DOCSLIB.ORG

Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem, with Yellowstone at Its Core, Is One of the Largest Nearly Intact Temperate- Zone Ecosystems on Earth

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem, with Yellowstone at Its Core, Is One of the Largest Nearly Intact Temperate- Zone Ecosystems on Earth ECOSYSTEM The Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem, with Yellowstone at its core, is one of the largest nearly intact temperate- zone ecosystems on Earth. Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem At 3,437.5 square miles (8,903 km2),Yellowstone As development throughout the West increased, National Park forms the core of the Greater the 2.2 million acres (8,903 km2) of habitat that now Yellowstone Ecosystem—one of the largest nearly compose Yellowstone National Park became an intact temperate-zone ecosystems on Earth. Greater important sanctuary for the largest concentration of Yellowstone’s diversity of natural wealth includes wildlife in the lower 48 states. the hydrothermal features, wildlife, vegetation, lakes, The abundance and distribution of these animal and geologic wonders like the Grand Canyon of the species depend on their interactions with each other Yellowstone River. and on the quality of their habitats, which in turn is the result of thousands of years of volcanic activ- Heart of an Ecosystem ity, forest fires, changes in climate, and more recent Yellowstone National Park was established in 1872 natural and human influences. Most of the park primarily to protect geothermal areas that contain is above 7,500 feet (2,286 m) in elevation and un- about half the world’s active geysers. At that time, the derlain by volcanic bedrock. The terrain is covered natural state of the park was largely taken for granted. with snow for much of the year and supports forests Quick Facts Space and Ownership • Managed by state governments, Management Challenges • 12–22 million acres; 18,750– federal government, tribal • Climate change 34,375 square miles (Sizes, governments, and private • Invasive species boundaries, and descriptions of any individuals • Managing an ecosystem across ecosystem can vary.) Wildlife political boundaries • States: Wyoming, Montana, Idaho • One of the largest elk herds in • Land use change • Encompasses state lands, two North America national parks, portions of five • Largest free-roaming, wild herd of • In Yellowstone: national forests, three national bison in United States − Bison management wildlife refuges, Bureau of Land • One of few grizzly populations in − Grizzly bear management Management holdings, private and contiguous United States tribal lands. − Native fish conservation • Rare sightings of wolverine and lynx − High visitation Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem 53 dominated by lodgepole pine and interspersed with the Yellowstone Plateau itself is a result of uplift due alpine meadows. Sagebrush steppe and grasslands on to hot-spot volcanism. Today’s landforms even influ- the park’s lower-elevation ranges provide essential ence the weather, channeling westerly storm systems winter forage for elk, bison, and bighorn sheep. onto the plateau where they drop large amounts of snow. Influence of Geology The volcanic rhyolites and tuffs of the Yellowstone Geological characteristics form the foundation of Caldera are rich in quartz and potassium feldspar, an ecosystem. In Yellowstone, the interplay between which form nutrient-poor soils. Thus, areas of the volcanic, hydrothermal and glacial processes, and park underlain by rhyolites and tuffs generally are the distribution of flora and fauna, are intricate. The characterized by extensive stands of lodgepole pine, topography of the land from southern Idaho north- which are drought-tolerant and have shallow roots east to Yellowstone probably results from millions of that take advantage of the nutrients in the soil. years of hot-spot influence. Some scientists believe In contrast, andesitic volcanic rocks that underlie the Absaroka Mountains Billings ! are rich in calcium, mag- ! !Livingston ECOSYSTEM Bozeman nesium, and iron. These MONTANA minerals weather into soils that can store more Custer water and provide better Gallatin National Forest !Red Lodge nutrients than rhyolitic National Forest soils. These soils support !Gardiner !Cooke City more vegetation, which Beaverhead-Deerlodge adds organic matter and National Forest Yellowstone National Park enriches the soil. You can Red Rock Lakes ! see the result when you National Wildlife Refuge West Yellowstone ! drive over Dunraven Pass Shoshone Cody National Forest or through other areas of Caribou-Targhee the park with Absaroka National Forest rocks. They have a more John D. Rockefeller, Jr. diverse flora, including Memorial Parkway mixed forests inter- Camas National Wildlife Refuge spersed with meadows. Rexburg Grand Teton ! National Park Lake sediments deposited WYOMING during glacial periods, National Elk Refuge such as those underlying ! ! Idaho Falls Jackson Hayden Valley, form clay Bridger-Teton soils that allow meadow IDAHO National Forest communities to out- compete trees for water. Grays Lake National Wildlife Refuge The patches of lodgepole !Pocatello pines in Hayden Valley grow in areas of rhyolite rock outcrops. Because of the influ- Continental Divide Bureau of Land Management Fish and Wildlife Service ence rock types, sedi- Rivers and Lakes 0 50 Kilometers Forest Service ments, and topography State Boundary North National Park Service have on plant distribu- 0 50 Miles State Land l tion, some scientists The Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. Description of an ecosystem’s size, boundaries, theorize that geology and characteristics can vary greatly. also influences wildlife 54 Yellowstone Resources and Issues Handbook, 2019 distribution and movement. Whitebark pine nuts are in Yellowstone typically peak in spring rather than an important food source for grizzly bears during au- summer, indicating that human influences are less tumn. The bears migrate to whitebark pine areas such significant than changes in atmospheric circulation as the andesitic volcanic terrain of Mount Washburn. and lengthening daylight. Nonetheless, in addition to Grazing animals such as elk and bison favor the potentially causing respiratory problems in people, park’s grasslands, which grow best in soils formed by ozone levels during the growing season may be high sediments in valleys such as Hayden and Lamar. The enough to prevent sensitive species, such as aspen, many hydrothermal areas of the park, where grasses from reaching full growth potential. and other food remain uncovered by snow, provide sustenance for animals during winter. Sources of Particulate Matter The largest source of particulate matter in Greater Yellowstone is smoke from wildland fires, which is Air Quality ECOSYSTEM The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977 designated considered part of the area’s “natural background Yellowstone and Grand Teton among the 156 na- conditions” and is taken into consideration in estab- tional parks and wilderness areas that are Class I air- lishing the threshold for “good” visibility. Emissions sheds, requiring the most stringent air-quality protec- from prescribed fires have been relatively insignifi- tion within and around their boundaries. Yellowstone cant. Because of prevailing winds, Wyoming oil and and Grand Teton are in compliance with federal air gas development has not had a detectable effect on quality standards for human health. However, air- air quality in Yellowstone. quality trends may be affecting other aspects of the ecosystem. Even at relatively low levels, such as those Soundscapes found in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem, air pol- The Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem has many bio- lution and the subsequent deposition of pollutants logical sounds with important ecological functions in water and soil can leach nutrients from the Earth, for reproduction and survival. Birds, mammals, am- injure vegetation, and acidify and over-fertilize lakes phibians, and insects often need to hear or produce and streams. sounds to attract mates, detect predators, find prey, The thin soils, sparse vegetation, short growing and/or defend territories. The occurrence of sounds seasons, and snow-based water supply of these high in a particular area forms the soundscape. elevation areas limit the amount of nitrogen that plants The natural soundscape of the Greater can effectively use. These conditions make the area Yellowstone Ecosystem delights visitors during the more vulnerable to the effects of acidification and fall elk rut, during birds’ spring choruses, along nutrient enrichment from nitrogen deposition. For rushing streams, and in the still and profoundly quiet example, nitrogen in precipitation has increased at days and nights of winter. Natural soundscapes are a many western sites as a result of fertilizer use and feed- resource and are protected by National Park Service lots. Although nitrogen is a nutrient needed for plant policies. Many park visitors come to national parks growth, too much nitrogen disrupts native plant com- to enjoy serenity and solitude and expect to hear munities that are adapted to low-nitrogen conditions; sounds of nature. Sounds associated with human high nitrogen levels can advance the spread of nonna- activity, including road traffic, aircraft, and snowmo- tive species that increase fire frequency. Acidification biles, often impact these natural soundscapes and are of high-alpine lakes from sulfur and nitrogen deposi- a source of growing concern. Aircraft noise, which tion can cause the loss of macroinvertebrates and fish. is the most widespread human-caused sound in the Long-term changes in the composition of algae in park, is heard on average for less than 10 percent of several alpine lakes in Yellowstone and Grand Teton the day. Yellowstone and Grand Teton national parks are correlated with increased nitrogen.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Lower Beaverhead River and Upper Jefferson River Temperature Tmdls – Attachment A
    Lower Beaverhead River and Upper Jefferson River Temperature TMDLs – Attachment A ATTACHMENT A – EVALUATION OF FISHERY TRENDS IN THE JEFFERSON RIVER DRAINAGE RELATED TO CHANGES IN STREAMFLOW PATTERN AND HABITAT RESTORATION ACTIVITIES 11/13/2014 Final Attachment A-1 Lower Beaverhead River and Upper Jefferson River Temperature TMDLs – Attachment A 11/13/2014 Final Attachment A-2 EVALUATION OF FISHERY TRENDS IN THE JEFFERSON RIVER DRAINAGE RELATED TO CHANGES IN STREAMFLOW PATTERN AND HABITAT RESTORATION ACTIVITIES Ron Spoon Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife & Parks March 2008 TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter I Fishery and Stream Flow Trends in the Jefferson River……………………….3 Chapter II Projects to Enhance Trout Spawning and Rearing Habitat……………………..21 Chapter III Evaluation of Fishery Trends in Tributaries of the Jefferson and Upper Missouri River……………………………………………..……….22 Chapter IV Boulder River Fishery Evaluation……………………………………………..38 Chapter V Stream Flow Protection and Enhancement Efforts for the Jefferson River…………………………………………………………………42 Chapter VI Fish Loss to Irrigation Canals…………………………………………………58 Chapter VII Water Temperature Measurements in the Jefferson River and Associated Tributaries on 31 July 2007………………………………………64 Chapter VIII Fishing Pressure and Angler Use of the Jefferson River……………………..73 Appendix A: Daily Flow Records at Waterloo (2000-2007)………………..77 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Information in this report is a product of over 20 years of attention provided to one of Montana’s great rivers. Compiling information to better understand the water and fishery resource is intended to help citizens in the valley make decisions on the fate of the Jefferson River. Once dubbed the “Forgotten Fork” of the headwaters of the Missouri, the past eight years of citizen involvement to protect and improve habitat have raised the profile of the river, and it is clear that the river can no longer be considered forgotten or dismissed.
    [Show full text]
  • Historic Settlement of the Rattlesnake Creek Drainage, Montana| an Archaeological and Historical Perspective
    University of Montana ScholarWorks at University of Montana Graduate Student Theses, Dissertations, & Professional Papers Graduate School 2005 Historic settlement of the Rattlesnake Creek Drainage, Montana| An archaeological and historical perspective Daniel S. Comer The University of Montana Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.umt.edu/etd Let us know how access to this document benefits ou.y Recommended Citation Comer, Daniel S., "Historic settlement of the Rattlesnake Creek Drainage, Montana| An archaeological and historical perspective" (2005). Graduate Student Theses, Dissertations, & Professional Papers. 2544. https://scholarworks.umt.edu/etd/2544 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at ScholarWorks at University of Montana. It has been accepted for inclusion in Graduate Student Theses, Dissertations, & Professional Papers by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks at University of Montana. For more information, please contact [email protected]. NOTE TO USERS Page(s) not included in the original manuscript are unavailable from the author or university. The manuscript was microfilmed as received 80-190, 271-289 This reproduction is the best copy available. dfti UMI Maureen and Mike MANSFIELD LIBRARY The University of IVIontdn^ Permission is granted by the author to reproduce this material in its entiret>', provided that this material is used for scholarly purposes and is properly cited in published works and reports. **Please check "Yes" or "No" and provide signature** Yes, I grant permission No, 1 do not grant permission Author's Signature: J. i-O frJir^ Date: Any copying for commercial purposes or fmancial gain may be undertaken only with the author's explicit consent.
    [Show full text]
  • Custer County,Idaho
    114o1230 44o5200 114o4830 44o4830 Custer County, er iv R n Tcv o Idaho Tgs m l Qa a Kgd Tgs S Tcv k Ys r Ys o Qa F Tgdd le The map on this page has been reduced by 40% from dd Ys Mi Tcv Ys the map on the big page. So it is not to 1:500,000 scale. The scale bar was reduced with it though and should be Tgs Tcv Tcv Tcv close to correct. Kgd Qa Os Qm Kgd Qa Salmon Qa Ds Kgdh R. Mtns. Kgd Kgd Tcv Qs OCZ P A Qm H Kgd Challis Tcv S Pzl Kgdh Kgd OCZ IM E Os Qa Qa Qs RO PPPs Tcv Tgdd Tcv Ds Qs I Kgdh Cs V Pzl Tgs A L Kgd Qm Tcv DSs L OCs DSs E OCs Y Cs Ss Qa Tcv Kgdh Ss Tcv Ds Ybe Kis Sunbeam OCs Tcv o Tgs Qa Cs 44 2130 Kis Kgd OCs Ss Ds 115o1730 Kgdh Kgd PPPs Kgd Qs Kis Ms OCs Os Ts Qm 21 Ybe OCs PPPs Os 75 Os PzZm Kgdh OCs Ds Qs Ybe Qa River Kgd OCs DSs Kis Kis on Ms OCs Tcv Qs m Os OCs Ss Ts Os Qs Qg al Qa Sawtooth Rge. S 25 DSOs Ms Ss Tgs OCs Ss Ms Tcv Qs Stanley o Qg Tcv Ds 44 1400 Kgd Ps PPPs Os Kgdh Tcv Tcv 93 Ms Qs Tcv Ms PzZm Qm Ts Redfish SOs Borah PK. Tcv Kgd Lk. Qa (12,662 ft) Ds Ts DSOs Qs Qm Ds Qm Qm Qa SOs Leatherman Kgd Pk Tgs Chilly Lost River Rge.
    [Show full text]
  • DROUGHT RESILIENCE PLAN Jefferson River Watershed Council PO Box 550 Whitehall MT 59759
    JEFFERSON RIVER WATERSHED DROUGHT RESILIENCE PLAN Jefferson River Watershed Council PO Box 550 Whitehall MT 59759 September 2019 Prepared for the Jefferson River water users as an educational guide to drought impacts, drought vulnerabilities and adaptation strategies to proactively plan for drought. Compiled by Evan Norman [email protected] Jefferson River Watershed Drought Resiliency Plan Contents Drought Resiliency ........................................................................................................................................ 2 Project Overview ....................................................................................................................................... 2 Drought Mitigation ................................................................................................................................... 4 Defining Drought ........................................................................................................................................... 5 Utilization of Resources for Defining Drought Resilience Efforts ............................................................. 6 Jefferson River Watershed Characteristics ................................................................................................... 7 Land and Soil Distribution ....................................................................................................................... 10 Agrimet – JVWM, Jefferson Valley, MT ..................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • MBMG 505-Jefferson-V2.FH10
    GEOLOGIC MAP OF THE CENOZOIC DEPOSITS OF THE UPPER JEFFERSON VALLEY MBMG Open File Report 505 2004 Compiled and mapped by Susan M. Vuke, Walter W. Coppinger, and Bruce E. Cox This report has been reviewed for conformity with Montana Bureau of Mines and Geology’s technical and editorial standards. Partial support has been provided by the STATEMAP component of the National Cooperative Geology Mapping Program of the U.S. Geological Survey under contract Number 03HQAG0090. CENOZOIC DEPOSITS OF THE UPPER JEFFERSON VALLEY Cenozoic deposits are the focus of the Geologic Map of the upper Jefferson Valley. The map is largely a compilation of previous mapping with additional interpretations based on aerial photos and limited additional field work. Older rocks are included to show their relations to the Cenozoic deposits, but they are generalized on the map. Lithologic descriptions of the Cenozoic deposits are given in the map explanation (p. 17). References used for the map compilation are shown on p. 15. The northern and southern parts of the map are discussed separately. NORTHERN PART OF MAP AREA Quaternary deposits A variety of Quaternary deposits blanket much of the slope area of the Whitetail and Pipestone Creek valleys between the flanks of the Highland Mountains and Bull Mountain (Fig. 1). East and southeast of these Quaternary slope deposits are more isolated areas of partly cemented Pleistocene gravels on pediments. One of these gravel deposits near Red Hill (Fig. 1) yielded a late Pleistocene vertebrate assemblage including cheetah, horse, camel, and large mountain sheep. Radiocarbon dates from the lowest part of the sequence range between 10,000 and 9,000 14C yr.
    [Show full text]
  • The Jefferson River Canyon
    Montana Department of Transportation TheA JeffersonPassage River Canyon Through Time he four-mile long Jefferson River Canyon was cut into Geo-Facts: the Tobacco Root Mountains between LaHood Park and • The high-quality Madison limestone was used as flux in the Lewis and Clark Caverns State Park relatively recently in Butte smelters during the height of that city’s prominence as geologic time. The canyon exposes rocks that span over a billion a mining town. A limestone quarry from the turn of the last T century is located just north of the highway at mile marker 5.5. years of geologic history. The rocks indicate times when the area The Madison limestone is also an important aquifer in much of was covered by shallow seas in which fine-grained sediment was Montana. deposited, and other times when rocks were exposed and eroded. The rocks also record times of volcanic activity and when stresses • Placer gold was discovered about a mile and a half upstream from in the earth caused rocks to contort into folds or break into com- the entrance to Lewis and Clark Caverns in the late 1800’s, but the placer mining operation was short-lived. plex and significant faults. Entering the canyon from the east will take you backward in time. Most of the rocks at the east end of • Acidic water caused the limestone to dissolve along cracks, the canyon are sedimentary and volcanic rocks from the age of di- forming the caves of Lewis and Clark Caverns. When the water nosaurs and younger. Gray cliffs of Madison limestone mark the table dropped as the Jefferson Canyon was cut, the caves became dry and their ceilings collapsed.
    [Show full text]
  • Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge Centennial Valley Conservation Easement Program
    U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge Centennial Valley Conservation Easement Program Environmental Assessment and Land Protection Plan Environmental AssessmentAssessment Centennial Valley Conservation Easement Program Prepared by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge 27820 Southside Centennial Road Lima, Montana 59739 and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service RW-RE Branch of Planning P.O. Box 25486 - DFC Denver, Colorado 80225 March 2001 TTTable of ContentsContents Chapter 1. Purpose of and Need for Action Introduction and Background .............................................................................................................................................. 1 Proposed Action ..................................................................................................................................................................... 2 Project Area ........................................................................................................................................................................... 4 Purpose of and Need for Proposed Action......................................................................................................................... 4 Decisions to be Made ........................................................................................................................................................... 14 Issues Identified and Selected for Analysis ...................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Wilderness Study Areas
    I ___- .-ll..l .“..l..““l.--..- I. _.^.___” _^.__.._._ - ._____.-.-.. ------ FEDERAL LAND M.ANAGEMENT Status and Uses of Wilderness Study Areas I 150156 RESTRICTED--Not to be released outside the General Accounting Wice unless specifically approved by the Office of Congressional Relations. ssBO4’8 RELEASED ---- ---. - (;Ao/li:( ‘I:I)-!L~-l~~lL - United States General Accounting OfTice GAO Washington, D.C. 20548 Resources, Community, and Economic Development Division B-262989 September 23,1993 The Honorable Bruce F. Vento Chairman, Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests, and Public Lands Committee on Natural Resources House of Representatives Dear Mr. Chairman: Concerned about alleged degradation of areas being considered for possible inclusion in the National Wilderness Preservation System (wilderness study areas), you requested that we provide you with information on the types and effects of activities in these study areas. As agreed with your office, we gathered information on areas managed by two agencies: the Department of the Interior’s Bureau of Land Management (BLN) and the Department of Agriculture’s Forest Service. Specifically, this report provides information on (1) legislative guidance and the agency policies governing wilderness study area management, (2) the various activities and uses occurring in the agencies’ study areas, (3) the ways these activities and uses affect the areas, and (4) agency actions to monitor and restrict these uses and to repair damage resulting from them. Appendixes I and II provide data on the number, acreage, and locations of wilderness study areas managed by BLM and the Forest Service, as well as data on the types of uses occurring in the areas.
    [Show full text]
  • Jefferson River at Three Forks, Montana
    FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT JEFFERSON RIVER AT THREE FORKS, MONTANA Prepared by U.S. ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT, OMAHA, NEBRASKA December 1971 Jefferson River at Three Forks, Montana ( ) Draft (X) Final Environmental Statement Responsible Office: U.S. Army Engineer District, Omaha, Nebraska 1. Name of Action: (x) Administrative ( ) Legislative 2. Description of Action: The proposed project would consist of the construction of an earth filled levee and a drainage collector ditch approximately lU ,700 feet in length along the northwest side of a small community. The location is at Three Forks in Gallatin County, Montana. 3. a. Environmental Impacts; Flood protection would be provided for a flood having a frequency of occurrence of once in a 100 years. A 28 acre loss of alternate land use would be required for levee alignment. A possibilit would exist for pollutants from adjacent land to accumulate in the collector ditch. A potential would exist for the collector ditch to develop aquatic growth. Five hundred feet of shelterbelt would be lost to levee construction. b. Adverse Environmental Effects: Construction would effect the removal of 28 acres of land from alternative land use; collector ditch could act as a collector of pollutants; and construction of the levee would necessitate the removal of 500 feet of shelterbelt. Alternatives; Floodplain zoning, evacuation, flood proofing, reservoir construction, channel improvement, and ”no development” were considered. 5• Comments Received: City of Three Forks Bureau of Sport Fisheries & Wildlife, USDI Montana Department of Fish Bureau of Reclamation, USDI and Game Bureau of Outdoor Recreation, USDI Montana Department of Health Environmental Protection Agency, USEPA Montana Highway Commission Bureau of Mines, USDI Soil Conservation Service, USDA Montana Water Resources Board National Park Service, USDI 6.
    [Show full text]
  • Arsenic Data for Streams in the Upper Missouri River Basin, Montana and Wyoming
    ARSENIC DATA FOR STREAMS IN THE UPPER MISSOURI RIVER BASIN, MONTANA AND WYOMING By J.R. Knapton and A.A. Horpestad U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Open-File Report 87-124 Prepared in cooperation with the MONTANA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES Helena, Montana March 1987 DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR DONALD PAUL MODEL, Secretary U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Dallas L. Peck, Director For additional information Copies of this report can be write to: purchased from: District Chief U.S. Geological Survey U.S. Geological Survey Books and Open-File Reports Section 428 Federal Building Federal Center, Bldg. 41 301 S. Park, Drawer 10076 Box 25425 Helena, MT 59626-0076 Denver, CO 80225-0425 CONTENTS Page Abstract ................................... 1 Introduction ................................. 1 Field procedures ............................... 2 Laboratory procedures. ............................ 4 Data results ................................. 5 References cited ............................... 8 ILLUSTRATIONS Figure 1. Map showing location of study area and sampling stations. ..... 3 2-5. Graphs showing total recoverable arsenic concentration and total recoverable arsenic discharge: 2. For the Madison River below Hebgen Lake, near Grayling (station 16), November 1985 through October 1986. ....... 6 3. For the Missouri River at Toston (station 26), November 1985 through October 1986 ................... 6 4. At five stations on the Madison and Missouri Rivers for samples collected November 13-15, 1985 ............ 7 5. At five stations on the Madison and Missouri Rivers for samples collected June 16-18, 1986 .............. 7 TABLES Table 1. Laboratory precision, accuracy, and detection limit for arsenic and specific conductance ...................... 9 2. Descriptions of network stations .................. 10 3. Water-quality data for network stations. .............. 14 4. Water-quality data for miscellaneous stations.
    [Show full text]
  • Snake River Flow Augmentation Impact Analysis Appendix
    SNAKE RIVER FLOW AUGMENTATION IMPACT ANALYSIS APPENDIX Prepared for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Walla Walla District’s Lower Snake River Juvenile Salmon Migration Feasibility Study and Environmental Impact Statement United States Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation Pacific Northwest Region Boise, Idaho February 1999 Acronyms and Abbreviations (Includes some common acronyms and abbreviations that may not appear in this document) 1427i A scenario in this analysis that provides up to 1,427,000 acre-feet of flow augmentation with large drawdown of Reclamation reservoirs. 1427r A scenario in this analysis that provides up to 1,427,000 acre-feet of flow augmentation with reservoir elevations maintained near current levels. BA Biological assessment BEA Bureau of Economic Analysis (U.S. Department of Commerce) BETTER Box Exchange Transport Temperature Ecology Reservoir (a water quality model) BIA Bureau of Indian Affairs BID Burley Irrigation District BIOP Biological opinion BLM Bureau of Land Management B.P. Before present BPA Bonneville Power Administration CES Conservation Extension Service cfs Cubic feet per second Corps U.S. Army Corps of Engineers CRFMP Columbia River Fish Mitigation Program CRP Conservation Reserve Program CVPIA Central Valley Project Improvement Act CWA Clean Water Act DO Dissolved Oxygen Acronyms and Abbreviations (Includes some common acronyms and abbreviations that may not appear in this document) DREW Drawdown Regional Economic Workgroup DDT Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane EIS Environmental Impact Statement EP Effective Precipitation EPA Environmental Protection Agency ESA Endangered Species Act ETAW Evapotranspiration of Applied Water FCRPS Federal Columbia River Power System FERC Federal Energy Regulatory Commission FIRE Finance, investment, and real estate HCNRA Hells Canyon National Recreation Area HUC Hydrologic unit code I.C.
    [Show full text]
  • IDAHO ARCHAEOLOGIST Editor MARK G
    ISSN 0893-2271 1 Volume 43, Number 1 S IDAHO A ARCHAEOLOGIST I Journal of the Idaho Archaeological Society……. 2 THE IDAHO ARCHAEOLOGIST Editor MARK G. PLEW, Department of Anthropology, 1910 University Drive, Boise State University, Boise, ID 83725-1950; email: [email protected] Editorial Advisory Board KIRK HALFORD, Bureau of Land Management, 1387 S. Vinnell Way, Boise, ID 83709; email: [email protected] BONNIE PITBLADO, Department of Anthropology, Dale Hall Tower 521A, University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK 73019; email: [email protected] ROBERT SAPPINGTON, Department of Sociology/Anthropology, P.O. Box 441110, University of Idaho, Moscow, ID 83844-441110; email [email protected] MARK WARNER, Department of Sociology/Anthropology, P.O. Box 441110, University of Idaho, Moscow,ID 83844-441110; email [email protected] PEI-LIN YU, Department of Anthropology,1910 University Drive, Boise State University, Boise, ID 83725-1950; email: [email protected] CHARLES SPEER, Department of Anthropology/Idaho Museum of Natural History, 921 S 8th Ave, Idaho State University, Pocatello, ID 83209-8005; email: [email protected] Scope The Idaho Archaeologist publishes peer reviewed articles, reports, and book reviews. Though the journal’s primary focus is the archeology of Idaho, technical and more theoretical papers having relevance to issues in Idaho and surrounding areas will be considered. The Idaho Archaeologist is published semi-annually in cooperation with the College of Arts and Sciences, Boise State University as the journal of the Idaho Archaeological Society. Submissions Articles should be submitted online to the Editor at [email protected]. Upon re- view and acceptance authors are required to electronically submit their manuscripts in Microsoft Word.
    [Show full text]