DOCSLIB.ORG

Chapter 4 – Agencies and Persons Consulted

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Chapter 4 – Agencies and Persons Consulted Chapter 4 – Agencies and Persons Consulted Chapter 4: Agencies and Persons Consulted The Forest Service consulted the following individuals, Federal, state and local agencies and tribes during the development of this environmental assessment: 4.1 Agencies U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration – National Marine Fisheries Service Washington State Historic Preservation Office Washington State Natural Heritage Program Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Washington Department of Natural Resources Washington Department of Transportation Okanogan County PUD 4.2 Tribes Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation Yakama Nation 4.3 Individuals that Commented Kris Betty Nelson Betty Greg Knott Byron Lee Lloyd McGee, Nature Conservancy and North Central Washington Forest Health Collaborative co-chair Ginger Reddington Doug Sherrow Ginny Sherrow Vic Stokes Paul Ward, Yakama Nation and North Central Washington Forest Health Collaborative co-chair Jen Watkins, Conservation Northwest Maurice Williamson, American Forest Resource Council George Wooten, Conservation Northwest South Summit II Forest and Fuels Final Environmental Assessment Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest, Methow Valley Ranger District April 2015 300 Chapter 5 – Literature Citations Chapter 5: Literature Citations Chapter 1 USDA Forest Service. 1989. Final Environmental Impact Statement, Land and Resource Management Plan. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region, Okanogan National Forest. p. IV-50. Available online at http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/oka/projects/index.shtml and http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/wenatchee/projects/plans.shtml USDA Forest Service. 1995. Appendix B, Revised interim management direction establishing riparian, ecosystem, and wildlife standards for timbers sales: regional forester’s forest plan amendment #2. US Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region. June 5, 1995. USDA Forest Service. 2005. Record of decision for the final environmental impact statement for the Pacific Northwest Region invasive plant program preventing and managing invasive plants. R6-NR-FHP-PR-02-05. November 2005. Portland, OR. Available online at http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/invasiveplant-eis/FEIS.htm USDA Forest Service. 1996. Middle Methow Watershed Analysis. Okanogan National Forest, Methow Valley Ranger District. October 1996. USDA Forest Service. 1999. Lower Methow Watershed Analysis. Okanogan National Forest, Methow Valley Ranger District. January 1999. USDA Forest Service. 2010 & 2012. The Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest Restoration Strategy: adaptive ecosystem management to restore landscape resiliency. Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest. Pacific Northwest Region. September 2010 and November 2012. Chapter 2 Cook, J. G., L. L. Irwin, L. D. Bryant, R. A. Riggs, and J. W. Thomas. 2005. Thermal Cover Needs of Large Ungulates: A Review of Hypothesis Tests. Pages 185-196 in Wisdom, M. J., technical editor, The Starkey Project: a synthesis of long- term studies of elk and mule deer. Reprinted from the 2004 Transactions of the North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference, Alliance Communications Group, Lawrence, Kansas, USA. Goodman, L.D. 2003. Guidance for implementing eastside screens; file designation 2430, Memorandum to Forest Supervisors of the Colville, Deschutes, Malheur, Ochoco, Umatilla, Wallowa-Whitman, Wenatchee-Okanogan, and Winema- Fremont National Forests. Portland, OR: US Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region. 4p. On file with: Okanogan- Wenatchee National Forest, 215 Melody Lane, Wenatchee, WA 98801. June 11, 2003. Harvey, R.D.; Hessburg, P.F. 1992. Long-range planning for developed sites in the Pacific Northwest: The context of hazard tree management. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region. Portland, OR. 120p. Toupin, R. and M .Barger 2008. Field Guide for Danger Tree Identification and Response. US For. Serv., Pacific Northwest Region, R6-NR-FP-PR-03-05, Portland, OR. USDA Forest Service. 1989. Final Environmental Impact Statement, Land and Resource Management Plan. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region, Okanogan National Forest. p. IV-50. Available online at http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/oka/projects/index.shtml and http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/wenatchee/projects/plans.shtml USDA Forest Service. 1997. Okanogan National Forest Integrated Weed Management Environmental Assessment. Pacific Northwest Region. Okanogan, WA. USDA Forest Service. 2000. Okanogan National Forest Integrated Weed Management Environmental Assessment. Pacific Northwest Region. Okanogan, WA. USDA Forest Service. 1995. Decision Notice, Finding of No Significant Impact and Environmental Assessment for the Interim Strategies for Managing Anadromous Fish-producing Watersheds in Eastern Oregon and Washington, Idaho, and South Summit II Forest and Fuels Final Environmental Assessment Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest, Methow Valley Ranger District April 2015 301 Chapter 5 – Literature Citations Portions of California. USDA Forest Service; U. S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management Decision (This document is known as PACFISH.) USDA Forest Service. 2010 & 2012. The Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest Restoration Strategy: adaptive ecosystem management to restore landscape resiliency. Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest. Pacific Northwest Region. September 2010 and November 2012. Chapter 3 3.2 Forest Vegetation Agee, J.K. 2003. Historical range of variability in eastern Cascades forests, Washington, USA. Landscape Ecology. 18:725-740. Agee, J.K.; Skinner, C.N. 2005. Basic principles of forest fuel reduction treatments. Forest Ecology and Management. 211:83-96. Bartos, D.L.; Campbell, R.B. 1998. Decline of quaking aspen in the Interior West. – examples from Utah. Rangelands. 20:91) 25-28. Carlson, C.E.; Schmidt, W.C.; Fellin, D.G.; Wulf, N.W. 1985. Silvicultural approaches to western spruce budworm management in the northern U.S. Rocky Mountains. In: Sanders, C.J.; et al, editors. Recent advances in spruce budworms research: Proceedings of the CANUSA spruce budworms research symposium, Bangor, Maine, September 16- 20, 1984. p. 281-300. Churchill, D.J.; Dahlgreen, M.C.; Larson, A.J.; Franklin, J.F. 2013. The ICO approach to restoring spatial pattern in dry forests: Implementation guide. Version 1.0. Stewardship Forestry, Vashon, WA, USA. Churchill, D.J.; Larson, A.J.; Dahlgreen, M.C.; Franklin, J.F.; Hessburg, P.F. 2013a. Restoring forest resilience: From reference spatial patterns to silvicultural prescriptions and monitoring. Forest Ecology and Management. 291: 442-457. Cochran, P.H.; Geist, J.M.; Clemens, D.L.; [and others]. 1994. Suggested stocking levels for forest stands in northeastern Oregon and southeastern Washington. Res. Note PNW-RN-513. Portland, OR: USDA Forest Service Pacific Northwest Research Station. 21p. Cochran, P.H.; Barrett, J.W. 1998. Thirty-five-year growth of thinned and unthinned ponderosa pine in the Methow Valley of northern Washington. Res. Paper PNW-RP-502. Portland, OR: USDA Forest Service Pacific Northwest Research Station. 24p. Daily, J.P. 2015. Forest vegetation specialist report: South Summit II Forest and Fuels project. On file at the Methow Valley Ranger District. Fellin, D.G.; Schmidt, W.C.; Carlson, C.E. 1984. The western spruce budworm in the northern Rocky Mountains – ecological relations and silvicultural management strategies. In: Baumgartner, D.M.; Mitchell, R., compilers and editors. Silvicultural management strategies for pests of the interior Douglas-fir and grand fir forest types. Proceedings of a symposium held February 14-16, 1984, Spokane, WA. 199p. Fiedler, C.E. 1996. Silvicultural Applications: Restoring Ecological Structure and Process in Ponderosa Pine Forests. In: Hardy, C.C.; Arno, S.F., eds. The use of fire in forest restoration. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-GTR-341. Ogden, UT: USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station. p.39-40. Goodman, L.D. 2003. Guidance for implementing eastside screens; file designation 2430, Memorandum to Forest Supervisors of the Colville, Deschutes, Malheur, Ochoco, Umatilla, Wallowa-Whitman, Wenatchee-Okanogan, and Winema- Fremont National Forests. Portland, OR: US Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region. 4p. On file with: Okanogan- Wenatchee National Forest, 215 Melody Lane, Wenatchee, WA 98801. June 11, 2003. South Summit II Forest and Fuels Final Environmental Assessment Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest, Methow Valley Ranger District April 2015 302 Chapter 5 – Literature Citations Graham, R.T.; McCaffrey, S.; Jain, T.B. (tech. eds.) 2004. Science basis for changing forest structure to modify wildfire behavior and severity. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-120. Fort Collins, CO: USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 43p. Hadfield, J.; Magelssen, R. 2004. Assessment of aspen condition on the Okanogan and Wenatchee National Forests. Wenatchee, WA: Wenatchee Forestry Sciences Laboratory, Okanogan and Wenatchee National Forests, Pacific Northwest Region, USDA Forest Service. 26p. Hann, W.; Shilsky, A.; Havlina, D.; Schon, K.; Barren, S.; DeMeo, T.; Pohl, K.; Menakis, J.; Hamilton, D.; Jones, J.; Levesque, M.; Frame, C. 2004. Interagency Fire Regime Condition Class Guidebook. Last update January 2008: Version 1.3.0 [Homepage of the Interagency and the Nature Conservancy fire regime condition class website, USDA Forest Service, USDI, The Nature Conservancy, and Systems for Environmental Management]. [Online]. Available: www.frcc.gov. Harvey, R.D.; Hessburg, P.F. 1992. Long-range planning for developed sites in the Pacific Northwest:
Load more

Recommended publications
  • CURRICULUM VITAE ROBERT S. NOWAK Department of Natural
    CURRICULUM VITAE ROBERT S. NOWAK Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Science, Mail Stop 186, University of Nevada Reno, 1664 N Virginia Street, Reno NV 89557 Telephone: (775) 784-1656 FAX: (775) 784-4583 E mail: [email protected] web page: http://www.ag.unr.edu/nowak/ Date of Birth: May 21, 1955. U.S. Citizen. Married; 1 child. EDUCATION: Utah State University, Logan UT. Ph.D. in Range Ecology, 1984. Dissertation: Plant Gas Exchange of Two Bunchgrasses in Relation to Herbivory Tolerance. Utah State University, Logan UT. M.S. in Range Ecology, 1980. Thesis: Chlorophyll Fluorescence Probe of Ultraviolet-B Photoinhibition of Primary Photoreactions in Intact Leaves. University of Minnesota, St. Paul MN. B.S. magna cum laude in Botany, 1977. Honor's Thesis: The Effects of Chilling on Sterigma Development in Coprinus cinereus. EMPLOYMENT: 2013-present: Chair, Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Science, University of Nevada Reno. 1998-present: Professor, Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Science (formerly called Environmental and Resource Sciences), University of Nevada Reno. Adjunct Professor, Department of Biology, UNR. 1991-1998: Associate Professor. Department of Environmental and Resource Sciences (formerly called Range Wildlife and Forestry), University of Nevada Reno. Adjunct Associate Professor, Department of Biology, UNR. 1985-1991: Assistant Professor. Department of Range Wildlife and Forestry, University of Nevada Reno. Adjunct Assistant Professor, Department of Biology, UNR. 1983-1985: Postdoctoral Research Associate. Department of Biological Sciences, Idaho State University. 1977-1983: Graduate Research Assistant, Teaching Assistant, and Graduate Fellow. Department of Range Science, Utah State University. 1976-1977: Undergraduate Research Assistant and Teaching Assistant.
    [Show full text]
  • Arctic National Wildlife Refuge Volume 2
    Appendix F Species List Appendix F: Species List F. Species List F.1 Lists The following list and three tables denote the bird, mammal, fish, and plant species known to occur in Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (Arctic Refuge, Refuge). F.1.1 Birds of Arctic Refuge A total of 201 bird species have been recorded on Arctic Refuge. This list describes their status and abundance. Many birds migrate outside of the Refuge in the winter, so unless otherwise noted, the information is for spring, summer, or fall. Bird names and taxonomic classification follow American Ornithologists' Union (1998). F.1.1.1 Definitions of classifications used Regions of the Refuge . Coastal Plain – The area between the coast and the Brooks Range. This area is sometimes split into coastal areas (lagoons, barrier islands, and Beaufort Sea) and inland areas (uplands near the foothills of the Brooks Range). Brooks Range – The mountains, valleys, and foothills north and south of the Continental Divide. South Side – The foothills, taiga, and boreal forest south of the Brooks Range. Status . Permanent Resident – Present throughout the year and breeds in the area. Summer Resident – Only present from May to September. Migrant – Travels through on the way to wintering or breeding areas. Breeder – Documented as a breeding species. Visitor – Present as a non-breeding species. * – Not documented. Abundance . Abundant – Very numerous in suitable habitats. Common – Very likely to be seen or heard in suitable habitats. Fairly Common – Numerous but not always present in suitable habitats. Uncommon – Occurs regularly but not always observed because of lower abundance or secretive behaviors.
    [Show full text]
  • Literature Cited
    Literature Cited Robert W. Kiger, Editor This is a consolidated list of all works cited in volume 9, whether as selected references, in text, or in nomenclatural contexts. In citations of articles, both here and in the taxonomic treatments, and also in nomenclatural citations, the titles of serials are rendered in the forms recommended in G. D. R. Bridson and E. R. Smith (1991), Bridson (2004), and Bridson and D. W. Brown (http://fmhibd.library.cmu.edu/fmi/iwp/cgi?-db=BPH_Online&-loadframes). When those forms are abbreviated, as most are, cross references to the corresponding full serial titles are interpolated here alphabetically by abbreviated form. In nomenclatural citations (only), book titles are rendered in the abbreviated forms recommended in F. A. Stafleu and R. S. Cowan (1976–1988) and Stafleu et al. (1992–2009). Here, those abbreviated forms are indicated parenthetically following the full citations of the corresponding works, and cross references to the full citations are interpolated in the list alphabetically by abbreviated form. Two or more works published in the same year by the same author or group of coauthors will be distinguished uniquely and consistently throughout all volumes of Flora of North America by lower-case letters (b, c, d, ...) suffixed to the date for the second and subsequent works in the set. The suffixes are assigned in order of editorial encounter and do not reflect chronological sequence of publication. The first work by any particular author or group from any given year carries the implicit date suffix “a”; thus, the sequence of explicit suffixes begins with “b”.
    [Show full text]
  • Resource Name (Heading 1)
    United States Department of Agriculture Forest-wide Site-Specific Invasive Plant Management Final Environmental Impact Statement Okanogan, Chelan, Yakima, and Kittitas Counties in Washington for the greatest good August 2016 Cover photo: Field of whitetop. In accordance with Federal civil rights law and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) civil rights regulations and policies, the USDA, its Agencies, of- fices, and employees, and institutions participating in or administering USDA programs are prohibited from discriminating based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity (including gender expression), sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, political beliefs, or reprisal or retaliation for prior civil rights activity, in any program or activity conducted or funded by USDA (not all bases apply to all programs). Remedies and complaint filing deadlines vary by program or incident. Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication for program information (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, American Sign Language, etc.) should contact the responsible Agency or USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TTY) or contact USDA through the Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339. Additionally, program information may be made available in languages other than English. To file a program discrimination complaint, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, AD-3027, found online at http://www.ascr.usda. gov/complaint_filing_cust.html and at any USDA office or write a letter addressed to USDA and provide in the letter all of the information requested in the form. To request a copy of the complaint form, call (866) 632-9992.
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix C Biological Resources: Special Status Species Tables
    Appendix C Biological Resources: Special Status Species Tables Table C-1 Special-Status Plant Species Documented to Occur in the Project Region and their Potential for Occurrence in the Project Area Status 1 Species Habitat and Blooming Period Potential for Occurrence 2 Federal State CRPR Shasta ageratina 1B.2 Chaparral, lower montane Could occur: Potentially suitable habitat within project (Ageratina shastensis) coniferous forest. Rocky, sometimes area. Project area within the elevational range of the limestone. 1312 to 5906 ft in species. Documented to occur within nine quadrangle elevation. Blooms June-October. database search area (CNPS 2019) vanilla-grass 2B.3 Wetland. Meadows and seeps. Wet Could occur: Potentially suitable seep habitat within (Anthoxanthum nitens ssp. sites. 10 to 6217 ft in elevation. project area. Project area within the elevational range Nitens) Blooms April-July. of the species. Documented to occur within nine quadrangle database search area (CNPS 2019) Klamath manzanita 1B.2 Chaparral (montane), lower Could occur: Potentially suitable habitat within project (Arctostaphylos klamathensis) montane coniferous forest, upper area. However, project area within the elevational montane coniferous forest, range of the species. Documented to occur within subalpine coniferous forest. Rocky nine quadrangle database search area (CNPS 2019) outcrops and slopes, sometimes on serpentine. 4692 to 7382 ft in elevation. Blooms May-August. woolly balsamroot 1B.2 Cismontane woodland. Open Not Likely to occur: Suitable open cismontane habitat (Balsamorhiza lanata) woods, grassy slopes. Volcanic on volcanic substrate does not occur within project substrates. 2625 to 6217 ft in area. Project area within the elevational range of the elevation. Blooms April-June.
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix 15-A
    Appendix 15-A Terrestrial Wildlife and Vegetation Baseline Report HARPER CREEK PROJECT Application for an Environmental Assessment Certificate / Environmental Impact Statement Harper Creek Mine Project Terrestrial Wildlife and Vegetation Baseline Report Prepared for Harper Creek Mining Corp. c/o Yellowhead Mining Inc. 730 – 800 West Pender Street Vancouver, BC V6C 2V6 Prepared by: This image cannot currently be displayed. Keystone Wildlife Research Ltd. 112-9547 152 Street Surrey, BC V3R 5Y5 August 2014 Harper Creek Mine Project Terrestrial Baseline Report DISCLAIMER This report was prepared exclusively for Harper Creek Mining Corporation (HCMC) by Keystone Wildlife Research Ltd. The quality of information, conclusions and estimates contained herein is consistent with the level of effort expended and is based on: i) information on the Project activities, facilities, and workforce available at the time of preparation; ii) data collected by Keystone Wildlife Research Ltd. and its subconsultants, and/or supplied by outside sources; and iii) the assumptions, conditions and qualifications set forth in this report. This report is intended for use by HCMC only, subject to the terms and conditions of its contract with Keystone Wildlife Research Ltd. Any other use or reliance on this report by any third party is at that party’s sole risk. This image cannot currently be displayed. Keystone Wildlife Research Ltd. Page ii Harper Creek Mine Project Terrestrial Baseline Report EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Harper Creek Project (the Project) is a proposed open pit copper mine located in south- central British Columbia (BC), approximately 150 km northeast by road from Kamloops. The Project has an estimated 28-year mine life based on a process plant throughput of 70,000 tonnes per day.
    [Show full text]
  • Alaska Natural Heritage Program National Park Service Alaska
    GLACIER BAY NATIONAL PARK AND PRESERVE VASCULAR PLANT INVENTORY GLACIER BAY NATIONAL PARK AND PRESERVE VASCULAR PLANT INVENTORY FINAL TECHNICAL REPORT Matthew L. Carlson, Keith Boggs, Robert Lipkin, & Julie A. Michaelson Alaska Natural Heritage Program Environment and Natural Resources Institute University of Alaska Anchorage 707 A Street Anchorage, Alaska 99501 National Park Service Alaska Region Inventory & Monitoring Program NPS Report : April 2004 Cooperative Agreement No. 1443CA991000013 Funding Source: National Park Service, Inventory & Monitoring Program 1 GLACIER BAY NATIONAL PARK AND PRESERVE VASCULAR PLANT INVENTORY ABSTRACT In 2001 and 2003 the Alaska Natural Heritage Program (AKNHP) conducted vascular plant field inventories in Glacier Bay National Park and Preserve in accordance with a cooperative agreement with the National Park Service. The primary goal was to document greater than 90% of the vascular plant species expected to occur within the park and significantly improve our understanding of current species distributions. The inventory targeted diverse habitat types and poorly-sampled areas. The AKNHP staff visited eight diverse ecogeographic regions and sampled intensively within these regions from late June to mid-August, 2001 and late June to early July in 2003. A total of 555 specimens were collected, recorded, pressed, and curated. Of the 333 individual taxa, 172 are new records for the park and an additional 44 represent verifications of previously unverified reports. A number of finds were significant range extensions or taxa of conservation concern. Collections were made of four globally restricted species: Botrychium ascendens (G2G3-S2 AKNHP rank), Platanthera chorisiana (G3-S3), Eleocharis kamtschatica (G4-S2S3), and Salix setchelliana (G4-S3). A number of collections were made of species which are very rare in Alaska, but more widespread in western North America, such as Agoseris aurantiaca, A.
    [Show full text]
  • Photos from Our September Naturalist Hikes Hike of the Month to Little Si
    One Step at a Time Newsletter of the Mountaineers Naturalist Group October 2016 Table of Contents: Photos from August naturalist hikes -------- 1 In the species Garden ----------------------------- 2 October Field Trips -------------------------- 3 Mountaineers Naturalist Lecture Series --------- 5 Audubon Society Field Trips --------------- 6 Washington Plant Society Lecture ---------- 8 Odds and Ends -------------------------------- 9 Environmental Issues – Meadow watch------ 11 Mystery plants and animals -------------------- 14 Pictures ----------------------------------------- 16 Photos from our September naturalist hikes Hike of the month to Little Si. Hairy manzanita on top, view along the way, rain stopped for us on the top. Don't we look happy. Mosses were fabulous! Do you know why Sitka spruce is growing on this trail so far from the coast? In the Garden – What's happening in our species garden? ************** Work Party and Stewardship Coming Up******* There will be a work party the first Sunday of October (October 2) from 1:30-4:30 PM at the Species Garden to the right of the clubhouse (by the climbing wall). The plan is to weed and plant in preparation for winter. If you haven’t seen the garden recently, you will be amazed at the growth especially in the alpine plants. ******************************************************************************** Many shrubs fruit or seed (snowberry, baldhip rose, ocean spray). Most of the exceptions are in the alpine garden where penstemon, several species of alpine daisies and a resplendent skyrocket (scarlet gilia) and Richardson's penstemon are still aflame and mountain monardella is hanging on. There are the expected pearly everlasting, asters and yarrow as well as the second coming of siberian miner's lettuce and cooley's hedge nettle.
    [Show full text]
  • Where Have All Our Asters Gone? by William R
    Sego Lily Spring 2018 41(2) Spring 2018 Volume 41 Number 2 Where Have All Our Asters Gone? by William R. Gray, Submitted to Sego Lily April 2018 ABSTRACT: the genus Aster traditionally contained numerous species from both North America and Eurasia. Based on morphological evidence and DNA sequencing in the 1990s it became clear that the North American species evolved separately, and would need to be assigned to other genera. This paper outlines the evidence, and the disposition of species as carried out in the Flora of North America in 2006. Whatever happened to Aster??? It used to be easy leading wildflower walks for UNPS. Yes, truly, all 21 Asters described by Cronquist in People would ask how to distinguish Asters from Intermountain Flora (Cronquist, 1994) have been Daisies – and I would tell them to look behind the reassigned to other genera by Flora of North America flower and check out the little greenish things (2006). According to FNA there is only a single true surrounding the petals (Fig. 1). If they were all about native Aster in the whole of North America, down from the same length, and skinny, it was probably a daisy or well over a hundred before the dis-Aster. The name is fleabane (Erigeron). If they varied in length, were wider now used almost exclusively for Eurasian plants and overlapped, it was probably an aster (Aster). because Linnaeus chose a well-known European plant For many people that was all they wanted to know and and named it Aster amellus as typical of the genus.
    [Show full text]
  • ICBEMP Analysis of Vascular Plants
    APPENDIX 1 Range Maps for Species of Concern APPENDIX 2 List of Species Conservation Reports APPENDIX 3 Rare Species Habitat Group Analysis APPENDIX 4 Rare Plant Communities APPENDIX 5 Plants of Cultural Importance APPENDIX 6 Research, Development, and Applications Database APPENDIX 7 Checklist of the Vascular Flora of the Interior Columbia River Basin 122 APPENDIX 1 Range Maps for Species of Conservation Concern These range maps were compiled from data from State Heritage Programs in Oregon, Washington, Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, Utah, and Nevada. This information represents what was known at the end of the 1994 field season. These maps may not represent the most recent information on distribution and range for these taxa but it does illustrate geographic distribution across the assessment area. For many of these species, this is the first time information has been compiled on this scale. For the continued viability of many of these taxa, it is imperative that we begin to manage for them across their range and across administrative boundaries. Of the 173 taxa analyzed, there are maps for 153 taxa. For those taxa that were not tracked by heritage programs, we were not able to generate range maps. (Antmnnrin aromatica) ( ,a-’(,. .e-~pi~] i----j \ T--- d-,/‘-- L-J?.,: . ey SAP?E%. %!?:,KnC,$ESS -,,-a-c--- --y-- I -&zII~ County Boundaries w1. ~~~~ State Boundaries <ii&-----\ \m;qw,er Columbia River Basin .---__ ,$ 4 i- +--pa ‘,,, ;[- ;-J-k, Assessment Area 1 /./ .*#a , --% C-p ,, , Suecies Locations ‘V 7 ‘\ I, !. / :L __---_- r--j -.---.- Columbia River Basin s-5: ts I, ,e: I’ 7 j ;\ ‘-3 “.
    [Show full text]
  • Environmental Assessment for Patos Island Composting Toilets
    Environmental Assessment for Patos Island Composting Toilets DOI-BLM-OR-134-2011-0001-EA Bureau of Land Management Spokane District Wenatchee Field Office September 2012 Contents 1. Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 1 1.1. Project Area Description .............................................................................................. 1 1.2. Background ................................................................................................................... 1 1.3. Purpose and Need ......................................................................................................... 1 1.4. Land Use Plan Conformance Review ........................................................................... 2 1.5. Applicable Laws, Regulations, and Policies ................................................................ 2 1.6. Summary of Public Involvement and Scoping Activities ............................................ 2 1.7. Issues Identified ............................................................................................................ 3 1.8. Issues Eliminated from Further Analysis ..................................................................... 3 2. Alternatives .......................................................................................................................... 4 2.1. The No Action Alternative ..........................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Analysis of the Management Situation
    Analysis of the Management Situation Eastern Washington and San Juan Resource Management Plan March 2011 For More Information Contact: BLM Spokane District Office 1103 N. Fancher Rd. Spokane Valley, WA 99212 Phone: 509-536-1200 Email: [email protected] Or visit the project website: www.blm.gov/or/districts/spokane/plans/ewsjrmp Analysis of the Management Situation Table of Contents Chapter 1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................................1 1.1 Purpose of the Analysis of the Management Situation .......................................................................1 1.2 General Description of the Planning Area ..........................................................................................2 Chapter 2 Area Profile ...................................................................................................................................3 2.1 Resources ............................................................................................................................................3 2.1.1 Regional Context ..........................................................................................................................3 2.1.1.1 Physiographic Regions .........................................................................................................3 2.1.1.2 Ecoregions ............................................................................................................................3 2.1.1.3
    [Show full text]