DOCSLIB.ORG

Draft Hanford Injury Assessment Plan Appendices

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Draft Hanford Injury Assessment Plan Appendices Public Review Draft Hanford Natural Resource Injury Assessment Plan APPENDIX A | THE FOUR HANFORD NPL SITES On November 3, 1989, Hanford was added to the NPL as four separate sites: the 100 Area, 200 Area, 300 Area, and 1100 Area (see Exhibits B-1 through B-4, below).78 In order to coordinate response actions, each of these sites was further subdivided into operable units (OUs), based on geographic area or common waste sources. A total of 1,200 waste management units have been identified throughout the Hanford Site and are grouped among the four NPL sites (DOE 2006a). Cleanup efforts for the remaining Hanford Site contamination are organized into three major components: the River Corridor (including the 100 and 300 Areas), the Central Plateau (primarily the 200 Area), and tank waste. Cleanup of the Site is a particularly large and complex effort, dependent on many dozens of individual decision steps, stakeholder coordination, sustained funding, and the ability to address complex technical challenges. Full remediation of the NPL sites is expected to extend over the next 40 to 50 years; however, timelines are difficult to determine, due to the factors discussed above (DOE 2012). Additional summary information describing the four Hanford NPL sites and the current status of remediation efforts is provided below. More detailed information can be found at http://www.hanford.gov/. AREA 100 AREA DESCRIPTIONS The 100 Area contains the remnants of Hanford’s nine nuclear reactors, spread over six reactor sites (B/C, K, N, D, H, and F). The footprint covers about 26 sq. mi. of land area, 11 sq. mi. of which is contaminated (including groundwater contamination and waste disposal locations) (DOE 2011d). Much of the contamination is the result of the reactors discharging cooling water into various trenches, cribs, ponds, and other waste sites. Additional contamination sites include an array of structures such as buildings and buried pipelines, and two basins that currently store spent nuclear fuel from the reactors. The 100 Area site is divided into 22 OUs. Five OUs address groundwater contamination, and the remaining contamination is grouped geographically into 17 OUs, which encompass the Area’s 400 soil, structure, debris, or burial ground waste sites. With the exception of OUs that are designated as “isolated units” (IUs), the 100 Area OUs are associated with reactor areas (EPA 2001b). 78 Note that the areas captured within the 100, 200, 300, and 1100 designations have changed slightly over time. A-1 200 AREA Used for chemical processing and waste management, the 200 Area NPL site covers about 75 sq. mi. of land area, and consists of large amounts of radioactive, hazardous, and mixed, soil and groundwater contamination. The 200 Area, also referred to as the Central Plateau, contains about 1,000 structures, including the Plutonium Finishing Plant (PFP), and five chemical processing facilities, called “canyon” facilities (T, B, U and S, or REDOX plant, and the Plutonium/Uranium Extraction (PUREX) plant). The approximately 700 soil waste sites, with associated structures and facilities, are divided into 23 soil OUs organized by discharge type (e.g., cooling water, solid waste) and waste site type (e.g., pond, crib, ditch). Additionally, there are four groundwater OUs, two each in the 200-East and 200-West areas. The 200 Area is split into the Inner and Outer Areas. The Inner Area will be dedicated to waste management and containment of contamination from Hanford Site cleanup actions, and will remain under Federal ownership (DOE 2011d). The Outer Area includes the areas surrounding the Inner Area in the Central Plateau. Cleanup of the Outer Area to standards similar to those being achieved in the River Corridor is expected (DOE 2011d). A key feature of the characterized waste in the 200 Area are the tank farms where highly radioactive liquid effluents are stored in single and double shelled underground tanks. There are 177 tanks, some of which have are known to have leaked (DOE 2011d). One of the double-shelled tanks is now known to be leaking, and a number of the single-shelled tanks are known or suspected to be leaking. 200 Area tank wastes remain a major clean up and remediation challenge (Abbotts and Weems 2008). Additionally, a number of trenches (associated with canyon facility operations), ponds (where cooling water was discharged in the Outer Area), and other solid waste burial grounds and pipelines are located in the 200 Area (DOE 2009). 300 AREA The 300 Area NPL site consists of a quarter-mile industrial complex, with contamination stemming from multiple unlined liquid disposal areas, burial grounds, landfills, and other miscellaneous disposal sites. The site is split into three OUs, two that address soil contamination areas (300-FF-1 and 300-FF-2), and one that addresses groundwater contamination (300-FF-5). The primary contaminant in the 300 Area is uranium from the fuel fabrication process (EPA 2001b). 1100 AREA The 1100 Area NPL site consists of two non-adjacent areas covering a total of just less than 5 sq. mi. The first area, located adjacent to the City of Richland, is split into three OUs (1100-EM-1, 1100-EM-2, and 1100-EM-3), and the second portion, located on the Arid Land Ecology (ALE) Reserve is a single OU (1100-IU-1). The portion of the site near Richland was historically used as a warehousing, vehicle maintenance, and transportation distribution center, and was known to be a dumping area for up to 15,000 gallons of waste battery acid from these operations. The site is located in close proximity to the Richland groundwater wells that supply drinking water to the City. The ALE site A-2 was a former NIKE missile base. Waste sites discovered in these OUs include the landfills, burn pits, solvent and fuel tanks, and a TCE groundwater plume (EPA 2001b). HANFORD SITE AREAS NOT LISTED Two additional numbered areas were excluded from NPL designation. The first of these, the 400 Area, contains the Fast Flux Test Facility (FFTF), a nuclear research and test reactor. The FFTF underwent destruction and demolition and was placed under long-term surveillance and maintenance in 2009. The 600 Area is defined as all portions of the Hanford Site not included in the 100, 200, 300, 400, or 1100 Areas. All waste sites potentially falling in the 600 Area were included in one of the other four NPL sites, due to proximity or likeliness to other waste sites (DOE 2006a). In summary, over 40 years of plutonium production activity at Hanford resulted in (DOE 2011g): 586-sq.-mi. footprint requiring cleanup; 2,300 tons of spent nuclear fuel (stored near the Columbia River); 20 tons of leftover plutonium in the Plutonium Finishing Plant; 1.012 waste sites, 522 facilities, and nine plutonium production reactors (near the Columbia River) requiring cleanup; More than 100 sq. mi. of groundwater contaminated; 53 million gallons of waste in 177 underground tanks, 67 of which may have leaked; 15,000 cubic meters of buried or stored plutonium-contaminated waste on site; 850 waste sites and 970 facilities on the Central Plateau requiring cleanup. A-3 EXHIBIT A-1 HANFORD NPL SITE DESIGNATIONS (DOE 2011D) A-4 EXHIBIT A-2 MAP OF “SOURCE” OPERABLE UNITS IN THE 100 AREA, 300 AREA, AND 1100 AREA – HANFORD NPL SITES (DOE 2006a) A-5 EXHIBIT A-3 CENTRAL PLATEAU SOURCE OPERABLE UNITS (DOE 2011D) Note: Not all operable units are shown. Refer to Exhibit B-6, “200 Area Operable Units”, for a full list of operable units in the inner and outer areas. A-6 EXHIBIT A-4 MAP OF GROUNDWATER OPERABLE UNITS IN THE HANFORD NPL SITES (DOE 2006B) A-7 SITE After listing on the NPL, a remedial investigation/feasibility study (RI/FS) is performed. ASSESSMENT The RI is a mechanism for collecting data to characterize site conditions, determine the AND nature of the waste, assess HH&E risk, and test treatment options; the FS develops, REMEDIATION screens, and evaluates alternative remedial actions. The RI/FS are conducted concurrently, each utilizing information from the other to maximize the efficiency of data collection. The RI/FS process is a five-phase approaches: 1) scoping; 2) site characterization; 3) development and screening of alternatives; 4) treatability investigations; and 5) detailed analysis (EPA 2011). From the information recorded in the RI/FS report, a Record of Decision (ROD) is generated. The ROD is a public document that explains which cleanup alternatives will be pursued. The ROD documents site history, site description, site characteristics, community participation, enforcement activities, past and present activities, contaminated media, contaminants present, scope and role of response action, and the remedy selected for cleanup. A summary of remediation status by NPL Site and OU follows. 100 AREA Closure of the 100 Area is planned based on five decision areas, encompassing boundaries beyond individual OUs and waste sites. These areas are the 100 B/C Area, 100-N Area, 100-D and H Areas, and the 100-F Area combined with 100-IU2/6. These decision areas include the entirely of the 100 Area NPL site (see Exhibit B-1) (DOE 2012, p. 29). Final RODs have not yet been issued for these decision areas. However, eight RODs for interim actions have been issued, and as of July 2011, RI/FSs were being developed in support of final RODs (DOE 2011d). Five interim RODs address soil contamination, one addresses K-Basins spent fuel removal, and two address groundwater. Multiple other CERCLA documents have been issued to address individual building demolition and cleanup of various 100 Area structures (DOE 2011d). Decision documents have been issued for 100-HR-1, 100-IU-1, 100-HR-3, K Basins (100-KR-2), 100-NR-1 and 100-NR-2, and 100-BC-1.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • W a S H in G T O N N a T U R a L H E R It
    PROGRAM HERITAGE NATURAL Status of Federally Listed Plant Taxa in Washington State Prepared for WASHINGTON U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 1 Prepared by Walter Fertig 28 June 2021 Natural Heritage Report 2021-01 1 Status of Federally Listed Plant Taxa in Washington State Award Number F18AF01216 Report Date: June 28, 2021 Prepared for U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Western Washington Fish and Wildlife Office Region 1 Section 6 funding by Walter Fertig Botanist Washington Natural Heritage Program Washington Department of Natural Resources PO Box 47014 Olympia, WA 98504-7014 ii Cover: Ute ladies’ tresses (Spiranthes diluvialis). Photo by Walter Fertig, WNHP, 22 August 2018. Acknowledgements: Thanks to the following individuals for sharing data, providing reviews, or otherwise helping with this project: Jane Abel, Keith Abel, Jon Bakker, Susan Ballinger, Molly Boyter, Paula Brooks, Tom Brumbelow, Keyna Bugner, Tara Callaway, Jeff Chan, Alex Chmielewski, Karen Colson, Kelly Cordell, Ernie Crediford, Vicki Demetre, Nate Dietrich, Peter Dunwiddie, Ethan Coggins, Matt Fairbarns, Kim Frymire, John Gamon, Wendy Gibble, Rod Gilbert, Bridgette Glass, Sarah Hammon, Jamie Hanson, Anthony Hatcher, John Hill, Jasa Holt, Molly Jennings, Regina Johnson, Tom Kaye, Stacy Kinsell, Jake Kleinknecht, Hailee Leimbach-Maus, Joe LeMoine, Peter Lesica, Laurie Malmquist, Adam Martin, Heidi Newsome, Robert Pelant, Jenifer Penny, Von Pope, Tynan Ramm-Granberg, James Rebholz, Nathan Reynolds, Randi Riggs, Joe Rocchio, Jenny Roman, Mike Rule, Melissa Scholten, Sarah Shank, Mark Sheehan, Jacques Sirois, Karen Stefanyk, Mike Stefanyk, George Thornton, Sheri Whitfield, David Wilderman, and David Woodall. My apologies (and thanks!) to anyone I may have omitted. i Table of Contents Contents Introduction...........................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Wildflower Talk
    Wildflower Talk These are a series of short articles written by Kristen Currin of Humble Roots Native Plant Nursery in Mosier, Oregon, featuring plants from around the Columbia Gorge. Each of these articles appeared in an issue of the Wasco County Soil and Water Conservation District’s newsletter, GROUNDWORK. I hope you enjoy them. All photos are courtesy of Kristen Currin. Please ask permission before using. www.humblerootsnursery.com Nothing in this document is to be construed as medical advice. A licensed herbalist should be consulted for proper identification and preparation before eating those plants designated as edible. Humble Roots Nursery nor the Conservation District are liable for improper consumption of plants listed in this document. INDEX Arnica, Heart-Leaf Glacier Lily Phlox, Cushion Bachelor Buttons Goldenrod Pineapple Weed Balsamroot Grass Widow Prairie Stars Bitterroot Indian Hemp Rabbitbrush (sp) Buckwheat, Arrowleaf Juniper Rabbitbrush, Gray Buckwheat, Snow Larkspur, Upland Rose, Wild California Poppy Kinnickinick Saxifrage Cattail Mariposa Lily Serviceberry Ceanothus Milkweed, Showy Shooting Star, Poet’s Chocolate Lily Miner’s Lettuce Sumac, Smooth Columbia Coreopsis Mugwort, Western Wapato Currant, Golden Native Shrubs Washington Lily Dutchman’s Breeches Nettle, Stinging Western Bunchberry Desert Parsley, Columbia Oceanspray Yellow Bee Plant Desert Parsley, Gray’s Oregon Grape Yellow Bells Elderberry, Blue Pearly Everlasting Yellow Star Thistle Gairdners Yampah Phantom Orchid 1 TOP Page Heart-leaf Arnica Arnica cordifolia Look for arnica's yellow flowers in spring. Arnica is an important native medicinal plant used topically to soothe sore muscles and sprains. A woodland plant and a good choice for the shady xeric garden. Bachelor Buttons, Cornflower Centaurea cyanus Many may think this beautiful blue flower is a native plant due to the fact that it dominates many of our meadows and is commonly sold in wildflower seed mixes.
    [Show full text]
  • Fall 2013 NARGS
    Rock Garden uar terly � Fall 2013 NARGS to ADVERtISE IN thE QuARtERly CoNtACt [email protected] Let me know what yo think A recent issue of a chapter newsletter had an item entitled “News from NARGS”. There were comments on various issues related to the new NARGS website, not all complimentary, and then it turned to the Quarterly online and raised some points about which I would be very pleased to have your views. “The good news is that all the Quarterlies are online and can easily be dowloaded. The older issues are easy to read except for some rather pale type but this may be the result of scanning. There is amazing information in these older issues. The last three years of the Quarterly are also online but you must be a member to read them. These last issues are on Allen Press’s BrightCopy and I find them harder to read than a pdf file. Also the last issue of the Quarterly has 60 extra pages only available online. Personally I find this objectionable as I prefer all my content in a printed bulletin.” This raises two points: Readability of BrightCopy issues versus PDF issues Do you find the BrightCopy issues as good as the PDF issues? Inclusion of extra material in online editions only. Do you object to having extra material in the online edition which can not be included in the printed edition? Please take a moment to email me with your views Malcolm McGregor <[email protected]> CONTRIBUTORS All illustrations are by the authors of articles unless otherwise stated.
    [Show full text]
  • Alplains 2013 Seed Catalog P.O
    ALPLAINS 2013 SEED CATALOG P.O. BOX 489, KIOWA, CO 80117-0489, U.S.A. Three ways to contact us: FAX: (303) 621-2864 (24 HRS.) email: [email protected] website: www.alplains.com Dear Growing Friends: Welcome to our 23rd annual seed catalog! The summer of 2012 was long, hot and brutal, with drought afflicting most of the U.S. Most of my botanical explorations were restricted to Idaho, Wash- ington, Oregon and northern California but even there moisture was below average. In a year like this, seeps, swales, springs, vestigial snowbanks and localized rainstorms became much more important in my search for seeding plants. On the Snake River Plains of southern Idaho and the scab- lands of eastern Washington, early bloomers such as Viola beckwithii, V. trinervata, Ranunculus glaberrimus, Ranunculus andersonii, Fritillaria pudica and Primula cusickiana put on quite a show in mid-April but many populations could not set seed. In northern Idaho, Erythronium idahoense flowered extensively, whole meadows were covered with thousands of the creamy, pendant blossoms. One of my most satisfying finds in the Hells Canyon area had to be Sedum valens. The tiny glaucous rosettes, surround- ed by a ring of red leaves, are a succulent connoisseur’s dream. Higher up, the brilliant blue spikes of Synthyris missurica punctuated the canyon walls. In southern Oregon, the brilliant red spikes of Pedicularis densiflora lit up the Siskiyou forest floor. Further north in Oregon, large populations of Erythronium elegans, Erythronium oregonum ssp. leucandrum, Erythro- nium revolutum, trilliums and sedums provided wonderful picture-taking opportunities. Eriogonum species did well despite the drought, many of them true xerics.
    [Show full text]
  • Proceedings: Wildland Shrub and Arid Land Restoration Symposium
    Restoration, Revegetation, and the Importance of Genetic and Evolutionary Perspectives Yan B. Linhart Abstract—Sound biological principles must provide the frame- 4. If you wish to restore locale A, do not collect seeds or work of revegetation projects. Propagules of native species must plants at A, grow them in a very different environment at be used, and these propagules must represent genetic material locale B (50 km away across the Continental Divide), and from sites that match the area to be revegetated as closely as pos- return the progeny, after 4 generations to locale A. Locale sible. Such matching can be best achieved by using materials B may be so different in both physical and biotic features from nearby plants growing in nature or propagated in nearby that it will create specific selective pressures that alter the nurseries. The closeness of matching will depend on the type of original gene pools from locale A. site to be revegetated. Within National Parks, whose mandate is 5. Restoration methods are often species-specific, because to maintain the ecological and genetic integrity of the biota, plants different species have different life histories. These life his- or their progeny must come from nearby sites. At other locations, tories must be taken into consideration when planning the matching may not need to be so conservative. The primary reason work. For example restoration with annual species, rhi- for this cautious approach is that plant genomes show very precise zomatous grasses, shrubs and coniferous trees all require adaptations to local conditions. Introduction of non-local materials somewhat different approaches.
    [Show full text]
  • TAXONOMY Plant Family Species Scientific Name GENERAL
    Plant Propagation Protocol for Eriogonum niveum ESRM 412 – Native Plant Production Protocol URL: https://courses.washington.edu/esrm412/protocols/ERNI2.pdf Spring 2014 North America Distribution Washington State Distribution Source: USDA PLANTS Database TAXONOMY Plant Family Scientific Name Polygonaceae Common Name Buckwheat Family Species Scientific Name Scientific Name Eriogonum niveum Douglas ex Benth. Varieties Eriogonum niveum Douglas ex. Benth. var. dichotomum (Douglas ex Benth.) M.E. Jones Eriogonum niveum Douglas ex. Benth. var. decumbens (Benth.) Torr. & A. Gray Sub-species Eriogonum niveum Douglas ex. Benth. ssp. decumbens (Benth.) S. Stokes Cultivar Common Synonym(s) Eriogonum strictum Benth. var. lachnostegium Common Name(s) Snow buckwheat, canyon heather 6 Species Code (as per USDA Plants ERNI2 database) GENERAL INFORMATION Geographical range Found mainly on the grassy plains east of the Cascade Range in southern British Columbia, west-central Idaho, northeastern Oregon, and eastern Washington.1 See maps above for distribution in North America and Washington state. Ecological distribution Found in sand to gravelly flats, slopes, bluffs, and rocky, often volcanic outcrops, mixed grassland and sagebrush communities and conifer woodlands.1 Climate and elevation range Elevation: 150-1500 m 2 Cold Hardiness Zone: 5a-7a 6 Mean Annual Precipitation: 150 – 460 mm 2 Soil: Well-drained sands to clay 2 Local habitat and abundance Common in big sage (Artemissia tridentate), antelope bitterbrush (Purshia tridentate), and open Ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa) areas. It also occurs in the canyon grasslands of the Snake and Columbia River systems.2 Found primarily in full sun but will grow in partial shade such as open Ponderosa pine hillsides.6 Tolerates extremely droughty soils and is a common occupant of dry, rocky southern exposures.6 Plant strategy type / successional Colonizer 2 stage Very successful pioneer species6 Plant characteristics Rarity: Locally Common 3 Dense perennial subshrub with erect leaves.
    [Show full text]
  • Washington Plant List Douglas County by Scientific Name
    The NatureMapping Program Washington Plant List Revised: 9/15/2011 Douglas County by Scientific Name (1) Non- native, (2) ID Scientific Name Common Name Plant Family Invasive √ 763 Acer glabrum Douglas maple Aceraceae 800 Alisma graminium Narrowleaf waterplantain Alismataceae 19 Alisma plantago-aquatica American waterplantain Alismataceae 1087 Rhus glabra Sumac Anacardiaceae 650 Rhus radicans Poison ivy Anacardiaceae 29 Angelica arguta Sharp-tooth angelica Apiaceae 809 Angelica canbyi Canby's angelica Apiaceae 915 Cymopteris terebinthinus Turpentine spring-parsley Apiaceae 167 Heracleum lanatum Cow parsnip Apiaceae 991 Ligusticum grayi Gray's lovage Apiaceae 709 Lomatium ambiguum Swale desert-parsley Apiaceae 997 Lomatium canbyi Canby's desert-parsley Apiaceae 573 Lomatium dissectum Fern-leaf biscuit-root Apiaceae 582 Lomatium geyeri Geyer's desert-parsley Apiaceae 586 Lomatium gormanii Gorman's desert-parsley Apiaceae 998 Lomatium grayi Gray's desert-parsley Apiaceae 999 Lomatium hambleniae Hamblen's desert-parsley Apiaceae 609 Lomatium macrocarpum Large-fruited lomatium Apiaceae 1000 Lomatium nudicaule Pestle parsnip Apiaceae 634 Lomatium triternatum Nine-leaf lomatium Apiaceae 474 Osmorhiza chilensis Sweet-cicely Apiaceae 264 Osmorhiza occidentalis Western sweet-cicely Apiaceae 1044 Osmorhiza purpurea Purple sweet-cicely Apiaceae 492 Sanicula graveolens Northern Sierra) sanicle Apiaceae 699 Apocynum androsaemifolium Spreading dogbane Apocynaceae 813 Apocynum cannabinum Hemp dogbane Apocynaceae 681 Asclepias speciosa Showy milkweed Asclepiadaceae
    [Show full text]
  • Acid/Heavy Metal Tolerant Plants
    EPA/600/R-07/114 August 2007 Mine Waste Technology Program Acid/Heavy Metal Tolerant Plants EPA/600/R-07/114 August 2007 Mine Waste Technology Program Acid/Heavy Metal Tolerant Plants By: Jay Cornish MSE Technology Applications, Inc. Mike Mansfield Advanced Technology Center Butte, Montana 59702 Under Contract No. DE-AC09-96EW96405 Through EPA IAG No. DW8993989701-0 Norma Lewis, EPA Project Manager Systems Analysis Branch National Risk Management Research Laboratory Cincinnati, Ohio 45268 This study was conducted in cooperation with U.S. Department of Energy Environmental Management Consolidated Business Center Cincinnati, Ohio 45202 National Risk Management Research Laboratory Office of Research and Development U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Cincinnati, Ohio 45268 Notice The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) through its Office of Research and Development funded the research described here under IAG ID. No. DW8993989701-0 through the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Contract DE-AC09-96EW96405. It has been subjected to the Agency’s peer and administrative review and has been cleared for publication as an EPA document. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise, does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement or recommendation. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of EPA or DOE, or any agency thereof. ii Foreword The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is charged by Congress with protecting the Nation's land, air, and water resources. Under a mandate of national environmental laws, the Agency strives to formulate and implement actions leading to a compatible balance between human activities and the ability of natural systems to support and nurture life.
    [Show full text]
  • Special Status Species List
    APPENDIX J SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES LIST SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES LIST APPENDIX J SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES LIST Common Name Scientific Name State Class Status1 A Caddisfly Farula constricta OR Insect BS Adder’s-tongue Ophioglossum pusillum OR Plant BS Agave, Arizona Agave arizonica AZ Plant FE Agave, Murphey Agave murpheyi AZ Plant BS Agave, Santa Cruz Striped Agave parviflora AZ Plant BS Agoseris, Pink Agoseris lackschewitzii ID Plant BS Albatross, Short-tailed Phoebastris albatrus AK, CA Bird FE Alkaligrass, Howell’s Puccinellia howelli CA Plant BS Alkaligrass, Lemon’s Puccinellia lemmonii CA Plant BS Alkaligrass, Parish’s Puccinellia parishii CA, MT Plant BS Alpine-aster, Tall Oreostemma elatum CA Plant BS Alpine-parsley, Trotter’s Oreoxis trotteri UT Plant BS Alumroot, Duran’s Heuchera duranii CA Plant BS Amaranth, California Amaranthus californicus MT Plant BS Ambersnail, Kanab Oxyloma haydeni kanabensis AZ, UT Snail FE Ambrosia, San Diego Ambrosia pumila CA Plant FE Chlorogalum purpureum var. Amole, Purple CA Plant FT purpureum Amphipod, Malheur Cave Stygobromus hubbsi OR Crustacean BS Amphipod, Noel’s Gammarus desperatus NM Crustacean PE Angelica, King’s Angelica kingii ID Plant BS Angelica, Rough Angelica scabrida NV Plant BS Apachebush Apacheria chircahuensis NM Plant BS Apple, Indian Peraphyllum ramosissimum ID Plant BS Arrowhead, Sanford’s Sagittaria sanfordii CA Plant BS Aster, Gorman’s Eucephalus gormanii OR Plant BS Aster, Pygmy Eurybia pygmaea AK Plant BS Aster, Red Rock Canyon Ionactis caelestis NV Plant BS Avens, Mountain Senecio moresbiensis AK Plant BS Baccharis, Encinitis Baccharis vanessae CA Plant FT Balloonvine Cardiospermum corindum AZ Plant BS Balsamorhiza macrolepis var. Balsamroot, Big-scale CA Plant BS macrolepis Balsamroot, Large-leaved Balsamorhiza macrophylla MT Plant BS Balsamroot, Silky Balsamorhiza sericea CA Plant BS Balsamroot, Woolly Balsamorhiza hookeri var.
    [Show full text]
  • Sagebrush Identification Guide
    Sagebrush Identification Table For Use With Black Light For Use in the Inter-Great Basin Area Fluoresces Under Ultraviolet Branching Mature Plant Plant Nomenclature Light Leaf shape and size Plant Growth Form Environment Comments Pattern Height Water Alcohol Leaves 3/4 ‐1 1/4 in. Uneven topped; Main stem is undivided and trunk‐like at base;. Located long; long narrow; Leaf Uneven normally in drainage bottoms; Small concave areas and valley floors, but will normally be 4 times Colorless to Very topped; always on deep Non‐saline Non‐calcareous soils. Vegetative leader is greater Brownish to longer than it is at its "V"ed Mesic to Frigid 3.5 ft. to Very Pale blue Floral stems than 1/2 the length of the flower stalk from the same single branch. In Basin Basin Big Sagebrush Artemisia Reddish‐Brown widest point; Leaf branching/ Xeric to Ustic greater than 8 tridentata subsp. tridentata (ARTRT) Rarely pale growing there are two growth forms: One the Typical tall form (Diploid); Two a shorter to colorless margins not extending upright 4000 to 8000 ft. ft. Brownish‐red throughout form that looks similar to Wyoming sagebrush if you do not look for the trunk outward; Crushed leaves the crown (around 1 inch or so); the branching pattern; and the seedhead to vegetative have a strong turpentine leader characteristics (Tetraploid). smell Uneven Leaves 1/2 ‐ 3/4 inches topped; Uneven topped; Main stem is usually divided at ground level. Plants will often Mesic to Frigid Wyoming Big Sagebrush Colorless to Very Colorless to pale long; Leaf margins curved Floral stems Spreading/ keep the last years seed stalks into the following fall.
    [Show full text]
  • Types of Sagebrush Updated (Artemisia Subg. Tridentatae
    Mosyakin, S.L., L.M. Shultz & G.V. Boiko. 2017. Types of sagebrush updated ( Artemisia subg. Tridentatae, Asteraceae): miscellaneous comments and additional specimens from the Besser and Turczaninov memorial herbaria (KW). Phytoneuron 2017-25: 1–20. Published 6 April 2017. ISSN 2153 733X TYPES OF SAGEBRUSH UPDATED (ARTEMISIA SUBG. TRIDENTATAE , ASTERACEAE): MISCELLANEOUS COMMENTS AND ADDITIONAL SPECIMENS FROM THE BESSER AND TURCZANINOV MEMORIAL HERBARIA (KW) SERGEI L. MOSYAKIN M.G. Kholodny Institute of Botany National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine 2 Tereshchenkivska Street Kiev (Kyiv), 01004 Ukraine [email protected] LEILA M. SHULTZ Department of Wildland Resources, NR 329 Utah State University Logan, Utah 84322-5230, USA [email protected] GANNA V. BOIKO M.G. Kholodny Institute of Botany National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine 2 Tereshchenkivska Street Kiev (Kyiv), 01004 Ukraine [email protected] ABSTRACT Corrections and additions are provided for the existing typifications of plant names in Artemisia subg. Tridentatae . In particular, second-step lectotypifications are proposed for the names Artemisia trifida Nutt., nom. illeg. (A. tripartita Rydb., the currently accepted replacement name), A. fischeriana Besser (= A. californica Lessing, the currently accepted name), and A. pedatifida Nutt. For several nomenclatural types of names listed in earlier publications as "holotypes," the type designations are corrected to lectotypes (Art. 9.9. of ICN ). Newly discovered authentic specimens (mostly isolectotypes) of several names in the group are listed and discussed, mainly based on specimens deposited in the Besser and Turczaninov memorial herbaria at the National Herbarium of Ukraine (KW). The Turczaninov herbarium is particularly rich in Nuttall's specimens, which are often better represented and better preserved than corresponding specimens available from BM, GH, K, PH, and some other major herbaria.
    [Show full text]
  • W a Sh in G to N Na Tu Ra L H Er Itag E Pr Og Ra M
    PROGRAM HERITAGE NATURAL Conservation Status Ranks of Washington’s Ecological Systems Prepared for Washington Dept. of Fish and WASHINGTON Wildlife Prepared by F. Joseph Rocchio and Rex. C. Crawford August 04, 2015 Natural Heritage Report 2015-03 Conservation Status Ranks for Washington’s Ecological Systems Washington Natural Heritage Program Report Number: 2015-03 August 04, 2015 Prepared by: F. Joseph Rocchio and Rex C. Crawford Washington Natural Heritage Program Washington Department of Natural Resources Olympia, Washington 98504-7014 .ON THE COVER: (clockwise from top left) Crab Creek (Inter-Mountain Basins Big Sagebrush Steppe and Columbia Basin Foothill Riparian Woodland and Shrubland Ecological Systems); Ebey’s Landing Bluff Trail (North Pacific Herbaceous Bald and Bluff Ecological System and Temperate Pacific Tidal Salt and Brackish Marsh Ecological Systems); and Judy’s Tamarack Park (Northern Rocky Mountain Western Larch Savanna). Photographs by: Joe Rocchio Table of Contents Page Table of Contents ............................................................................................................................ ii Tables ............................................................................................................................................. iii Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 4 Methods..........................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]