DOCSLIB.ORG

Programmatic Emergency Stabilization and Rehabilitation Plan and Environmental

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Programmatic Emergency Stabilization and Rehabilitation Plan and Environmental Programmatic Emergency Stabilization and Rehabilitation Plan and Environmental Assessment October 2013 Twin Falls District Bureau of Land Management Department of Interior NEPA No. DOI-BLM-ID-T000-2011-0001-EA i TABLE OF CONTENTS Programmatic Emergency Stabilization and ................................................... i Rehabilitation Plan and Environmental Assessment ....................................... i October 2013 .................................................................................................... i Twin Falls District ............................................................................................................ i Bureau of Land Management ........................................................................................... i Department of Interior ...................................................................................................... i List of Figures ................................................................................................................. v List of Tables ................................................................................................................... v Introduction ..................................................................................................... 1 Purpose and Need ............................................................................................................ 1 Post-Fire Recovery Objectives, Priorities, and Process .................................................. 3 Land Use Plan Conformance ........................................................................................... 4 Relationship to Statutes, Regulations, or Other Plans .................................................. 5 Scoping and Public Involvement and Issues ................................................................... 6 Alternatives ................................................................................................... 12 No Action Alternative ................................................................................................... 12 Proposed Action ........................................................................................................... 13 Post-Fire Recovery Treatments ................................................................................. 13 Design Features for Sensitive Resources .................................................................. 25 Monitoring ................................................................................................................. 39 Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Study ................................. 43 Affected Environment ................................................................................... 44 Soils ............................................................................................................................... 44 Water ............................................................................................................................. 45 Air .................................................................................................................................. 46 Vegetation ..................................................................................................................... 46 General Vegetation .................................................................................................... 46 Special Status Plants .................................................................................................. 53 Wildlife .......................................................................................................................... 58 General Wildlife ........................................................................................................ 58 General Fish............................................................................................................... 60 Special Status Wildlife and Fish ................................................................................ 60 Type 3 and 4 Sensitive Animals .............................................................................. 68 *Effects to these species analyzed under general wildlife ........................................ 69 Migratory Birds ......................................................................................................... 69 Recreation ...................................................................................................................... 70 ii Special Management Areas ........................................................................................... 70 National Landscape Conservation System ................................................................ 70 Areas of Critical Environmental Concern ................................................................. 74 Visual Resources ........................................................................................................... 75 Cultural Resources ........................................................................................................ 76 Grazing Management .................................................................................................... 76 Livestock ................................................................................................................... 76 Wild Horses ............................................................................................................... 77 Direct and Indirect Environmental Impacts .................................................. 78 Soils ............................................................................................................................... 78 No Action .................................................................................................................. 78 Proposed Action ........................................................................................................ 79 Water ............................................................................................................................. 82 No Action .................................................................................................................. 82 Proposed Action ........................................................................................................ 84 Air .................................................................................................................................. 86 No Action .................................................................................................................. 86 Proposed Action ........................................................................................................ 86 Vegetation ..................................................................................................................... 87 No Action .................................................................................................................. 87 Proposed Action ........................................................................................................ 90 Wildlife .......................................................................................................................... 96 No Action .................................................................................................................. 96 Proposed Action ...................................................................................................... 104 Recreation .................................................................................................................... 118 No Action ................................................................................................................ 118 Proposed Action ...................................................................................................... 118 Special Management Areas ......................................................................................... 118 No Action ................................................................................................................ 118 Proposed Action ...................................................................................................... 119 Visual Resources ......................................................................................................... 121 No Action ................................................................................................................ 121 Proposed Action ...................................................................................................... 121 Cultural Resources ...................................................................................................... 122 No Action ................................................................................................................ 122 Proposed Action ...................................................................................................... 122 Grazing Management .................................................................................................. 123 No Action ................................................................................................................ 123 Proposed Action ...................................................................................................... 124 Cumulative Impacts .................................................................................... 126 iii Soils ............................................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Literature Cited
    LITERATURE CITED Abercrombie, M., C. J. Hichman, and M. L. Johnson. 1962. A Dictionary of Biology. Chicago: Aldine Publishing Company. Adkisson, C. S. 1996. Red Crossbill (Loxia curvirostra). In The Birds of North America, No. 256 (A. Poole and F. Gill, eds.). The Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, PA, and the American Ornithologists’ Union, Washington, D.C. Agee, J. K. 1993. Fire ecology of Pacific Northwest forests. Island Press, Covelo, CA. Albert, S. K., N. Luna, and A. L. Chopito. 1995. Deer, small mammal, and songbird use of thinned piñon–juniper plots: preliminary results. Pages 54–64 in Desired future conditions for piñon–juniper ecosystems (D. W. Shaw, E. F. Aldon, and C. LaSapio, eds.). Gen. Tech. Rep. GTR–RM–258. Fort Collins, CO: Rocky Mountain Research Station, Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. Aldrich, J. W. 1946. New subspecies of birds from western North America. Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington 59:129–136. Aldrich, J. W. 1963. Geographic orientation of American Tetraonidae. Journal of Wildlife Management 27:529–545. Allen, R. K. 1984. A new classification of the subfamily Ephemerellinae and the description of a new genus. Pan–Pacific Entomologist 60(3): 245–247. Allen, R. K., and G. F. Edmunds, Jr. 1976. A revision of the genus Ametropus in North America (Ephemeroptera: Ephemerellidae). Journal of the Kansas Entomological Society 49:625–635. Allen, R. P. 1958. A progress report on the wading bird survey. National Audubon Society, unpubl. rep., Tavernier, FL. American Ornithologists’ Union. 1931. Check–list of North American birds. 4th ed. American Ornithologists’ Union, Lancaster, PA.
    [Show full text]
  • CHARACTERISTICS of FISH ASSEMBLAGES and RELATED ENVIRONMENTAL VARIABLES for STREAMS of the UPPER SNAKE RIVER BASIN, IDAHO and WESTERN WYOMING, 1993-95 by Terry R
    CHARACTERISTICS OF FISH ASSEMBLAGES AND RELATED ENVIRONMENTAL VARIABLES FOR STREAMS OF THE UPPER SNAKE RIVER BASIN, IDAHO AND WESTERN WYOMING, 1993-95 By Terry R. Maret U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Water-Resources Investigations Report 97-4087 Boise, Idaho 1997 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR BRUCE BABBITT, Secretary U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Gordon P. Eaton, Director The use of firm, trade, and brand names in this report is for identification purposes only and does not constitute endorsement by the U.S. Geological Survey. For additional information write to: Copies of this report can be purchased from: District Chief U.S. Geological Survey U.S. Geological Survey Information Services 230 Collins Road Box 25286 Boise, ID 83702-4520 Federal Center Denver, CO 80225 Information regarding the National Water-Quality Assessment (NAWQA) Program is available on the Internet via the World Wide Web. You may connect to the NAWQA home pages using the universal resource locator (URL) at: http://wwwrvares.er.usgs.gov/nawqa/nawqa_home.html or http://wwwidaho.wr.usgs. gov/nawqa/usnk_home.html FOREWORD The mission of the U.S. Geological Survey Describe current water-quality conditions for a (USGS) is to assess the quantity and quality of the large part of the Nation's freshwater streams, rivers, earth resources of the Nation and to provide informa­ and aquifers. tion that will assist resource managers and policymak- Describe how water quality is changing over time. ers at Federal, State, and local levels in making sound decisions. Assessment of water-quality conditions and Improve understanding of the primary natural and trends is an important part of this overall mission.
    [Show full text]
  • Endangered Species
    FEATURE: ENDANGERED SPECIES Conservation Status of Imperiled North American Freshwater and Diadromous Fishes ABSTRACT: This is the third compilation of imperiled (i.e., endangered, threatened, vulnerable) plus extinct freshwater and diadromous fishes of North America prepared by the American Fisheries Society’s Endangered Species Committee. Since the last revision in 1989, imperilment of inland fishes has increased substantially. This list includes 700 extant taxa representing 133 genera and 36 families, a 92% increase over the 364 listed in 1989. The increase reflects the addition of distinct populations, previously non-imperiled fishes, and recently described or discovered taxa. Approximately 39% of described fish species of the continent are imperiled. There are 230 vulnerable, 190 threatened, and 280 endangered extant taxa, and 61 taxa presumed extinct or extirpated from nature. Of those that were imperiled in 1989, most (89%) are the same or worse in conservation status; only 6% have improved in status, and 5% were delisted for various reasons. Habitat degradation and nonindigenous species are the main threats to at-risk fishes, many of which are restricted to small ranges. Documenting the diversity and status of rare fishes is a critical step in identifying and implementing appropriate actions necessary for their protection and management. Howard L. Jelks, Frank McCormick, Stephen J. Walsh, Joseph S. Nelson, Noel M. Burkhead, Steven P. Platania, Salvador Contreras-Balderas, Brady A. Porter, Edmundo Díaz-Pardo, Claude B. Renaud, Dean A. Hendrickson, Juan Jacobo Schmitter-Soto, John Lyons, Eric B. Taylor, and Nicholas E. Mandrak, Melvin L. Warren, Jr. Jelks, Walsh, and Burkhead are research McCormick is a biologist with the biologists with the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix A: Common and Scientific Names for Fish and Wildlife Species Found in Idaho
    APPENDIX A: COMMON AND SCIENTIFIC NAMES FOR FISH AND WILDLIFE SPECIES FOUND IN IDAHO. How to Read the Lists. Within these lists, species are listed phylogenetically by class. In cases where phylogeny is incompletely understood, taxonomic units are arranged alphabetically. Listed below are definitions for interpreting NatureServe conservation status ranks (GRanks and SRanks). These ranks reflect an assessment of the condition of the species rangewide (GRank) and statewide (SRank). Rangewide ranks are assigned by NatureServe and statewide ranks are assigned by the Idaho Conservation Data Center. GX or SX Presumed extinct or extirpated: not located despite intensive searches and virtually no likelihood of rediscovery. GH or SH Possibly extinct or extirpated (historical): historically occurred, but may be rediscovered. Its presence may not have been verified in the past 20–40 years. A species could become SH without such a 20–40 year delay if the only known occurrences in the state were destroyed or if it had been extensively and unsuccessfully looked for. The SH rank is reserved for species for which some effort has been made to relocate occurrences, rather than simply using this status for all elements not known from verified extant occurrences. G1 or S1 Critically imperiled: at high risk because of extreme rarity (often 5 or fewer occurrences), rapidly declining numbers, or other factors that make it particularly vulnerable to rangewide extinction or extirpation. G2 or S2 Imperiled: at risk because of restricted range, few populations (often 20 or fewer), rapidly declining numbers, or other factors that make it vulnerable to rangewide extinction or extirpation. G3 or S3 Vulnerable: at moderate risk because of restricted range, relatively few populations (often 80 or fewer), recent and widespread declines, or other factors that make it vulnerable to rangewide extinction or extirpation.
    [Show full text]
  • Field Investigation for Blm Sensitive Rare Plant Species Within the Snake River Birds of Prey National Conservation Area, Souhwestern Idaho Interim Report, 2000
    FIELD INVESTIGATION FOR BLM SENSITIVE RARE PLANT SPECIES WITHIN THE SNAKE RIVER BIRDS OF PREY NATIONAL CONSERVATION AREA, SOUHWESTERN IDAHO INTERIM REPORT, 2000 By Michael Mancuso and Christopher Murphy Conservation Data Center March 2001 Idaho Department of Fish and Game Natural Resource Policy Bureau 600 South Walnut, P.O. Box 25 Boise, Idaho 83707 Rod Sando, Director Challenge Cost-Share Project Lower Snake River District BLM Idaho Department of Fish and Game Agreement No. DAA000203 ABSTRACT The Snake River Birds of Prey National Conservation Area (NCA) encompasses over 480,000 acres of public land along 80 miles of the Snake River in southwestern Idaho. Although the NCA is best known for its great density of nesting raptors, other biodiversity values also exist, including a diverse suite and relative abundance of rare plant species. Sixteen Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Sensitive plant species are known to occur within the NCA. In 2000, the BLM’s Lower Snake River District contracted with the Idaho Conservation Data Center to conduct a systematic field investigation for Sensitive plant species on the NCA. The project’s purpose is to provide the BLM with a conservation assessment of rare plant resources within the NCA. Field investigations in 2000 discovered a total of 51 new rare plant occurrences within the NCA. New occurrences were found for nine of the 16 target species. We also obtained updated information for 33 occurrences previously known from the study area. This report summarizes first-year results of this two-year project. An appendix contains Element Occurrence Records for all the new and updated occurrences.
    [Show full text]
  • Draft Programmatic EIS for Fuels Reduction and Rangeland
    NATIONAL SYSTEM OF PUBLIC LANDS U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR U.S. Department of the Interior March 2020 BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT Draft Programmatic EIS for Fuels Reduction and Rangeland Restoration in the Great Basin Volume 3: Appendices B through N Estimated Lead Agency Total Costs Associated with Developing and Producing this EIS $2,000,000 The Bureau of Land Management’s multiple-use mission is to sustain the health and productivity of the public lands for the use and enjoyment of present and future generations. The Bureau accomplishes this by managing such activities as outdoor recreation, livestock grazing, mineral development, and energy production, and by conserving natural, historical, cultural, and other resources on public lands. Appendix B. Acronyms, Literature Cited, Glossary B.1 ACRONYMS ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS Full Phrase ACHP Advisory Council on Historic Preservation AML appropriate management level ARMPA Approved Resource Management Plan Amendment BCR bird conservation region BLM Bureau of Land Management BSU biologically significant unit CEQ Council on Environmental Quality EIS environmental impact statement EPA US Environmental Protection Agency ESA Endangered Species Act ESR emergency stabilization and rehabilitation FIAT Fire and Invasives Assessment Tool FLPMA Federal Land Policy and Management Act FY fiscal year GHMA general habitat management area HMA herd management area IBA important bird area IHMA important habitat management area MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act MOU memorandum of understanding MtCO2e metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent NEPA National Environmental Policy Act NHPA National Historic Preservation Act NIFC National Interagency Fire Center NRCS National Resources Conservation Service NRHP National Register of Historic Places NWCG National Wildfire Coordination Group OHMA other habitat management area OHV off-highway vehicle Programmatic EIS for Fuels Reduction and Rangeland Restoration in the Great Basin B-1 B.
    [Show full text]
  • Full Issue, Vol. 53 No. 2
    Great Basin Naturalist Volume 53 Number 2 Article 15 6-4-1993 Full Issue, Vol. 53 No. 2 Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/gbn Recommended Citation (1993) "Full Issue, Vol. 53 No. 2," Great Basin Naturalist: Vol. 53 : No. 2 , Article 15. Available at: https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/gbn/vol53/iss2/15 This Full Issue is brought to you for free and open access by the Western North American Naturalist Publications at BYU ScholarsArchive. It has been accepted for inclusion in Great Basin Naturalist by an authorized editor of BYU ScholarsArchive. For more information, please contact [email protected], [email protected]. T H E GREATR EAT BASINbaab7a S I1 N MTURALISTNA afufta FISTlyom llemoe ak VOLUME 53 n2na 2 JUNE 1993 BRIGHAM YOUNG university GREAT BASIN naturalist editor JAMES 11 BARNES 290 MLBM brigham young university provo utah 84602 associate editors MICHAEL A BOWERS BRIAN A MAURER blandy experimental farm university of department ofzoology brigham YoungyounguniversityyoungiuniversityUniversity virginia box 175 boyce virginia 22620 provo utah 84602 J R CALLAHAN JIMMIE R PARRISH museum of southwestern biology university of BIOWESTBIO WEST inc 1063 west 1400 north logan new mexico albuquerque new mexico utah 84321 mailing address box 3140 hemet california 92546 PAUL T TUELLER department of range wildlife and forestry JEANNE C CHAMBERS university of nevada reno 1000 valley road USDA forest service research university of ne reno nevada 89512 vada reno 920 valley road reno nevada 89512 ROBERT
    [Show full text]
  • Montana's State Wildlife Action Plan 2015
    MONTANA’S STATE WILDLIFE ACTION PLAN MONTANA FISH, WILDLIFE & PARKS 2015 The mission of Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks (FWP) is to provide for the stewardship of the fish, wildlife, parks, and recreational resources of Montana, while contributing to the quality of life for present and future generations. To carry out its mission, FWP strives to provide and support fiscally responsible programs that conserve, enhance, and protect Montana’s 1) aquatic ecotypes, habitats, and species; 2) terrestrial ecotypes, habitats, and species; and 3) important cultural and recreational resources. This document should be cited as Montana’s State Wildlife Action Plan. 2015. Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks, 1420 East Sixth Avenue, Helena, MT 59620. 441 pp. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Montana’s first State Wildlife Action Plan (SWAP), the Comprehensive Fish and Wildlife Conservation Strategy (CFWCS), was approved by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in 2006. Since then, many conservation partners have used the plan to support their conservation work and to seek additional funding to continue their work. For Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks (FWP), State Wildlife Grant (SWG) dollars have helped implement the strategy by supporting conservation efforts for many different species and habitats. This revision details implemented actions since 2006 (Appendix C). This SWAP identifies community types, Focal Areas, and species in Montana with significant issues that warrant conservation attention. The plan is not meant to be an FWP plan, but a plan to guide conservation throughout Montana. One hundred and twenty-eight Species of Greatest Conservation Need (SGCN) are identified in this revision. Forty-seven of these are identified as being in most critical conservation need.
    [Show full text]
  • Determing Minimum Population Size for Recovery of the Black-Footed Ferret Craig R
    Great Basin Naturalist Memoirs Volume 8 The Black-footed Ferret Article 13 5-1-1986 Determing minimum population size for recovery of the black-footed ferret Craig R. Groves Department of Biological Sciences, Idaho State University, Pocatello, Idaho 83209 Tim W. Clark Department of Biological Sciences, Idaho State University, Pocatello, Idaho 83209 Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/gbnm Recommended Citation Groves, Craig R. and Clark, Tim W. (1986) "Determing minimum population size for recovery of the black-footed ferret," Great Basin Naturalist Memoirs: Vol. 8 , Article 13. Available at: https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/gbnm/vol8/iss1/13 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Western North American Naturalist Publications at BYU ScholarsArchive. It has been accepted for inclusion in Great Basin Naturalist Memoirs by an authorized editor of BYU ScholarsArchive. For more information, please contact [email protected], [email protected]. DETERMINING MINIMUM POPULATION SIZE FOR RECOVERY OF THE BLACK-FOOTED FERRET Craifj; R. Groves' ~ and Tim W. Clark' Abstract. —A minimum viable population (MVP) size is estimated for the critically endangered black-footed ferret by examining five basic methods: experiments, biogeographic jiatterns, theoretical models, simulation models, and genetic considerations. Each method is evaluated for its appiical)ilit\ to the ferret and endangered species in general with two criteria in mind: (1) potential research impacts to target species and (2) the value of scientific accuracy and precision in relation to short-term conservation needs. For the black-footed ferret, the genetic method proved to be the most useful, resulting in an MVP estimate of about 200 ferrets for maintenance of short-term fitness.
    [Show full text]
  • 16 Exhibit P Vegetation Main to Attachment
    Exhibit P Fish and Wildlife Habitat and Species Boardman to Hemingway Transmission Line Project 1221 West Idaho Street Boise, Idaho 83702 Todd Adams, Project Leader Zach Funkhouser, Permitting (208) 388-2740 (208) 388-5375 [email protected] [email protected] Preliminary Application for Site Certificate February 2013 Boardman to Hemingway Transmission Line Project Exhibit P TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................... P-1 2.0 APPLICABLE RULES AND STATUTES ..................................................................... P-1 2.1 Approval Standard – OAR 345-022-0060 ............................................................ P-1 2.2 Requirements of Exhibit P – OAR 345-021-0010(1)(p) ........................................ P-1 2.3 Project Order Requirements................................................................................. P-2 3.0 ANALYSIS .................................................................................................................... P-3 3.1 Analysis Area ....................................................................................................... P-3 3.2 Methods ............................................................................................................... P-3 3.3 Information Required by OAR 345-021-0010(1)(p) .............................................. P-4 3.3.1 Field Surveys and Initial Desktop Review ................................................ P-4 3.3.2
    [Show full text]
  • Pdf Clickbook Booklet
    Flora of Puma Canyon Ecological Reserve, southeast of Pinon Hills #Plants # Famil Scientific Name (*)Common Name #V ShCr Main Gymnosperms 1 Cupre Juniperus californica California juniper 4 50 99 2 Cupre Juniperus osteosperma Utah juniper 1 PM 3 Ephed Ephedra nevadensis Nevada ephedra 99 30 4 Pinac Pinus monophylla pinyon pine 20 99 Eudicots 5 Apiac Lomatium mohavense Mojave lomatium 3 WF 8 6 Apiac Lomatium nevadense var. parishii Parish's lomatium 10 7 Apiac Tauschia parishii Parish's tauschia 5 10 8 Apocy Asclepias californica California milkweed 1 9 Apocy Asclepias erosa desert milkweed PM 10 Apocy Asclepias vestita woolly milkweed 1 5 4 Acamptopappus sphaerocephalus var. 11 Aster hairy goldenhead 2 2 hirtellus 12 Aster Ambrosia acanthicarpa bur-ragweed 30 40 13 Aster Ambrosia salsola var. salsola cheesebush 4 1 10 14 Aster Anisocoma acaulis scale-bud 1 15 15 Aster Artemisia dracunculus wild tarragon PM 16 Aster Artemisia tridentata big sagebrush 10 99 17 Aster Baccharis salicifolia ssp. salicifolia mule fat 1 18 Aster Baileya pleniradiata woolly marigold 2 19 Aster Calycoseris parryi yellow tackstem 2 1 PM 20 Aster Chaenactis fremontii Fremont pincushion 1 21 Aster Chaenactis stevioides desert pincushion 2 99 99 22 Aster Chaenactis xantiana Xantus' chaenactis 2 PM 23 Aster Cirsium occidentale var. californicum California thistle PM 24 Aster Encelia actoni Acton encelia 20 99 25 Aster Ericameria cooperi var. cooperi Cooper's goldenbush 2 26 Aster Ericameria linearifolia narrowleaf goldenbush 3 10 99 27 Aster Ericameria nauseosa var. ceruminosa sharp-bracted rabbitbrush 1 28 Aster Ericameria nauseosa var. hololeuca ghostly rabbitbrush 30 5 29 Aster Erigeron foliosus var.
    [Show full text]
  • Draft Snake Headwaters Subbasin Summary
    Draft Snake Headwaters Subbasin Summary May 17, 2002 Prepared for the Northwest Power Planning Council Subbasin Team Leader Edward Bottum, Idaho Department of Fish and Game Lead Writers Patricia A. Isaeff, TREC, Inc. Timothy D. Reynolds, TREC, Inc. Editor Randall C. Morris, TREC, Inc. Primary Contributors (in alphabetical order): Eric Cole, National Elk Refuge Jeffrey Pettingill, Bonneville County Vegetation Kerry Grande, Jackson National Fish Hatchery Management Sheryl Hill, Idaho Department of Environmental Quality Allen Redder, Wyoming Natural Diversity Database Marv Hoyt, Greater Yellowstone Coalition Steve Rust, Idaho Department of Fish and Game Chris Jansen-Lute, Bureau of Reclamation Troy Saffle, Idaho Department of Environmental Quality Howard Johnson, Safari Club International Robert Schiller, Grand Teton National Park Don Kemner, Idaho Department of Fish and Game Ruth Shea, The Trumpeter Swan Society Justin W. Krajewski, Idaho Soil Conservation Commission Bruce Smith, National Elk Refuge Jeff McCreary, Ducks Unlimited Steve Smith, Idaho Soil Conservation Commission Deb Migonono, US Fish and Wildlife Service Kathy Weaver, Idaho Soil Conservation Commission Susan O’Ney, Grand Teton National Park Michael Whitfield, Teton Regional Land Trust Marty Orwig, N. American Moose Foundation DRAFT: This document has not yet been reviewed or approved by the Northwest Power Planning Council Snake Headwaters Subbasin Summary Table of Contents Background & Introduction ..............................................................................................................
    [Show full text]