DOCSLIB.ORG

Upper Columbia Basin Network Vital Signs Monitoring Plan Appendixes

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Upper Columbia Basin Network Vital Signs Monitoring Plan Appendixes National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior Natural Resource Program Center Upper Columbia Basin Network Vital Signs Monitoring Plan Appendixes Natural Resource Report NPS/UCBN/NRR-2007/002 ON THE COVER Seven of the 14 UCBN Vital Signs: Sagebrush-steppe, sage grouse, camas lily, aspen, invasive/ exotic species, water quality, and bats. NPS Photos. Upper Columbia Basin Network Vital Signs Monitoring Plan Natural Resource Report NPS/UCBN/NRR—2007/002 Lisa K. Garrett National Park Service, Upper Columbia Basin Network University of Idaho, Department of Fish and Wildlife Moscow, ID 83844-1136 Thomas J. Rodhouse National Park Service, Upper Columbia Basin Network Central Oregon Community College 2600 NW College Way - Ponderosa Building Bend, OR 97701-5998 Gordon H. Dicus National Park Service, Upper Columbia Basin Network University of Idaho, Department of Fish and Wildlife Moscow, ID 83844-1136 Christopher C. Caudill, Ph.D. University of Idaho, Department of Fish and Wildlife Moscow, ID 83844-1136 Mackenzie R. Shardlow University of Idaho, Department of Fish and Wildlife Moscow, ID 83844-1136 July 2007 Upper Columbia Basin Network The Natural Resource Publication series addresses natural resource topics that are of inter- est and applicability to a broad readership in the National Park Service and to others in the management of natural resources, including the scientific community, the public, and the NPS conservation and environmental constituencies. Manuscripts are peer-reviewed to en- sure that the information is scientifically credible, technically accurate, appropriately written for the intended audience, and is designed and published in a professional manner. Natural Resource Reports are the designated medium for disseminating high priority, cur- rent natural resource management information with managerial application. The series tar- gets a general, diverse audience, and may contain NPS policy considerations or address sen- sitive issues of management applicability. Examples of the diverse array of reports published in this series include vital signs monitoring plans; “how to” resource management papers; proceedings of resource management workshops or conferences; annual reports of resource programs or divisions of the Natural Resource Program Center; resource action plans; fact sheets; and regularly-published newsletters. Views and conclusions in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect policies of the National Park Service. Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use by the National Park Service. Printed copies of reports in these series may be produced in a limited quantity and they are only available as long as the supply lasts. This report is also available from the Upper Colum- bia Basin I&M Network website (http://www.nature.nps.gov/im/units/ucbn/) on the inter- net, or by sending a request to the address on the back cover. Please cite this publication as: Garrett, L. K., T. J. Rodhouse, G. H. Dicus, C. C. Caudill, and M. R. Shardlow. 2007. Up- per Columbia Basin Network vital signs monitoring plan. Natural Resource Report NPS/ UCBN/NRR—2007/002. National Park Service, Fort Collins, Colorado. NPS D-025, July 2007 Appendixes Contents Page Appendix A. Legislation and Policy .......................................................................................... 1 A.1. Summary of Federal Legislation and Policy Related to Inventory and Monitoring ...................................................................................................................... 1 A.2. Designation of National Park System Units ............................................................... 5 A.3. Resource Management and General Management Plan Summaries...................... 7 A.4. Charter of the UCBN................................................................................................... 13 Appendix B. Ecological Context.............................................................................................. 19 B.1. Vertebrate Species of Greatest Conservation Need................................................ 19 B.2. Areas Currently Managed for the Long-term Maintenance of Biodiversity within 16 km (10 mi) of Upper Columbia Basin Parks ............................. 24 B.3. Soil Descriptions ............................................................................................25 B.4. Geoclimatic Characteristics Compiled by the ICBEMP for Ecological Reporting Units................................................................................................. 27 B.5. Description of Geologic Sections of the Columbia Plateau ................................... 28 B.6. Descriptions of Major Vegetation Types .................................................................. 32 B.7. Descriptions of Associated Fauna.............................................................................. 38 B.8. Water Quality Threats.................................................................................................. 43 B.9. Literature Cited for Appendix B................................................................................. 48 Appendix C. Conceptual models............................................................................................. 55 C.1. Cultural Landscapes. ................................................................................................... 55 C.2. Sagebrush-Steppe Ecosystems ................................................................................... 61 C.3. Forest and Woodland Ecosystems ............................................................................ 70 National Park Service iii Upper Columbia Basin Network Page C.4. Riparian Ecosystems.................................................................................................... 81 C.5. Aquatic Ecosystems...................................................................................................... 89 C.6. Landscape Dynamics.................................................................................................102 C.7. Literature Cited for Appendix C..............................................................................106 Appendix D. Workshop Handouts and Results..................................................................125 D.1. Resource Managers Responses to Significant Management Issues Questionnaire (2002 Vital Signs Monitoring Workshop) ............................................125 D.2. Conceptual Model Developed from Vital Signs Monitoring Workshop (2002) ...............................................................................................................128 D.3. Potential UCBN Partners..........................................................................................129 D.4. Invasive Plant Species of Special Concern .............................................................130 D.5. Prioritized Stressors Affecting Park Natural Resources ......................................132 D.6. Vital Signs and Associated Monitoring Objectives from Phase I........................134 D.7. Screen Captures from the Microsoft ACCESS Database Used to Help Prioritize Vital Signs.................................................................................................139 D.8. Criteria for Ranking Vital Signs ...............................................................................142 D.9. Top 10 Prioritized Vital Signs for Individual Parks ..............................................144 Appendix E. Sources for Monitoring Data ..........................................................................147 E.1. Existing Monitoring Programs at Craters of the Moon National Monument and Preserve...................................................................................................147 E.2. Available Geographic Information System (GIS) and Remotely Sensed (RS) Data ................................................................................................................149 E.3. Regional Monitoring..................................................................................................153 iv Monitoring Plan Appendixes Contents Page Appendix F. Protocol Development Summaries.................................................................159 F.1. Aspen Protocol Development Summary.................................................................159 F.2. Bats Protocol Development Summary.....................................................................163 F.3. Camas Lily Protocol Development Summary ........................................................171 F.4. Integrated Riparian Condition Protocol Development Summary ......................176 F.5. Integrated Water Quality Protocol Development Summary................................181 F.6. Invasive/Exotic Plants Protocol Development Summary.....................................186 F.7. Land Cover and Use Protocol Development Summary.................................. 190 F.8. Limber Pine Protocol Development Summary ......................................................195 F.9. Osprey Protocol Development Summary ...............................................................199 F.10. Sagebrush-Steppe Vegetation Protocol Development Summary......................203 F.11. Sage Grouse Protocol Development Summary....................................................208 Appendix G. Species and Acronyms Lists............................................................................213
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Nez Perce Tribe Conducted a Year Long Community Monitoring
    Lewiston-Clarkston Valley Formaldehyde Study Page 1 of 10 Project Title: Lewiston – Clarkston Valley Formaldehyde Study (Community-Scale Monitoring) Applicant: Nez Perce Tribe Environmental Restoration & Waste Management Division Air Quality Program P.O. Box 365 Lapwai, ID 83540 Julie Simpson, Air Quality Program Coordinator phone 208.621.3818 fax 208.843.7411 [email protected] Funding Requested: $418,789 Total Project Cost: $418,789 Project Period: May 1, 2015 - April 30, 2018 DUNS number: 078208303 Lewiston-Clarkston Valley Formaldehyde Study Page 2 of 10 Basis and Rationale: Submitted to the Community-Scale Monitoring category, the proposed Lewiston- Clarkston (LC) Valley Formaldehyde (HCHO) Study will identify sources of elevated carbonyls found in the year long community monitoring assessment the Nez Perce Tribe (NPT) conducted in 2006/2007 in the Lewiston-Clarkston Valley (LC Valley) and on the Nez Perce Reservation in North Central Idaho. (http://www.nezperce.org/Official/Air%20Quality/Airtoxics/airtoxics.htm). Data analysis results and recommendations competed by Sonoma Technology, Inc. for the 2006/2007 study clearly identified the need for additional research (McCarthy et al, 2009): Concentrations of formaldehyde [HCHO] and acetaldehyde were much higher than expected for an area of Lewiston’s size. Because HCHO is the largest contributor to cancer risk among the pollutants measured and acetaldehyde is a significant contributor, this result is significant. Concentrations of HCHO and acetaldehyde were highest in the summer months but did not appear to be related to special events like large wildfires. Secondary production of HCHO and acetaldehyde are most likely to be responsible for the seasonal pattern but it is unclear why concentrations are higher in the Lewiston area than at other sites in the Inland Northwest.
    [Show full text]
  • ISAB Food Web Review: Fish Production & Restoration
    ISAB – Presentation to Columbia River Estuary Conference, Astoria, Oregon May 26, 2010 Independent Scientific Advisory Board for the Northwest Power and Conservation Council, Columbia River Basin Indian Tribes, and National Marine Fisheries Service 851 SW 6th Avenue, Suite 1100 Portland, Oregon 97204 J. Richard Alldredge, Ph.D., Professor of Statistics at Washington State University. *David Beauchamp, Ph.D, Cooperative Fish Research Unit at U of Washington James Congleton, Ph.D., Emeritus Fisheries Professor, University of Idaho *Charles Henny, Ph.D., Emeritus Scientist, USGS Nancy Huntly, Ph.D., Professor of Wildlife Biology at Idaho State University. Roland Lamberson, Ph.D., Professor of Mathematics and Director of Environmental Systems Graduate Program at Humboldt State University. Colin Levings, Ph.D., Scientist Emeritus and Sessional Researcher at Centre for Aquaculture and Environmental Research, Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Canada. Robert J. Naiman, Ph.D., Professor of Aquatic and Fishery Sciences at U of Washington William Pearcy, Ph.D., Professor Emeritus of Oceanography at Oregon State University. Bruce Rieman, PhD, Research Scientist Emeritus, U.S. Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station *Greg Ruggerone, Ph.D., Fisheries Scientist for Natural Resources Consultants, Affiliated Research Scientist Alaska Salmon Program, U of Washington Dennis Scarnecchia, Ph. D., Professor of Fish and Wildlife Resources at University of Idaho. Peter Smouse, Ph.D., Professor of Ecology, Evolution, and Natural Resources at Rutgers
    [Show full text]
  • Idaho PM Technical Note 2B (Revise): Plants for Pollinators in the Inland Northwest
    TECHNICAL NOTE USDA – Natural Resources Conservation Service Boise, Idaho - Spokane, Washington ______________________________________________________________________________ TN PLANT MATERIALS NO. 2B OCTOBER 2011 REVISION Plants for Pollinators in the Inland Northwest Dan Ogle, Plant Materials Specialist, NRCS, Boise, Idaho Pamela Pavek, Agronomist, NRCS Plant Materials Center, Pullman, Washington Richard Fleenor, Plant Materials Specialist, NRCS, Spokane, Washington Mark Stannard, Manager, NRCS Plant Materials Center, Pullman, Washington Tim Dring, State Biologist, NRCS, Spokane, Washington Jim Cane, Bee Biology and Systematics Lab, ARS, Logan, Utah Karen Fullen, State Biologist, NRCS, Boise, Idaho Loren St. John, Manager, NRCS Plant Materials Center, Aberdeen, Idaho Derek Tilley, Agronomist, NRCS Plant Materials Center, Aberdeen, Idaho Brownbelted bumble bee (Bombus griseocollis) visiting a blanketflower (Gaillardia aristata). Pamela Pavek The purpose of this Technical Note is to provide guidance for the design and implementation of conservation plantings to enhance habitat for pollinators including: bees, wasps, butterflies, moths and hummingbirds. Plant species included in this document are adapted to the Inland Northwest, which encompasses northern Idaho, northeastern Oregon and eastern Washington. For species adapted to southern Idaho, southeastern Oregon, northern Nevada and northern Utah, refer to Idaho Plant Materials Technical Note 2A. For lists of species adapted to western Washington and western Oregon, refer to the Oregon
    [Show full text]
  • Order/ Loc. Type Name Location County Adj. 1/ POOL PLANTS 1. POOL DISTRIBUTING PLANTS (Sec. 1124.7(A Or B)) Alpenrose Dairy
    LIST OF PLANTS - JANUARY 1, 2002 PACIFIC NORTHWEST MARKETING AREA (FO 124) Order/ Loc. Type Name Location County Adj. 1/ POOL PLANTS 1. POOL DISTRIBUTING PLANTS (Sec. 1124.7(a or b)) Alpenrose Dairy, Inc. Portland, OR Multnomah $ - Andersen Dairy, Inc. Battle Ground, WA Clark $ - Eberhard Creamery, Inc. Redmond, OR Deschutes $ (0.15) Inland Northwest Dairies, L.L.C. Spokane, WA Spokane $ - Safeway 85, Inc. Moses Lake, WA Grant $ (0.15) Safeway Stores, Inc. Bellevue, WA King $ - Safeway Stores, Inc. Clackamas, OR Clackamas $ - Sunshine Dairy, Inc. Portland, OR Multnomah $ - The Kroger Co., Swan Island Dairy Portland, OR Multnomah $ - Umpqua Dairy Products Co., Inc. Roseburg, OR Douglas $ - Vitamilk Dairy, Inc. Seattle, WA King $ - WestFarm Foods Medford, OR Jackson $ - WestFarm Foods Portland, OR Multnomah $ - WestFarm Foods Seattle, WA King $ - Wilcox Dairy Farms, L.L.C. Cheney, WA Spokane $ - Wilcox Dairy Farms, L.L.C. Roy, WA Pierce $ - Wilcox Dairy Farms, L.L.C. (d/b/a Curly's) Salem, OR Marion $ - Zottola Dairy Products, Inc. Grants Pass, OR Josephine $ - d/b/a Valley of the Rogue Dairy 2. POOL SUPPLY PLANTS (Sec. 1124.7(c)) Farmers Cooperative Creamery McMinnville, OR Yamhill $ - Tillamook County Creamery Assn. Tillamook, OR Tillamook $ - NONPOOL PLANTS 5. OTHER ORDER PLANTS DISTRIBUTING OR TRANSFERRING FLUID MILK PRODUCTS INTO THE MARKETING AREA (Sec. 1124.8(a)) Gossner Foods, Inc. (FO 135) Logan, UT Cache $ - Lifeway Foods, Inc. (FO 30) Morton Grove, IL Cook $ (0.10) Parmalat White Knight Corp. (FO 33) Wyoming, MI Kent $ (0.10) Page 1 of 12 LIST OF PLANTS - JANUARY 1, 2002 PACIFIC NORTHWEST MARKETING AREA (FO 124) Order/ Loc.
    [Show full text]
  • The Ecology of the Earth's Grazing Ecosystems
    The Ecology of the Earth's Grazing Ecosystems Douglas A. Frank; Samuel J. McNaughton; Benjamin F. Tracy BioScience, Vol. 48, No. 7. (Jul., 1998), pp. 513-521. Stable URL: http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0006-3568%28199807%2948%3A7%3C513%3ATEOTEG%3E2.0.CO%3B2-E BioScience is currently published by American Institute of Biological Sciences. Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/about/terms.html. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at http://www.jstor.org/journals/aibs.html. Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. The JSTOR Archive is a trusted digital repository providing for long-term preservation and access to leading academic journals and scholarly literature from around the world. The Archive is supported by libraries, scholarly societies, publishers, and foundations. It is an initiative of JSTOR, a not-for-profit organization with a mission to help the scholarly community take advantage of advances in technology. For more information regarding JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. http://www.jstor.org Mon Oct 29 19:30:32 2007 The Ecology of the Earth's brazing Ecosystems Profound functional similarities exist between the Serengeti and Yellowstone Douglas A.
    [Show full text]
  • WORK PLAN BEAVERHEAD RIVER WATERSHED UPDATED: January 2009
    WORK PLAN BEAVERHEAD RIVER WATERSHED UPDATED: January 2009 INTRODUCTION PURPOSE The purpose for this watershed plan is to: (1) Identify and document resource concerns within the watershed, both water and non- water related. (2) Prioritize those concerns (3) Outline objectives and methods of addressing those concerns (4) Provide guidance in the implementation of action plans and other associated watershed activities. This document will be maintained as a guide for watershed activities, and will be updated annually to reflect current circumstances in the watershed including reprioritization of concerns and addition of new areas of concentration. BEAVERHEAD RIVER WATERSHED COMMITTEE – MISSION STATEMENT The mission of the Beaverhead Watershed Committee is to seek an understanding of the watershed – how it functions and supports the human communities dependent upon it – and to build agreement on watershed-related planning issues among stakeholders with diverse viewpoints. Goals: . Provide a mechanism and forum for landowners, citizens, and agencies to work together to: . Identify problems and concerns both riparian and non-riparian, urban and rural. Reach agreement upon the priority of and methods for addressing those concerns. Act as a conduit between local interests and agencies for purposes of procuring the funding and non-monetary assistance necessary to begin systematically addressing priority concerns. Foster a cooperative environment where conflict is avoided, and work to resolve conflict as necessary for the watershed effort to move forward. Stay abreast of opportunities, issues, and developments that could be either beneficial or detrimental to the watershed or segments of the watershed. Keep stakeholders appropriately informed. Objectives: . Continuous Improvement – Maintain a broad range of active improvement projects/programs relating to diverse attributes of the watershed.
    [Show full text]
  • MAP SHOWING LOCATIONS of MINES and PROSPECTS in the DILLON Lox 2° QUADRANGLE, IDAHO and MONTANA
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY MAP SHOWING LOCATIONS OF MINES AND PROSPECTS IN THE DILLON lox 2° QUADRANGLE, IDAHO AND MONTANA By JeffreyS. Loen and Robert C. Pearson Pamphlet to accompany Miscellaneous Investigations Series Map I-1803-C Table !.--Recorded and estimated production of base and precious metals in mining districts and areas in the Dillon 1°x2° guadrangle, Idaho and Montana [Production of other commodities are listed in footnotes. All monetary values are given in dollars at time of production. Dashes indicate no information available. Numbers in parentheses are estimates by the authors or by those cited as sources of data in list that follows table 2. <,less than; s.t., short tons] District/area Years Ore Gold Silver Copper Lead Zinc Value Sources name (s. t.) (oz) (oz) (lb) (lb) (lb) (dollars) of data Idaho Carmen Creek 18 70's-190 1 (50,000) 141, 226 district 1902-1980 (unknown) Total (50,000) Eldorado 1870's-1911 17,500 (350 ,000) 123, 226 district 1912-1954 (13,000) (8,000) (300,000) Total (650,000) Eureka district 1880's-1956 (13 ,500) 12,366 (2,680,000) 57,994 (4,000) ( 4,000 ,000) 173 Total (4,000,000) Gibbonsville 1877-1893 (unknown) district 1894-1907 (83,500) (1,670,000) 123, 226 1908-1980 ( <10 ,000) 123 Total (2,000,000) Kirtley Creek 1870's-1890 2,000 40,500 173 district 1890's-1909 (<10,000) 1910-1918 24,300 (500 ,000) 123 1919-1931 (unknown) 1932-1947 2,146 (75 ,000) 173 Total (620,000) McDevitt district 1800's.-1980 (80,000) Total (80,000) North Fork area 1800's-1980 (unknown) Total ( <10 ,000) Pratt Creek 1870's-1900 (50 ,000) district Total (50,000) Sandy Creek 1800 's-1900 (unknown) district 1901-1954 19,613 4,055 4,433 71,359 166,179 (310,000) 17 3, 200 Total (310 ,000) Montana Anaconda Range 1880's-1980 (<100,000) area Total (<100,000) Argenta district 1864-1901 (1 ,500 ,000) 1902-1965 311,796 72,241 562,159 604,135 18,189,939 2,009,366 5,522,962 88 Total (7,000,000) Baldy Mtn.
    [Show full text]
  • Institutes for Higher Education Faculty:The Native American West
    Narrative Section of a Successful Application The attached document contains the grant narrative and selected portions of a previously-funded grant application. It is not intended to serve as a model, but to give you a sense of how a successful application may be crafted. Every successful application is different, and each applicant is urged to prepare a proposal that reflects its unique project and aspirations. Prospective applicants should consult the current Institutes guidelines, which reflect the most recent information and instructions, at https://www.neh.gov/grants/education/institutes-higher-education-faculty Applicants are also strongly encouraged to consult with the NEH Division of Education Programs staff well before a grant deadline. Note: The attachment only contains the grant narrative and selected portions, not the entire funded application. In addition, certain portions may have been redacted to protect the privacy interests of an individual and/or to protect confidential commercial and financial information and/or to protect copyrighted materials. Project Title: The Native American West: A Case Study of the Columbia Plateau Institution: Whitman College Project Directors: Laurie Arnold and Christopher Leise Grant Program: Institutes for Higher Education Faculty The Native American West: A Case Study of the Columbia Plateau Summer Institute for College and University Teachers Table of Contents 1. Narrative………………………………………………………………….1 2. Budget …………………………………………………………………..16 3. Appendices……………………………………………………………...18 A. Detailed
    [Show full text]
  • Beacon Community of the Inland Northwest (Spokane, WA)
    Beacon Community of the Inland Northwest (Spokane, WA) Overview and Goals The Beacon Community of the Inland Northwest (BCIN) is one of 17 Beacon Communities building and strengthening local health IT infrastructure and testing innovative approaches to make measurable improvements in health, care and cost. Meaningful Use of electronic health records (EHR) is the foundation of the exciting work in each community. Funded by the Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology, BCIN focuses on clinical practice transformation through a robust technology framework, clinical decision support tools, and care coordination to improve care for patients with type 2 diabetes in eastern Washington and north Idaho, the hospital referral region around Spokane, Washington. Patients in this largely rural region receive care at many different locations and from many different providers. BCIN is focused on: Improving regional outcomes for the type 2 diabetes population by integrating and coordinating care across clinical settings Implementing a comprehensive, regional approach to disease management, with standardized metrics and evidence-based clinical decision support tools Achieving optimal outcomes by leveraging IT applications that support information exchange, patient referrals, and coordinated care for patients with type 2 diabetes across a large geographical area Implementing a sustainable reimbursement model, linked in part to programs that reward community-level performance Partners BCIN’s major partners include: Community Choice, Eastern Washington Critical Access Hospital Network, Washington State Department of Health, and the Washington Academy of Family Physicians. Last Update: October 25, 2012 1 Beacon Community of the Inland Northwest Background “Beacon Community of Inland Northwest has provided us the ability to keep our Total grant award $15,702,479 over 3 years primary care physicians involved in the Lead grantee Inland Northwest Health overall care, and that provides better Services care-more coordinated care.
    [Show full text]
  • Idaho, Oregon, Washington
    Ecoregions of the Pacific Northwest (Idaho, Oregon, Washington) Ecoregions are areas where ecosystems (and the type, quality, and quantity of environmental resources) are (USDA)–Natural Resources Conservation Service, USDA–Forest Service, U.S. Geological Survey, and the Omernik, J.M., 1987, Ecoregions of the conterminous United States (map supplement): Annals of the Association of generally similar. They are designed to serve as a spatial framework for the research, assessment, Bureau of Land Management. The mapping was associated with an interagency effort to develop a common American Geographers, v. 77, no. 1, p. 118-125, scale 1:7,500,000. management, and monitoring of ecosystems and ecosystem components. These Level III and IV ecoregions, framework of ecological regions (McMahon and others, 2001). Although there are differences in the Omernik, J.M., 1995, Ecoregions – a framework for environmental management, in Davis, W.S. and Simon, T.P., eds., compiled at a scale of 1:250,000, revise and subdivide an earlier, smaller-scale national ecoregion map conceptual approaches and mapping methodologies used by the different federal agencies for developing Biological assessment and criteria-tools for water resource planning and decision making: Boca Raton, Florida, Lewis (Omernik, 1987). The ecoregions were identified by analyzing the spatial patterns and the composition of their own regional frameworks, these collaborative ecoregion projects were a step toward attaining Publishers, p. 49-62. biotic and abiotic phenomena that affect or reflect differences in ecosystem quality and integrity (Omernik, consensus and consistency in ecoregion frameworks for the entire nation. Omernik, J.M., 2004, Perspectives on the nature and definition of ecological regions: Environmental Management, v.
    [Show full text]
  • September 30, 2009
    Final Report Nez Perce National Air Toxics Program Characterization of Air Toxics Concentrations around a Kraft Pulp and Paper Mill Facility, Lewiston, Idaho EPA Assistance ID No. XA-97079001-3 Nez Perce Tribe Environmental Restoration and Waste Management Division Air Quality Program September 30, 2009 1 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page Purpose of Study………………………………………………………………………………… 5 Methods…………………………………………………………………………………………. 8 Monitoring and Network Design………………………………………………………… 8 Sampling Analysis Methods…………………………………………………………….. 10 Carbonyls Monitoring and Analysis…………………………………………….. 11 PM-10 Monitoring and Analysis………………………………………………… 11 Metals Monitoring and Analysis………………………………………………... 11 VOC Monitoring and Analysis………………………………………………….. 11 Formaldehyde Special Study (DOAS)………………………………………….. 11 Emission Tracking with a Mobile Laboratory (PTR-MS)………………………. 12 Emissions Inventory…………………………………………………………………….. 12 Modeling………………………………………………………………………………… 12 Data and Risk Analysis…………………………………………………………………. 12 Results…………………………………………………………………………………………… 13 Sample Analysis………………………………………………………………………… 13 Formaldehyde Special Study (DOAS)………………………………………………….. 13 Emission Tracking with a Mobile Laboratory (PTR-MS)……………………………… 13 Modeling………………………………………………………………………………… 14 CMAQ…………………………………………………………………………… 14 CALPUFF………………………………………………………………………. 17 Risk Analysis – BCEH/ATSDR………………………………………………………… 18 Acute and Chronic Risks………………………………………………………… 19 Cancer Risks…………………………………………………………………….. 19 Recommendations……………………………………………………………….. 22 Data Analysis
    [Show full text]
  • HRCCWPP 2013 Draft1.1
    Table of Contents Introduction ..............................................................................................................7 Vision ..............................................................................................................8 Goals ...............................................................................................................9 Purpose ............................................................................................................9 Who 9 What 10 Where ............................................................................................................10 Why 10 When .............................................................................................................10 How 11 Organization ..................................................................................................11 Funding .........................................................................................................12 Impetus and Planning Steps ...................................................................................14 Policies and Tools .........................................................................................14 Defining the Wildland/Urban Interface ........................................................16 Planning Steps ...............................................................................................17 The 2005 Hood River CWPP Planning Process ...........................................18 Hood River CWPP Update Process ..............................................................18
    [Show full text]