS) ,Prospect Hole ,AZ U:6:40 (ARS) ,AZ U:3:3 (ARS) ,AZ T:3:49 (ASU) ,AZ U:8:4 (ARS) ,AZ U:8:53 (ASU) ,AZ O:14:4 (ARS) ,Salt River Indian Reservation ,Town of Kelvin ,AZ U:16:171 (ASM) ,Mitchell Springs Ranch ,AZ O:14:5 (ARS) ,AZ U:3:6 (ARS) ,Lime Kiln ,AZ U:15:10 (ARS) ,AZ T:3:1b (ARS) ,Military Structure ,AZ T:3:3 (ARS) ,AZ U:16:173 (ASM) ,Cline Ranch ,Southern Pacific Railroad ,Wooley Station ,Tonto Creek ,AZ U:6:36 (ARS) ,AZ U:8:3 (ARS) ,Sultana-Arizona Mine ,AZ U:3:5 (ARS) ,Water Control Feature ,AZ U:6:37 (ARS) ,Mine Tunnels ,Ray Junction Station ,AZ T:3:2 (ARS) ,Cobble ,Coke Oven ,AZ U:8:60 (ASU) ,AZ U:2:6 (ARS) ,Mine-Related Structures ,New Waddell Dam ,AZ U:6:134 (ASM) ,Recent ,Cement ,Johnson House ,AZ U:16:87 (ASM) ,AZ U:6:61 (ASM) ,AZ U:16:74 (ASM) ,AZ U:8:52 (ASU) ,AZ U:4:2 (ARS) ,AZ U:6:11 (ARS) ,Adobe ,Diversion Dam ,AZ U:6:51 (ARS) ,AZ U:16:165 (ASM) ,Cemetery ,AZ U:6:79 (ASM) ,AZ U:6:26 (ASM) ,AZ U:8:65 (ASU) ,Ranger Station ,AZ U:6 :154 (ASM) ,Roosevelt Hotel ,AZ U:6:24 (ARS) ,AZ T:3:11 (ARS) ,1880s ,Road ,AZ V:13:3 (ARS) ,Resort ,AZ T:3:4 (ARS) ,Rock Art ,CAWCS ,Ripsey Mill ,Site Evaluation / Testing ,Flood Control ,AZ U:6:139 (ASM) ,Santa Maria Seaplane Site ,AZ U:8:81 (ASM) ,Domestic Structures ,AZ U:16:222 (ASM) ,Hassayampa River ,Stuart Mountain Dam ,AZ U:6:166 (ASM) ,AZ U:6:126 (ASM) ,Agua Fria River ,AZ U:6:8 (ARS) ,AZ U:6:16 (ARS) ,Maricopa (County) ,AZ U:16:2 (ARS) ,Town of Price ,AZ U:6:3 (ARS) ,Historic Native American ,Salt River Valley Road ,AZ U:6:29 (ARS) ,Trash ,AZ V:5:7 (ARS) ,AZ U:6:161 (ASM) ,Gaging Station ,Cline Cemetery ,AZ U:6:45 (ARS) ,AZ U:3:12 (ARS) ,Grave ,Kiln ,Surveyor's Station ,Adams Ranch ,Town ,AZ U:8:9 (ARS) ,AZ U:6:48 (ARS) ,Powder Magazine ,AZ U:6:18 (ARS) ,AZ U:8:6 (ARS) ,Kelvin Cemetery ,Sheep Station ,Camp ,Power Canal ,AZ T:3:13 (ARS) ,Cliff Dam ,J. Cline Homestead ,AZ U:3:57 (ASU) ,Barite Mine ,20th Century ,AZ T:3:1a (ARS ) ,Hotel ,Cement Structure ,AZ U:6:32 (ARS) ,Railroad ,Gila River ,AZ U:2:8 (ARS) ,Hearth ,AZ U:16:131 (ASM) ,Petroglyph ,Tempe, AZ ,Jones Ditch ,AZ U:6:15 (ASM) ,Corral ,Buckeye, AZ ,AZ U:6:53 (ARS) ,Road, Trail, and Related Structures or Features ,AZ U:16:72 (ASM) ,AZ U:4:19 (ASM) ,Confluence Dam ,AZ U:6:142 (ASM) ,AZ U:6:30 (ARS) ,Government Ditch ,AZ U:16:5 (ARS) ,Gila Bend, AZ ,AZ U:6:113 (ASM) ,AZ U:6:26 (ARS) ,AZ U:6:5 (ASM) ,AZ U:6:89 (ASM) ,AZ U:16:71 (ASM) ,AZ V:13:33 (ASM) ,Dam ,Golden Bell Mine ,AZ V:13:56 (ASM) ,AZ U:6:54 (ARS) ,AZ T:3:9 (ARS) ,AZ U:2:301 (ASU) ,1890s ,AZ U:6:42 (ASM) ,Construction Camp ,Papago Indian Reservation ,Gila River Indian Reservation ,Blue Point Administrative Site ,Mine Claim ,AZ V:5:3 (ARS) ,Phoenix Aqueduct ,AZ U:16:102 (ASM) ,Manzon's Ditch ,AZ U:16:77 (ASM) ,AZ U:6:21 (ARS) ,AZ U:2:9 (ARS) ,1960s ,Cable Crossing ,Ak Chin Indian Reservation ,Cobble Foundation ,Town of Roosevelt ,AZ U:6:84 (ASM) ,AZ U:6:19 (ARS) ,AZ U:8:85 (ASM) ,Mill ,Town of Cochran ,AZ U:6:1 (ARS) ,AZ T:3:7 (ARS ) ,AZ V:5:8 (ARS) ,AZ U:3:10 (ARS) ,AZ U:15:6 (ARS) ,Chevron's House Site ,Pinal (County) ,Inn ,AZ V:13:59 (ASM) ,Mine ,AZ U:16:92 (ASM) ,AZ U:3:63 (ASU) ,Central Arizona Water Control Study ,AZ U:8:87 (ASU) ,AZ U:16:69 (ASM) ,1950s ,Roosevelt Dam ,Metal Tank ,Resource Extraction / Production / Transportation Structure or Features ,Non-Domestic Structures ,Butte City ,Buell House ,Settlements ,Quarry ,Buttes Dam ,Government Hill ,AZ V:13:65 (ASM) ,Old Blue Point Ranger Station ,AZ U:6:22 (ARS) ,AZ U:6:85 (ASM) ,AZ O:14:127 (ASU) ,Windmill ,AZ U:6 :125 (ASM) ,AZ U:6:15 (ARS) ,AZ V:5:118 (ASU) ,Charcoal Pile ,D. Cline Ranch ,AZ U:6:78 (ASM) ,Domestic Structure or Architectural Complex ,Historic Structure ,Santa Cruz Wash ,AZ U:15:5 (ARS) ,AZ U:3:19 (ASM) ,AZ U:6:160 (ASM) ,AZ U:6:150 (ASM) ,AZ U:6:5 (ARS) ,Cement Mill ,AZ U:6:148 (ASM) ,AZ V:13:24 (ASM) ,AZ U:16:151 (ASM) ,Ashurst-Hayden Dam ,AZ V:5:2 (ARS) ,AZ U:16:28 (ASM) ,Railroad Camp ,Encampment ,Mine Shaft ,AZ V:5:5 (ARS) ,Opal Mine ,AZ U:6:12 (ARS) ,AZ U:6:13 (ARS) ,AZ U:6:20 (ARS) ,AZ U:16:82 (ASM) ,Manganese Processing Site ,AZ U:6:7 (ARS) ,Work Camp ,Shade Structure / Ramada ,AZ U:6:76 (ASM) ,Town of Riverside ,Carl Pleasant Dam ,Bridge ,AZ U:15:7 (ARS) ,AZ U:15:8 (ARS) ,AZ V:5:4 (ARS) ,AZ U:3:26 (ASM) ,AZ V:5:122 (ASU) ,AZ V:5:117 (ASU) ,AZ U:6:14 (ARS) ,Zellweger Ranch ,Adobe House ,AZ U:6:6 (ARS) ,AZ U:6:147 (ASM) - Abstract
Flooding along the Salt, Gila, Verde, and Agua Fria Rivers in February and March of 1978 resulted in extensive damage to property in Central Arizona and in the disruption of ground transportation and commerce in the greater Phoenix area. Major flooding also occurred along these rivers in December, 1978 and February, 1980. The recognition of this flooding problem, and of requirements for the regulatory storage of Central Arizona Project (CAP) water, prompted the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) to initiate the Central Arizona Water Control Study (CAWCS) in July of 1978. The objectives of the CAWCS were to identify and evaluate alternative measures for flood control and regulatory water storage in Central Arizona. Both structural (i.e., dam construction or modification, levee construction), and nonstructural (i.e., flood proofing, flood plain regulation, water exchange) alternatives were to be considered within a large study area. A Safety of Dams (SOD) issue was subsequently recognized and incorporated in the CAWCS study process. As the study progressed through a consideration of eight alternative plans, a preferred alternative (the agency-proposed action) to address these objectives was selected by Reclamation. Several critical factors were considered in comparing alternative plans, and in defining the preferred plan alternative, including: - flood control performance of a plan - regulatory water storage performance - dam safety - economics (cost/benefits) - environmental impacts - social impacts - institutional constraints Each of these factors was thoroughly evaluated in relation to the plan alternatives during the three stage study process. Stage I established the parameters of the flood control and regulatory water storage problems to be addressed, defined a number of actions (termed elements) which might contribute to the resolution of these problems, and recommended specific actions that warranted further study on the basis of their performance characteristics. Of the 34 elements reviewed during Stage I, 20 were recommended for further consideration at a Stage II level of analysis. During the Stage II analysis, competing elements (those which served similar functions but which were at different locations) were compared in order to define and retain those which best served a particular function. These 10 remaining elements were then combined into 13 intermediate plans, termed systems, each of which could provide for flood control and regulatory water storage. At the beginning of Stage III, 10 elements remained in the study. These were combined into seven candidate plans, each of which satisfied flood control, safety of dams, and regulatory water storage objectives. An eighth plan (No Action) was also defined as a basis for evaluating the effects of a proposed undertaking. As the critical factors were considered in relation to each plan, two of the eight plans (numbers 4 and 5) were eliminated due to cost and associated adverse social and environmental effects. The remaining six plans were analyzed in detail; one plan (dubbed Plan 6) was subsequently identified as the agency-proposed action. In undertaking this study, Reclamation contracted with the firm of Dames and Moore to assist in defining and evaluating the alternative plans, and to prepare a draft environmental impact statement for the agency-proposed action. Archaeological Research Services, Inc., and the Arizona State University, Department of Anthropology (Office of Cultural Resource Management) were under subcontract to Dames and Moore for the historic and prehistoric cultural resource aspects of the CAWCS respectively. The historic cultural resource study was initiated in April, 1979, and concluded in December, 1981, and involved preparing reports and supporting documentation relative to each of the study stages above. For the purposes of this study, historic cultural resources are defined as those sites or properties which were occupied after the time at which written records became available for an area. As applied to the Southwestern United States, historic sites may include those in existence at or subsequent to the period of initial Spanish contact (during the 16th century).
- Published
- 1983
- Full Text
- View/download PDF
Catalog
Discovery Service for Jio Institute Digital Library
For full access to our library's resources, please sign in.