DOCSLIB.ORG

Biological Assessment for USDA Forest Service (Pacific Northwest

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Biological Assessment for USDA Forest Service (Pacific Northwest Biological Assessment for USDA Forest Service (Pacific Northwest Region), USDI Bureau of Land Management (Oregon State Office) and the Bureau of Indian Affairs Fish Habitat Restoration Activities Affecting ESA-Listed Animal and Plant Species and their Designated or Proposed Critical Habitat and Designated Essential Fish Habitat under MSA found in Oregon, Washington and parts of California, Idaho and Nevada Prepared by USDA Forest Service (Pacific Northwest Region), Bureau of Land Management (Oregon State Office) and the Bureau of Indian Affairs In Partnership with US Fish and Wildlife Service and NOAA Fisheries Submitted to US Fish and Wildlife Service and NOAA Fisheries January 28, 2013 Table of Contents I. Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 1 A. Background ....................................................................................................................... 2 B. ARBA II Activity Categories ............................................................................................ 8 C. ARBA II Geographic Scope ............................................................................................ 11 D. ARBA II Projects on Non-Federal Lands ....................................................................... 12 E. ARBA II Project Inclusion by Amendment .................................................................... 12 F. ARBA II Projects funded with Timber Sale or Stewardship Contracting Receipts ........ 13 G. Species That May Be Affected by Programmatic Action ............................................... 13 II. Description of the Programmatic Aquatic Restoration Activity Categories and Supporting Measures ....................................................................................................................................... 19 A. Program Administration .................................................................................................. 19 B. General Aquatic Conservation Measures ........................................................................ 21 C. Work Area Isolation & Fish Capture and Release .......................................................... 26 D. General Wildlife Conservation Measures ....................................................................... 29 E. Project Design Criteria for Aquatic Restoration Activity Categories ............................. 29 F. NMFS Hydro Fish Passage Review and Approve .......................................................... 69 G. Restoration Review Team (RRT) .................................................................................... 70 H. Project Design Criteria for Wildlife, Plant, and Invertebrate Species and Habitats ....... 72 III. Description of the Affected Species ........................................................................................ 81 A. Fish Species under the Jurisdiction of the FWS .............................................................. 81 B. Fish Species under the Jurisdiction of the NMFS ......................................................... 110 C. Birds .............................................................................................................................. 173 D. Mammals ....................................................................................................................... 174 E. Plants ............................................................................................................................. 178 F. Insects and Mollusks ..................................................................................................... 213 IV. Action Area and Environmental Baseline ............................................................................ 215 A. Description of Action Area ........................................................................................... 215 B. Environmental Baseline for ESA Listed Species .......................................................... 216 V. Effects of the Programmatic Actions .................................................................................... 217 A. Process for Assessing Effects of the 20 ARBA II Aquatic Restoration Categories using the Matrix of Pathways and Indicators ................................................................................. 218 B. Effects of ARBA II Programmatic Activities on Matrix Indicators ............................. 220 C. Effects on Aquatic Species Critical Habitat and Essential Fish Habitat ....................... 240 D. Summary and Conclusions for Aquatic Effect Determinations for ARBA II Aquatic Restoration Categories .......................................................................................................... 245 VI. References (Aquatics) ........................................................................................................... 254 VII. References (Terrestrial) ....................................................................................................... 293 I. Introduction This Aquatic Restoration Biological Assessment II (ARBA II) includes a number of individual actions that, when grouped together, represent programs that may occur at many individual sites across Bureau of Land Management (BLM), U.S. Forest Service (FS), and adjacent lands in Washington and Oregon. The Coquille Indian Tribe lands are included under the ARBA II and will be represented by the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA). The Coquille Indian Tribe is included in this ARBA II as they are the only Tribal signatory to the Northwest Forest Plan. The ARBA II actions can occur on a routine basis or sporadically and over an indefinite period, starting in 2013. This programmatic approach provides each BLM, FS and BIA administrative unit with a consistent methodology to design, implement, monitor, and document aquatic restoration activities. In addition, the ARBA II facilitates Endangered Species Act (ESA) Section 7 and Magnuson/Stevens Act (MSA) consultation or conference with the NOAA Fisheries (from hereafter referred to as the National Marine Fisheries Service [NMFS]) and ESA Section 7 consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). The ARBA II also provides information in sufficient detail and quality to support an NMFS and FWS analysis. All proposed activity categories comply with the Record of Decision and Standards and Guidelines of the Northwest Forest Plan (USDA and USDI 1994), INFISH (USDA and USDI 1995a), PACFISH (USDA and USDI 1995b), and respective BLM Resource Management Plans and FS Land and Resource Management Plans. The ARBA II is intended to include those aquatic restoration activities that are implemented on lands under the jurisdiction of the BLM, FS and BIA wherever ESA- and MSA-listed species are found. The activities are predictable as to their effects to ESA- and MSA- listed species and consistent with broad-scale aquatic conservation strategies and the best available science. This consultation may include those actions, such as Sudden Oak Death treatments, that have limited application and are only applicable to a limited number of administrative units. Further, new activities not covered in this ARBA II can be added to the subsequent ARBO II by amendment as long as the effects and outcomes of such actions are consistent with those described in ARBA II. Projects that are inconsistent with outcomes and/or effects described in this ARBA II are not eligible for inclusion by amendment and will require a separate consultation. Aquatic restoration activities included in this ARBA II are considered to be Likely Adversely Affect (LAA) to ESA-listed fish species and designated or proposed Critical Habitat and May Adversely Affect (MAA) MSA Essential Fish Habitat. The BLM, FS and BIA request a conference using the formal consultation procedures with NMFS for proposed critical habitat designations under ESA, and a consultation under MSA with NMFS on the effects to Essential Fish Habitat for the entire ARBA II geographic area, including areas currently without ESA- listed fish, where Chinook, coho, and pink salmon are present. Administrative units that already have a biological opinion covering aquatic restoration activities should continue to use those documents until their coverage expires and then begin using this programmatic consultation. Aquatic restoration actions not covered in this ARBA II can be covered in new local or provincial biological assessments (BA). However, to prevent BA duplication for Oregon and Washington BLM and FS administrative units, future local or provincial BAs should not include actions and associated project design criteria covered in the ARBA II. Further, invasive plant treatments included in this ARBA II are to serve BLM, FS and BIA administrative units until such units complete a local or provincial consultation for this activity type. A. Background During the early to mid-1990’s, the BLM and FS took assertive steps to better protect fish habitat and address dwindling salmon, trout, and other native fish stocks in Oregon and Washington. In doing so, the FS amended National Forest Land and Resource Management Plans and the BLM amended Land Management Plans with one or more the of the following conservation strategies: Northwest Forest Plan (NWFP) (USDA and USDI 1994), INFISH (USDA and USDI 1995a), and PACFISH (USDA and USDI 1995b). A common element in these plans is to protect existing and restore former old-growth forest types throughout
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Exhibit K Land Use
    Exhibit K Land Use Sams Valley Reinforcement Projects December 2017 Prepared for PacifiCorp Prepared by Tetra Tech, Inc. This page intentionally left blank EXHIBIT K: COMPLIANCE WITH STATEWIDE PLANNING GOALS Table of Contents Introduction ................................................................................................................................................................ 1 Site Certificate Condition Compliance .............................................................................................................. 2 Land Use Analysis Area – OAR 3450-021-0010 (1)(k)(A) ....................................................................... 3 Local Land Use Approval – OAR 3450-021-0010 (1)(k)(B) .................................................................... 3 EFSC Determination on Land Use – OAR 3450-021-0010 (1)(k)(C) ................................................... 4 5.1 Utility Facilities Necessary for Public Service .......................................................................................... 5 5.1.1 PacifiCorp’s Planning and Public Service Obligation (Project Need) .................................... 6 5.1.2 Reasonable Alternatives .......................................................................................................................... 7 5.2 Identification of Applicable Substantive Criteria – OAR 3450-021-0010 (1)(k)(C)(i) ......... 10 5.3 Applicable Substantive Criteria from OAR 3450-021-0010 (1)(k)(C)(ii) .................................. 12 5.3.1 Josephine County
    [Show full text]
  • Oregon 635 Capitol Street, Suite 150 Salem, OR 97301-2540 Theodore R Kjibngdski, Governor (503) 373-0050 Fax (503) 378-5518 Www
    Department of Land Conservation and Development Oregon 635 Capitol Street, Suite 150 Salem, OR 97301-2540 Theodore R KjibngDski, Governor (503) 373-0050 Fax (503) 378-5518 www. lc d. s tat e. or. us NOTICE OF ADOPTED AMENDMENT Mis. 7/29/2009 TO: Subscribers to Notice of Adopted Plan or Land Use Regulation Amendments FROM: Plan Amendment Program Specialist SUBJECT: Jackson County Plan Amendment DLCD File Number 005-09 The Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) received the attached notice of adoption. A Copy of the adopted plan amendment is available for review at the DLCD office in Salem and the local government office. Appeal Procedures* DLCD ACKNOWLEDGMENT or DEADLINE TO APPEAL: Monday, August 10, 2009 This amendment was not submitted to DLCD for review prior to adoptionPursuant to OAR 660-18-060, the Director or any person is eligible to appeal this action to LUBA under ORS 197.830 to 197.845. If you wish to appeal, you must file a notice of intent to appeal with the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) no later than 21 days from the date the decision was mailed to you by the local government. If you have questions, check with the local government to determine the appeal deadline. Copies of the notice of intent to appeal must be served upon the local government and others who received written notice of the final decision from the local government. The notice of intent to appeal must be served and filed in the form and manner prescribed by LUBA, (OAR Chapter 661, Division 10).
    [Show full text]
  • View Industrial Drive SE Filed By: 503-947-6314 Salem,OR 97302 Roxann Borisch [email protected] Rules Coordinator
    OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF STATE ARCHIVES DIVISION BEV CLARNO STEPHANIE CLARK SECRETARY OF STATE DIRECTOR A. RICHARD VIAL 800 SUMMER STREET NE DEPUTY SECRETARY OF STATE SALEM, OR 97310 503-373-0701 NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING INCLUDING STATEMENT OF NEED & FISCAL IMPACT FILED 10/07/2019 4:12 PM CHAPTER 635 ARCHIVES DIVISION DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE SECRETARY OF STATE FILING CAPTION: Amend trapping regulations in Siskiyou & Siuslaw National Forests and the Oregon Dunes National Recreation Area. LAST DAY AND TIME TO OFFER COMMENT TO AGENCY: 12/06/2019 5:00 PM The Agency requests public comment on whether other options should be considered for achieving the rule's substantive goals while reducing negative economic impact of the rule on business. CONTACT: Roxann Borisch 4034 Fairview Industrial Drive SE Filed By: 503-947-6314 Salem,OR 97302 Roxann Borisch [email protected] Rules Coordinator HEARING(S) Auxilary aids for persons with disabilities are available upon advance request. Notify the contact listed above. DATE: 12/06/2019 TIME: 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM OFFICER: ODFW Commission ADDRESS: Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife 4034 Fairview Industrial Drive SE Salem, OR 97302 NEED FOR THE RULE(S): A rule amendment is needed to ban the use of traps or snares suspended in trees in the Siskiyou and Siuslaw National Forests and ban trapping in the Oregon Dunes National Recreation Area. DOCUMENTS RELIED UPON, AND WHERE THEY ARE AVAILABLE: A copy of the rules and the other documents relied upon for this rulemaking [the above document(s)] are available from the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Wildlife Division, 4034 Fairview Industrial Drive SE, Salem, Oregon 97302-1142, between the hours of 8:00 a.m.
    [Show full text]
  • OREGON FURBEARER TRAPPING and HUNTING REGULATIONS
    OREGON FURBEARER TRAPPING and HUNTING REGULATIONS July 1, 2020 through June 30, 2022 Please Note: Major changes are underlined throughout this synopsis. License Requirements Trapper Education Requirement By action of the 1985 Oregon Legislature, all trappers born after June 30, Juveniles younger than 12 years of age are not required to purchase a 1968, and all first-time Oregon trappers of any age are required to license, except to hunt or trap bobcat and river otter. However, they must complete an approved trapper education course. register to receive a brand number through the Salem ODFW office. To trap bobcat or river otter, juveniles must complete the trapper education The study guide may be completed at home. Testing will take place at course. Juveniles 17 and younger must have completed hunter education Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) offices throughout the to obtain a furtaker’s license. state. A furtaker’s license will be issued by the Salem ODFW Headquarters office after the test has been successfully completed and Landowners must obtain either a furtaker’s license, a hunting license for mailed to Salem headquarters, and the license application with payment furbearers, or a free license to take furbearers on land they own and on has been received. Course materials are available by writing or which they reside. To receive the free license and brand number, the telephoning Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, I&E Division, 4034 landowner must obtain from the Salem ODFW Headquarters office, a Fairview Industrial Drive SE, Salem, OR 97302, (800) 720-6339 x76002. receipt of registration for the location of such land prior to hunting or trapping furbearing mammals on that land.
    [Show full text]
  • Water-Resources of Western Douglas County, Oregon
    WATER-RESOURCES OF WESTERN DOUGLAS COUNTY, OREGON By D.A. Curtiss, C. A. Collins, and E.A. Oster U. S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY WATER-RESOURCES INVESTIGATIONS REPORT 83-4017 Prepared in cooperation with DOUGLAS COUNTY PORTLAND,OREGON 1984 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR WILLIAM P. CLARK, Secretary GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Dallas Peck, Director For additional information write to: U.S. Geological Survey 847 N.E. 19th Ave., Suite 300 Portland, Oregon 97232 i i CONTENTS Page Abstract 1 Introduction 2 Previous Investigations 2 Geographic features 2 Geolog ic setti ng 8 Tertiary marine sedimentary rocks 8 Quaternary sediments 8 Coastal deposits 9 Fluvial deposits 10 Ground-water resources 10 Recharge 11 Movement 11 Di scharge 12 Water-level fluctuations 13 Potential well yields 13 Water quality 16 General characteristics 16 Area I variations 17 Surface water 20 Mean annual flow 20 Peak flows 20 Low flows 23 Water quality 25 Umpqua River near Elkton 25 Small streams 25 Extent of saltwater intrusion in the Umpqua River estuary 27 Selected lakes 30 Summary of water-resources conditions 36 SeIected references 38 Supp I ementa I data 43 ILLUSTRATIONS [Plate is in pocket] Plate 1. Map of generalized geologic map of western Douglas County, Oregon, showing wells and springs, and stiff diagrams for water sampled for chemical ana Iysi s Page Figure 1. Index map of study area 3 2. Map showing the average annual precipitation in the study area 4 3. Graph showing maximum, average, and minimum precipitation at Reedsport, 1938-79 5 4. Graph showing cumulative departure from average annual precipitation at Astoria, Gardiner, and Reedsport 6 5.
    [Show full text]
  • Table Rocks Management Area Draft Management Plan
    TABLE ROCKS Butte Falls Resource Area MANAGEMENT AREA Draft Management Plan and The Nature Conservancy April 2012 TABLE ROCKS MANAGEMENT AREA DRAFT MANAGEMENT PLAN Butte Falls Resource Area Medford District Bureau of Land Management U.S. Department of the Interior Southwest Oregon Field Office The Nature Conservancy 2012 Table of Contents TABLE ROCKS MANAGEMENT PLAN ...................................................................................... 1 I. Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 3 A. Table Rocks Designation Background ...................................................................... 4 BLM ACEC Background ........................................................................................... 5 Conservancy Ownership Background ...................................................................... 6 B. Table Rocks ACEC and Conservancy Land Management Plan History ................... 7 C. Native American Tribal Interest ............................................................................... 8 D. Goals and Objectives ................................................................................................. 8 II. Area Description ............................................................................................................. 9 A. Location and Climate ................................................................................................ 9 B. Access ......................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Denman Interpretive Trail
    Denman Interpretive Trail An Ecosystem Journey 20 1 Welcome to the Denman Wildlife Area! Notes The Oregon Department of Fish & Wildlife (ODFW) manages these 1,920 acres for the benefit of all fish and wildlife species and to provide quality recreational and educational opportunities to the public. For more information on the Denman Wildlife Area contact: Oregon Department of Fish & Wildlife Rogue District Office 1495 East Gregory Road Central Point, OR 97502 (541) 826-8774 Siskiyou Environmental Education Center Southern Oregon University 1250 Siskiyou Blvd. Ashland, OR 97520 (541) 552-6876 Oregon Stewardship (541) 770-2703 www. Oregonstewardship.com Rogue Valley Audubon Society www.grrtech.com/rvas For more information on the Agate Desert Vernal Pools contact: The Nature Conservancy®of Oregon (541) 770-7933 Elizabeth Wasserman created this guide in partial fulfillment of a master’s degree in Environmental Education Southern Oregon University 2002 2 19 Acknowledgements The following people made significant contributions to this trail guide: Jim Collins, Simon Wray, Dr. Stewart Janes, Dr. Monty Elliott, Dr. Frank Lang, Dr. Michael Parker, Dr. Steve Jessup, Karin Onkka, Irene Brady, Mark Vargas, Alan Ritchie, Pepper Trail, Ric Thowless, Edith Lindner, George Duran, Jim Hutchins, Marjorie O’Harra, Kay Barton. Any errors or omissions are entirely mine. Illustration Credits Table of Contents All photos and illustrations are used with permission and coded as follows: History of the Denman Wildlife Area . 4 CA - Microsoft Publisher 2000© clip art CW - California Department of Fish and Game, Wildlife Habitat Relationships Program. California’s Wildlife Volumes I,II & III. Trail Information . 5 CWMM - Camp White Military Museum D - The Denman Family Trail Ecosystems EW - Elizabeth Wasserman FL - Dr.
    [Show full text]
  • Volume II Appendix F
    Volume II –Appendix F - Fisheries Appendix F – Fisheries Table of Contents 1. FISHERIES...................................................................................................... 1 2. FACTORS THAT INFLUENCE FISHERIES ................................................... 1 2.A. Water Quality..................................................................................................................................... 2 2.B. Water Quantity and Physical Habitat.............................................................................................. 2 3. ENHANCEMENT PROGRAMS....................................................................... 3 4. ASSESSMENT OF FISH RESOURCES............................................................ 4 5. BASIN OVERVIEW......................................................................................... 5 6. SUB-BASIN DISCUSSION ............................................................................... 6 6.A. Coastal / Umpqua River Sub-basins................................................................................................. 7 6.A.1. Minimum Flows ................................................................................................................................. 7 6.A.2. Distribution and Abundance............................................................................................................... 7 6.A.3. Recreation........................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • ODFW and Tribal Partnerships in 2019 Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, December 2019
    ODFW and Tribal Partnerships in 2019 Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, December 2019 TRIBAL PARTNERSHIPS Tribes located in Oregon include the Burns Paiute Tribe; Confederated Tribes of Coos, Lower Umpqua and Siuslaw Indians; Confederated Tribes of Grand Ronde Community of Oregon; Confederated Tribes of Siletz Indians of Oregon; Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation; Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon; Coquille Indian Tribe; Cow Creek Band of the Umpqua Tribe of Indians; and Klamath Tribes. Additionally, the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) works with the Colville, Cowlitz, Fort McDermitt Shoshone-Paiute, Hoopa, Karuk, Kalispel, Nez Perce, Quileute, Quinault, Salish and Kootenai, Shoshone-Bannock, Spokane, Yakama Nation and Yurok Tribes. ODFW’s Tribal Government Relations Policy (DO_100_04) promotes government-to- government relations between ODFW and Oregon’s federally recognized Indian Tribes. This policy directs ODFW to include consideration of Tribal interests in the development and implementation of agency programs that may affect Tribes. ODFW recognizes and respects the sovereign status of Oregon’s federally recognized Tribes and their respective authorities on Tribal lands. In addition, ODFW has a variety of activities, agreements, contracts and shared commitments with Oregon’s Tribes. The following list provides information about ODFW actions that have taken place during 2019 or are continuous in support of these partnerships. CULTURAL AND NATURAL RESOURCES COORDINATION ODFW participates in the Government to Government Cultural Resources Cluster and Natural Resources Workgroup. These groups function as powerful communication vehicles for achieving tribal-state collaboration and cooperation in carrying out the respective responsibilities for cultural and natural resource protection.
    [Show full text]
  • Draft Source Water Assessment Report
    Draft Source Water Assessment Report Medford Water Commission, Oregon PWS #4100513 June 2005 This Source Water Assessment is still in progress. Medford Water Commission is in the process of finalizing the inventory for its portion of the watershed. Contents Executive Summary Figures Figure 1. Medford Water Commission Drinking Water Protection Area Figure 2. Sensitive Areas within Medford Water Commission’s Drinking Water Protection Area Tables Table 1. Summary of Potential Contaminant Sources by Land Use Table 2. Inventory Results- List of Potential Contaminant Sources Attachments Schematic of Middle and Upper Rogue Sub-Basin Drinking Water Protection Areas and Summary of Source Water Assessment Results for Upstream Intakes Country View Mobile Home Estates Executive Summary The drinking water for Medford Water Commission is supplied by an intake on the Rogue River. This public water system serves approximately 100,000 citizens. The intake is located in the Rogue River Watershed in the Upper Rogue Subbasin of the Rogue River Basin. In addition, MWC uses groundwater springs for drinking water supply. This Source Water Assessment addresses only the surface water component of MWC’s drinking water supply. The groundwater supply is addressed in a separate report. The geographic area providing water to MWC’s intake extends upstream approximately 84 miles in a northeast direction from River Mile (R.M.) 131 and encompasses a total area of 1610 square miles. Included in this area are a number of tributaries to the main stem, including Little Butte Creek, Big Butte Creek, Reese Creek, Long Branch Creek, Trail Creek, Elk Creek, all below Lost Creek Reservoir located on the Rogue River.
    [Show full text]
  • HB 5010 ODFW Presentation
    OREGON DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE Lower Deschutes River Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife 1 Key Statutes Oregon Wildlife Policy (ORS 496.012) Wildlife shall be managed to prevent serious depletion of any indigenous species and to provide the optimum recreational and aesthetic benefits for present and future generations of the citizens of this state. Food Fish Management Policy (ORS 506.109) Food fish shall be managed to provide the optimum economic, commercial, recreational and aesthetic benefits for present and future generations of the citizens of this state. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife - Agency Overview 2 Mission To protect and enhance Oregon's fish and wildlife and their habitats for use and enjoyment by present and future generations. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife - Agency Overview 3 Agency Facts • More than 850 species of fish and wildlife • 80 wildlife and 105 fish species are hunted or fished • 18 Endangered and 30 Threatened Species • 220,000 mule deer & 320,000 Black-tailed deer • 687,121 anglers • 335,405 hunters • 1.4 million wildlife viewers • Annually release 5 million trout, 1 million other species • Fishing, hunting, shellfish and wildlife viewing contributes $2.5 billion to Oregon economy Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife - Agency Overview 4 Economic Benefit to Oregon Fishing Hunting Wildlife Viewing Retail Sales $680,636,132 $248,240,140 $1,697,223,000 Wages $382,802,979 $132,197,830 $1,264,990,530 Jobs 11,043 3,726 41,243 Source: Congressional Sportsmen’s Foundation and US Fish and
    [Show full text]
  • Klamath Mountains Ecoregion
    Ecoregions: Klamath Mountains Ecoregion Photo © Bruce Newhouse Klamath Mountains Ecoregion Getting to Know the Klamath Mountains Ecoregion example, there are more kinds of cone-bearing trees found in the Klam- ath Mountains ecoregion than anywhere else in North America. In all, The Oregon portion of the Klamath Mountains ecoregion covers much there are about 4000 native plants in Oregon, and about half of these of southwestern Oregon, including the Umpqua Mountains, Siskiyou are found in the Klamath Mountains ecoregion. The ecoregion is noted Mountains and interior valleys and foothills between these and the as an Area of Global Botanical Significance (one of only seven in North Cascade Range. Several popular and scenic rivers run through the America) and world “Centre of Plant Diversity” by the World Conserva- ecoregion, including: the Umpqua, Rogue, Illinois, and Applegate. tion Union. The ecoregion boasts many unique invertebrates, although Within the ecoregion, there are wide ranges in elevation, topography, many of these are not as well studied as their plant counterparts. geology, and climate. The elevation ranges from about 600 to more than 7400 feet, from steep mountains and canyons to gentle foothills and flat valley bottoms. This variation along with the varied marine influence support a climate that ranges from the lush, rainy western portion of the ecoregion to the dry, warmer interior valleys and cold snowy mountains. Unlike other parts of Oregon, the landscape of the Klamath Mountains ecoregion has not been significantly shaped by volcanism. The geology of the Klamath Mountains can better be described as a mosaic rather than the layer-cake geology of most of the rest of the state.
    [Show full text]