DOCSLIB.ORG

AG Management Plan

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
AG Management Plan Environmental Assessment Agricultural Management Plan Umatilla Indian Reservation Umatilla County, Oregon August 2015 Lead Agency: USDI Bureau of Indian Affairs Umatilla Agency P.O. Box 520 Pendleton, OR 97801 Cooperating Agency: Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation 46411 Timine Way Pendleton, OR 97801 Responsible Official: MICHAEL JACKSON, Superintendent Umatilla Agency Pendleton, OR 97801 (541)278-3786 For Further Information Contact: Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation 46411 Timine Way Pendleton, OR 97801 (541)276-3447 Prepared by: Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation Department of Natural Resources Range, Agriculture and Forestry Program 46411 Timine Way Pendleton, OR 97801 Draft Agricultural Management Environmental Assessment 9/21/20158/10/2015 1 This page left blank intentionally. Draft Agricultural Management Environmental Assessment 9/21/20158/10/2015 2 Table of Contents Figure 1: Reservation Map .................................................................................................................................. 8 Chapter One: Purpose and Need ................................................................................................................................. 10 1.1 Background Information ................................................................................................................................10 1.2 Purpose and Need .....................................................................................................................................16 1.3 Nature of Decision .....................................................................................................................................16 1.4 Primary Issues and Concerns .....................................................................................................................16 1.4.1 Soil Quality and Erosion ..........................................................................................................................17 1.4.2 Water Quality ..........................................................................................................................................18 1.4.3 Wildlife and Fish Habitat ........................................................................................................................19 1.4.4 Air Quality ..............................................................................................................................................20 1.4.5 Monitoring and Evaluation .....................................................................................................................21 1.4.6 Weed Control ..........................................................................................................................................21 1.4.7 Idle lands .................................................................................................................................................22 1.5 Other Issues and Concerns .........................................................................................................................23 1.5.1 Threatened and Endangered Species .......................................................................................................23 1.5.2 Implementation Costs ..............................................................................................................................24 1.5.3 Cost/Benefit Analysis .............................................................................................................................24 1.5.4 Cultural Resources and Traditional Uses ................................................................................................25 1.5.5 Transportation .........................................................................................................................................26 1.5.6 Tribal, Public, and Inter-Governmental Relationships ............................................................................26 1.5.7 Lease Compliance ...................................................................................................................................27 Chapter Two: Alternatives Including Proposed Action ............................................................................................ 28 2.1 Permits Required to Implement Alternatives .............................................................................................28 2.2 Goals and Objectives ..................................................................................................................................28 2.2.1 Element 1 Soil Quality and Erosion ........................................................................................................28 2.2.2 Element 2 Water Quality .........................................................................................................................28 2.2.3 Element 3 Wildlife and Fish Habitat ......................................................................................................28 2.2.4 Element 4 Air Quality ............................................................................................................................29 2.2.5 Element 5 Monitoring and Evaluation ....................................................................................................29 2.2.6 Element 6 Weed Control .........................................................................................................................29 2.2.7 Element 7 Idle Lands ..............................................................................................................................30 2.2.8 Element 8 Threatened and Endangered Species .....................................................................................30 2.2.9 Element 9 Implementation Costs ............................................................................................................30 2.2.10 Element 10 Cost/Benefit Analysis .....................................................................................................31 2.2.11 Element 11 Cultural Resources and Traditional Uses .......................................................................31 2.2.12 Element 12 Transportation ................................................................................................................31 2.2.13 Element 13 Tribal, Public, and Inter-Governmental Relationships ........................................................31 2.2.14 Element 14 Lease Compliance ...................................................................................................32 2.3 Standards and Guidelines ..................................................................................................................................32 2.3.1 Soil Quality and Erosion ..........................................................................................................................33 2.3.2 Water Quality ..........................................................................................................................................36 2.3.3 Wildlife and Fish Habitat .........................................................................................................................39 2.3.4 Air Quality ..............................................................................................................................................41 2.3.5 Monitoring and Evaluation ..................................................................................................................4243 2.3.6 Weed Control ..........................................................................................................................................43 2.3.7 Idle Lands ...............................................................................................................................................43 2.3.8 Threatened and Endangered Species .......................................................................................................45 2.3.9 Cultural Resources and Traditional Uses ................................................................................................46 2.3.10 Transportation .........................................................................................................................................47 2.3.11 Tribal, Public, and Inter-Governmental Relationships ............................................................................47 2.3.12 Lease Compliance ....................................................................................................................................48 2.4 Management Alternatives...........................................................................................................................48 2.4.2 ALTERNATIVE A – NO ACTION, MAINTAIN CURRENT MANAGENT PRACTICES .................50 Draft Agricultural Management Environmental Assessment 9/21/20158/10/2015 3 2.4.3 ALTERNATIVE B– ZERO OR POSITIVE SCI TRENDS AND A VOLUNTARY ONE-QUARTER (1/4) OF THE RMZ USED FOR THE INNER ZONE FOR 10 YEARS, THEN MANDATORY ONE-QUARTER (¼) OF THE RMZ USED FOR THE INNER ZONE THEREAFTER ......................................................................51 2.4.4 ALTERNATIVE C–ZERO OR POSITIVE SCI TRENDS AND A VOLUNTARY ONE-QUARTER (1/4) OF THE RMZ USED FOR THE INNER ZONE ................................................................................................53 2.5 Alternatives Analyzed but not Considered…………………………………………………………………..49
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Record of Decision (Rods)
    EPA/ROD/R10-96/143 1996 EPA Superfund Record of Decision: HANFORD 300-AREA (USDOE) EPA ID: WA2890090077 OU 01, 02 BENTON COUNTY, WA 07/17/1996 DECLARATION OF THE RECORD OF DECISION SITE NAME AND LOCATION USDOE Hanford 300 Area 300-FF-1 and 300-FF-5 Operable Units Hanford Site Benton County, Washington STATEMENT OF BASIS AND PURPOSE This decision document presents the selected final remedial and interim actions for portions of the USDOE Hanford 300 Area, Hanford Site, Benton County, Washington, which were chosen in accordance with the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA), as amended by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA), and to the extent practicable, the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP). This decision is based on the administrative record for this site. The Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology) concurs with the selected remedies. ASSESSMENT OF THE SITE Actual or threatened releases of hazardous substances from this site, if not addressed by implementing the response actions selected in this Record of Decision (ROD), may present an imminent and substantial endangerment to public health, welfare, or the environment. DESCRIPTION OF THE SELECTED REMEDIES This ROD addresses actual or threatened releases from the wastes sites in the 300-FF-1 Operable Unit and the groundwater in the 300-FF-5 Operable Unit. 300-FF-1 and 300-FF-5 are two of the three operable units that comprise the USDOE Hanford 300 Area National Priorities List site. The third operable unit (300-FF-2) consists of the remaining waste sites in the 300 Area NPL site and any associated groundwater that is not part of 300-FF-5.
    [Show full text]
  • Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Vascular Plants in Oregon
    RARE, THREATENED AND ENDANGERED VASCULAR PLANTS IN OREGON --AN INTERIM REPORT i •< . * •• Jean L. Siddall Kenton . Chambers David H. Wagner L Vorobik. 779 OREGON NATURAL AREA PRESERVES ADVISORY COMMITTEE to the State Land Board Salem, October, 1979 Natural Area Preserves Advisory Committee to the State Land Board Victor Atiyeh Norma Paulus Clay Myers Governor Secretary of State State Treasurer Members Robert E. Frenkel (Chairman), Corvallis Bruce Nolf (Vice Chairman), Bend Charles Collins, Roseburg Richard Forbes, Portland Jefferson Gonor, Newport Jean L. Siddall, Lake Oswego David H. Wagner, Eugene Ex-Officio Members Judith Hvam Will iam S. Phelps Department of Fish and Wildlife State Forestry Department Peter Bond J. Morris Johnson State Parks and Recreation Division State System of Higher Education Copies available from: Division of State Lands, 1445 State Street, Salem,Oregon 97310. Cover: Darlingtonia californica. Illustration by Linda Vorobik, Eugene, Oregon. RARE, THREATENED AND ENDANGERED VASCULAR PLANTS IN OREGON - an Interim Report by Jean L. Siddall Chairman Oregon Rare and Endangered Plant Species Taskforce Lake Oswego, Oregon Kenton L. Chambers Professor of Botany and Curator of Herbarium Oregon State University Corvallis, Oregon David H. Wagner Director and Curator of Herbarium University of Oregon Eugene, Oregon Oregon Natural Area Preserves Advisory Committee Oregon State Land Board Division of State Lands Salem, Oregon October 1979 F O R E W O R D This report on rare, threatened and endangered vascular plants in Oregon is a basic document in the process of inventorying the state's natural areas * Prerequisite to the orderly establishment of natural preserves for research and conservation in Oregon are (1) a classification of the ecological types, and (2) a listing of the special organisms, which should be represented in a comprehensive system of designated natural areas.
    [Show full text]
  • Pacific Northwest National Laboratory Operated by Battelle for the U.S
    PNNL-6415 Rev. 10 UC-600 Pacific Northwest National Laboratory Operated by Battelle for the U.S. Department of Energy Hanford Site National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Characterization D. A. Neitzel, Editor C.I. Fosmire D. J. Hoitmk R. A. Fowler T. M. Poston S M. Goodwin A. C. Rohay D. W. Harvey P. D. Thome PL. Hendrickson M K. Wright HEC£"'€' SEP 2 41998 September 1998 OST! DISTRIBUTION OF THIS DOCUMENT IS IM.IWTH) MASTER I-1 o Prepared for the U.S. Department of Energy under Contract DE-AC06-76RLG 1830 5 DISCLAIMER This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States CovemmenL Neither the United States Covemment nor any agency thereof, nor Battelle Memorial Institute, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government or any agency thereof, or Battelle Memorial Institute. The views and opin ions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government or any agency thereof. PACIFIC NORTHWEST NATIONAL LABORATORY operated by BATTELLE for the UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY under Contract DE-AC06-76RLO 1830 Printed in the United States of America Available to DOE and DOE contractors from the Office of Scientific and Technical Information, P.O.
    [Show full text]
  • Rare, Threatened and Endangered Vascular Plant Species of Oregon
    Rare, Threatened and Endangered Vascular Plant Species of Oregon An excerpt of the Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Species of Oregon publication April 2019 Oregon Biodiversity Information Center Portland State University Portland, Oregon Scientific Name Ecoregion; Adjacent States Heritage Federal ODA ORBIC Common Name Oregon Counties Rank Status Status List Vascular Plants Abronia latifolia Eschsch. CR; CA, WA G5 -- -- 4 Yellow sandverbena Clat, Coos, Curr, Doug, Lane, Linc, Till S3 Abronia mellifera Dougl. ex Hook. BR, CB, EC; ID, WA + G4 -- -- 3 White sandverbena Gill, Harn, Hood, Malh, Morr, Sher, Umat, Wasc SNR Abronia turbinata Torr. ex S. Wats. BR; CA, ID, NV, AZ G5 -- -- 2 Trans montane abronia Harn, Malh S1 Abronia umbellata Lam. var. breviflora (Standl.) CR; CA, WA, BC G4G5T2 SOC LE 1 L.A. Galloway Clat, Coos, Curr, Doug, Lane, Linc, Till S1 Pink sandverbena Achnatherum hendersonii (Vasey) Barkworth BM, CB; WA G3 -- C 1 Henderson ricegrass Croo, Gran, Sher, Wasc S2 Achnatherum nevadense (B.L. Johnson) BM, BR; CA, ID, NV + G4 -- -- 2 Barkworth Bake, Harn, Malh S2 Nevada needlegrass Achnatherum pinetorum (M.E. Jones) Barkworth BR; CA, ID, NV + G4 -- -- 4 Pine needlegrass Harn S3 Achnatherum richardsonii (Link) Barkworth BM; WA + G5 -- -- 2 Richardson's needlegrass Umat, Unio S2? Achnatherum wallowaense J.R. Maze & K.A. BM G2G3 -- -- 1 Robson Croo, Wall S2S3 Wallowa ricegrass Achnatherum webberi (Thurb.) Barkworth BR; CA, ID, NV + G4 -- -- 4 Webber needlegrass Harn, Lake, Malh S3 Adiantum jordanii C. Muell. CR, KM; CA G4G5 -- -- 2 California maiden-hair Coos, Curr, Doug, Jack, Jose S2 Adiantum shastense Huiet & A.R. Sm.
    [Show full text]
  • Rare, Threatened, and Endangered
    Oregon Biodiversity Information Center Institute for Natural Resources Portland State University P.O. Box 751, Mail Stop: INR Portland, OR 97207-0751 (503) 725-9950 http://inr.oregonstate.edu/orbic With assistance from: U.S. Forest Service Bureau of Land Management U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service NatureServe OregonFlora at Oregon State University The Nature Conservancy Oregon Parks and Recreation Department Oregon Department of State Lands Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife Oregon Department of Agriculture Native Plant Society of Oregon Compiled and published by the following staff at the Oregon Biodiversity Information Center: Jimmy Kagan, Director/Ecologist Sue Vrilakas, Botanist/Data Manager Eleanor Gaines, Zoologist Lindsey Wise, Botanist/Data Manager Michael Russell, Botanist/Ecologist Cayla Sigrah, GIS and Database Support Specialist Cover Photo: Charadrius nivosus (Snowy plover chick and adult). Photo by Cathy Tronquet. ORBIC Street Address: Portland State University, Science and Education Center, 2112 SW Fifth Ave., Suite 140, Portland, Oregon, 97201 ORBIC Mailing Address: Portland State University, Mail Stop: INR, P.O. Box 751, Portland, Oregon 97207-0751 Bibliographic reference to this publication should read: Oregon Biodiversity Information Center. 2019. Rare, Threatened and Endangered Species of Oregon. Institute for Natural Resources, Portland State University, Portland, Oregon. 133 pp. CONTENTS Introduction ............................................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Report on Allium Columbia Basin Scientific Assessment Project
    1 REPORT ON ALLIUM COLUMBIA BASIN SCIENTIFIC ASSESSMENT PROJECT BY Dale W. McNeal Professor University of the Pacific Stockton, California 95211 Allium is-a primarily north temperate genus of between 600 and 700 species (Stern, 1991). In North America the genus is represented by 84 species. As-a general rule the species in the new world have a base chromosome number of x = 7 while those in the old world are x = 8 or 9. Only two species in North America, Allium schoenonrasum L. and A_.- tricoccum D. Solander are of the x = 8 group and A_. schoenoorasum is the only species in common between the old world and the new. Allium has been present in North America since at least the Tertiary (Raven & Axelrod, 1978) and has been subject to distributional displacement due to climatic changes several times during this period. At present the centers of distribution of the genus are thought to be the California Floristic Provence with about 44 species and Texas with about 14. The Western United States, particularly the states of Washington, Oregon, and California have by far the largest concentration of species, with 60 of the 84 North American species occurring within their boundaries. All Allium species are cryptophytes, arising from underground bulbs which, in.a few cases are attached to rhizomes. In the vast majority of species in the western U.S. vegetative growth occurs in the late winter or early spring, often under the snowpack: Flowering occurs shortly after snowmelt and seed set is complete before the soil dries out in the late spring or early summer.
    [Show full text]
  • Extinct and Extirpated Plants from Oregon
    Extinct and Extirpated Plants from Oregon By JIMMY KAGAN and SUSAN VRILAKAS Oregon is one of the most diverse states in the U.S., con- taxon, in Oregon and Washington. The most recent work, taining between six and ten nationally recognized ecoregions, Washington Natural Heritage Program Status Report (Gamon depending on various ecoregion classifications. The state in- 1986) determined that the taxon is probably extinct, and has cludes habitats which range from the moist and mild coast never been collected in Washington. However, until it is redwood forests of Curry County to the extremely dry playas rediscovered, there remains the possibility that it is not a of the Alvord Desert. Elevations range from coastal salt marsh- distinct variety, but intergrades into var. franklinii. es at sea level, to alpine peaks over 9,000 feet. Each habitat provides unique opportunities for plant evolution. Due to confusion and misidentification, it is recommended that the Thompson and Peck specimens at the Peck Herbari- Some areas, such as the Siskiyou Mountains of southwestern um at Oregon State University be carefully examined before Oregon and the Wallowa Mountains of northeastern Oregon, attempting to relocate Arenaria franklinii var. franklinii., have combinations of features which promote plant endemism. These include unique soils and varied elevations in old and Astragalus kentrophyta var. douglasii (Douglas' milk- geographically isolated landscapes. These factors have resulted vetch) — This is an unusual subspecies of a in entire suites of unique local species. widespread taxon. Astragalus kentrophyta is a small, low-growing, almost shrubby forb which occurs in Fortunately, significant parts of Oregon, including the Siskiyou variable habitats, from high-elevation alpine and Wallowa Mountains, still resemble the presettlement con- slopes to low-elevation sandy plains.
    [Show full text]
  • Vascular Plants of the Hanford Site
    PNNL-13688 Vascular Plants of the Hanford Site M. R. Sackschewsky J. L. Downs September 2001 Prepared for the U.S. Department of Energy under Contract DE-AC06-76RL01830 DISCLAIMER This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Government. Neither the United States Government nor any agency thereof, nor Battelle Memorial Institute, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government or any agency thereof, or Battelle Memorial Institute. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government or any agency thereof. PACIFIC NORTHWEST NATIONAL LABORATORY operated by BATTELLE for the UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY under Contract DE-AC06-76RL01830 Printed in the United States of America Available to DOE and DOE contractors from the Office of Scientific and Technical Information, P.O. Box 62, Oak Ridge, TN 37831-0062; ph: (865) 576-8401 fax: (865) 576-5728 email: [email protected] Available to the public from the National Technical Information Service, U.S. Department of Commerce, 5285 Port Royal Rd., Springfield, VA 22161 ph: (800) 553-6847 fax: (703) 605-6900 email: [email protected] online ordering: http://www.ntis.gov/ordering.htm This document was printed on recycled paper.
    [Show full text]
  • 2016. Rare, Threatened and Endangered Species of Oregon
    RARE, THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES OF OREGON OREGON BIODIVERSITY INFORMATION CENTER August 2016 Oregon Biodiversity Information Center Institute for Natural Resources Portland State University P.O. Box 751, Mail Stop: INR Portland, OR 97207-0751 (503) 725-9950 http://inr.oregonstate.edu/orbic With assistance from: U.S. Forest Service Bureau of Land Management U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service NatureServe Oregon Flora Project at Oregon State University The Nature Conservancy Oregon Parks and Recreation Department Oregon Department of State Lands Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife Oregon Department of Agriculture Native Plant Society of Oregon Compiled and published by the following staff at the Oregon Biodiversity Information Center: Jimmy Kagan, Director/Ecologist Sue Vrilakas, Botanist/Data Manager John Christy, Wetlands Ecologist/Bryologist Eleanor Gaines, Zoologist Lindsey Wise, Botanist/Data Manager Cameron Pahl, Data Specialist Kathy Howell, Volunteer Cover Photo: Botrychium pumicola (Pumice grape-fern) at Crater Lake National Park. Photo by Dan Mathews. ORBIC Street Address: Portland State University, Science and Education Center, 2112 SW Fifth Ave., Suite 140, Portland, Oregon, 97201 ORBIC Mailing Address: Portland State University, Mail Stop: INR, P.O. Box 751, Portland, Oregon 97207-0751 Bibliographic reference to this publication should read: Oregon Biodiversity Information Center. 2016. Rare, Threatened and Endangered Species of Oregon. Institute for Natural Resources, Portland State University, Portland, Oregon. 130
    [Show full text]
  • Draft 1/25/21 Bridge Creek Wildlife Area Management Plan Review
    DRAFT 1/25/21 BRIDGE CREEK WILDLIFE AREA MANAGEMENT PLAN REVIEW January 2021 Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife 4034 Fairview Industrial Drive SE Salem, Oregon 97302 [Type here] Table of Contents Executive Summary .......................................................................................................... 1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 4 Purpose of the Plan .......................................................................................................... 4 Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife Mission and Authority ..................................... 4 Purpose and Need of Bridge Creek Wildlife Area ........................................................... 4 Wildlife Area Goals and Objectives.................................................................................. 5 Wildlife Area Establishment ............................................................................................. 6 Description and Environment .......................................................................................... 7 Physical Resources........................................................................................................ 7 Location ........................................................................................................................ 7 Climate ......................................................................................................................... 7 Topography
    [Show full text]
  • Final Hanford Site Solid (Radioactive and Hazardous) Waste Program Environmental Impact Statement, Volume I
    4.0 Affected Environment The purpose of this section is to provide a description of the environment that might be affected by the alternatives discussed in Section 3. Because the Hanford Site is so large, the description includes much of the site itself, as well as the surrounding areas. Information used in this section was taken from the Hanford Site National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Characterization Report (Neitzel 2002a), unless otherwise noted. The affected environment section includes the following: • Land Use • Meteorology and Air Quality • Geology, Soils, and Seismology • Hydrology • Biology and Ecology • Cultural Resources • Socioeconomics • Noise • Occupational Safety • Occupational Radiation Exposure. 4.1 Introduction The focus of solid waste management activities related to the Hanford Solid (Radioactive and Hazardous) Waste Environmental Impact Statement (HSW EIS) is within the existing boundaries of the Hanford Site 200 Areas or at the Environmental Restoration and Disposal Facility (ERDF). Located on the Central Plateau (i.e., 200 Area Plateau) of the Hanford Site, the 200 East and 200 West Areas are approximately 8 and 11 km (5 and 7 mi), respectively, south and west of the Columbia River. The 200 Areas facilities were built to process irradiated fuel from the production reactors. Subsequent liquid wastes, produced as a result of the fuel processing, were placed in tanks or disposed of in cribs, ponds, or ditches in the 200 Areas. Treatment, storage, and disposal of solid wastes are accomplished in the 200 Areas. The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Hanford Site (Figure 4.1) lies within the semi-arid Pasco Basin of the Columbia Plateau in southeastern Washington State.
    [Show full text]
  • Draft Plant Propagation Protocol
    Plant Propagation Protocol for Phemeranthus sediformis (Poellnitz.) Kiger ESRM 412 – Native Plant Production Protocol URL: https://courses.washington.edu/esrm412/protocols/PHSE20 [3] [3] [3] TAXONOMY Plant Family Scientific Name Montiaceae [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6] Common Name(s) Montia family, Miner’s lettuce family [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6] Species Scientific Name Scientific Name Phemeranthus sediformis (Poellnitz.) Kiger [3, 4, 7, 8] Varieties None Sub-species None Cultivar None Common Synonym(s) Talinum okanoganense English Talinum sediforme Poellnitz Talinum wayae Eastwood [3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9] Common Name(s) Okanogan fameflower [3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9] Species Code (as per PHSE20 [8] USDA Plants database) GENERAL INFORMATION Geographical range Endemic to a small region of the inland northwest, ranging from south central B.C. to north central WA (only occurring east of the Cascades) [3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9]. [8] Ecological distribution Dry, open ridges, slopes, and grasslands, especially if rocky. Occurs mostly in the steppe and lower montane zones [3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9]. Climate and elevation Occurs in dry, rocky areas at elevations of 1000 to 2000 meters range (3280 to 6560 ft), but is most often found at elevations between 1000 and 1500 meters (3280 to 4920 ft) [3, 4, 7, 8, 9]. Local habitat and Only a handful of populations have been verified, but it’s suspected abundance that more populations exist on rocky, difficult-to-reach ridges and outcroppings in scattered locations within the species’ published geographic range. Furthermore, due to the plant’s extremely small stature, it’s possible that populations in already investigated areas have been overlooked [3, 6, 10, 11].
    [Show full text]