DOCSLIB.ORG

Bpa 2018-00845-F

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Bpa 2018-00845-F 2 April 23, 2018 Clarifications You submitted these follow-up inquiries to the agency (edited for brevity): 1. Did all the money shown on the charts go directly to the science center/funding? 2. Can BPA provide specifics on where the money went (seen on pg. I 0 here https://www.nwcouncil.org/media/74911 02/2017-2.pdf)? 3. Can BP A release the specifics on who the "private/non-profit/other" groups are, as shown on "Contractor Costs FY2016" (see on pg. 19 here https://www.nwcouncil.org/media/74911 02/2017-2.pdf)? 4. Also, the chart labels these as "contracts." Are these binding contracts? 5. Does BPA require a non-disclosure agreement with these agencies? Response Responsive to your FOIA request, the agency's Fish & Wildlife office has generated a report showing all expenditures for NOAA Fisheries during the fiscal years 2012 through 2017, by project. That responsive report, NOAA Contract Expenditures Fiscal Years 2012-2017 (I page), accompanies this communication. Responsive to your enumerated questions, above, the agency's Fish & Wildlife office has generated the following information and reports: 1. Did all the money shown on the charts go directly to the science center/funding? No, BP A funding for the Science Center goes through NOAA Fisheries. We have various contracts with NOAA Fisheries, but the Science Center is not necessarily involved in each project. That responsive report, "FY16 NOAA contracts (2 pages)," accompanies this communication and provides a list of31 active contracts during fiscal year 2016. 2. Can EPA provide specifics on where the money went? This information is found on a report accompanying this communication ("Direct Program Expenditures of FCRPS BiOp Projects, FY20 16 ( 4 Pages)"). Statements of Work for each project show the budgets assigned to each work element. Actual costs that BP A reimbursed to the NOAA Fisheries (which may be less than the amount budgeted) are listed on the report under Question 1. If this question refers to all FCRPS spending, see page 10 of the Northwest Council' s Govemors Report. 3. Can EPA release the specifics on the identities of''private/non-proflt/other" groups, as shown on "Contractor Costs FY2016"? Yes, the names of all of BPA 's fish and wildlife mitigation contractors are public and found within the website www.cbfish.org. BPA has also prepared a report showing this infonnation ("Direct Program Expenditures by Contractor Type, FY20I6 (4 Pages)"), and it accompanies this communication. 4. Also, the chart labels these as "contracts." Are these binding contracts? Yes, contracts are legally binding procurement contracts administered following the BPA 3 Purchasing Instructions. BPA does not use the Federal Acquisition Regulations used by most agencies. BP A uses contracts when funding goods and services needed by the agency, and uses either contracts or financial assistance agreements (grants) to fund other types of work, including Fish and Wildlife projects. You may review the BPA Purchasing Instructions and financial assistance instructions at the following links: httos://www.bpa.gov/Doing%20Business/purchase/Pages/default.aspx https://www.bpa.gov/Doing%20Business/finassist/Pages/default.aspx 5. Does BPA require a non-disclosure agreement with these agencies? BPA does not usually require non-disclosure agreements, and such agreements are subject to applicable disclosure laws including the Freedom of Information Act. Information about non­ disclosure can also be found in the BP A Purchasing Instructions linked above, primarily in section 17.6.2. In accord with the FOIA, BP A is herein releasing 1 l pages of responsive agency records/reports, as described above, with no redactions applied. Fee There are no fees applicable to your request for agency information. Certification Your FOIA request is now closed with all available agency records and information provided. Pursuant to I 0 C.F .R. § I 004. 7(b)(2), I am the individual responsible for the release and determinations described above. Appeal This decision, as well as the adequacy of the search, may be appealed within 90 calendar days from your receipt of this letter pursuant to 10 C.F.R. § I 004.8. Appeals should be addressed to: Director, Office ofHearings and Appeals, HG-1 , L'Enfant Plaza U.S. Department of Energy 1000 Independence Avenue, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20585-I615 The written appeal, including the envelope, must clearly indicate that a FOIA appeal is being made. You may also submit your appeal to [email protected], including the phrase "Freedom of Infonnation Appeal" in the subject line. The appeal must contain all of the elements required by I 0 C.F .R. § I 004.8, including a copy of the determination letter. Thereafter, judicial review will be available to you in the Federal District Court either: 1) in the Direct Program Expenditures by Contractor Type, FY2016 Contractor Type Prime Contractor 2016 FEDERAL NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES (NOAA) $6,916,950 BPA OVERHEAD (& NON-CONTRACTED PROJECT COSTS) $20,288,062 US FISH & WILDLIFE SERVICE (USFWS) $3,027,580 US BUREAU OF RECLAMATION (BOR) $263,562 US ARMY CORP OF ENGINEERS (COE) $1,278,361 PACIFIC NW NATIONAL LABORATORY/DEPT. OF ENERGY $793,662 US FOREST SERVICE (USFS) $962,585 US GEOLOGICAL SURVEY (USGS) $1,809,300 FEDERAL TOTAL $35,340,062 STATE OREGON DEPARTMENT OF FISH & WILDLIFE $15,246,156 OREGON WATERSHED ENHANCEMENT BOARD $55,535 OREGON Subtotal $15,301,691 IDAHO DEPARTMENT OF FISH & WILDLIFE $11,875,775 IDAHO SOIL & WATER CONSERVATION COMMISSION IDAHO STATE OFFICE OF SPECIES CONSERVATION $3,352,210 IDAHO Subtotal $15,227,985 WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF FISH & WILDLIFE $12,793,663 WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY WASHINGTON Subtotal $12,793,663 MONTANA FISH, WILDLIFE AND PARKS (MFWP) $3,810,995 MONTANA Subtotal $3,810,995 STATE TOTAL $47,134,334 TRIBE BURNS PAIUTE TRIBE $797,849 COEUR D'ALENE TRIBE OF IDAHO $2,722,811 COLUMBIA RIVER INTERTRIBAL FISH COMMISSION $9,140,737 COLVILLE CONFEDERATED TRIBES $15,137,000 CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF GRAND RONDE $163,102 CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF SILETZ INDIANS $124,210 CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF WARM SPRINGS $6,615,140 COWLITZ INDIAN TRIBE $661,308 FORT McDERMITT TRIBE $4,650 KALISPEL TRIBE OF INDIANS $3,359,054 KOOTENAI TRIBE $15,188,307 NEZ PERCE TRIBE $16,526,287 SALISH AND KOOTENAI TRIBES CONFEDERATED TRIBES $632,232 SHOSHONE-BANNOCK TRIBES $3,422,313 SHOSHONE-PAUITE TRIBES $936,944 SPOKANE TRIBE OF INDIANS $3,403,933 UMATILLA CONFEDERATED TRIBES $10,584,971 UPPER COLUMBIA UNITED TRIBES (UCUT) $466,896 UPPER SNAKE RIVER TRIBES FOUNDATION $381,505 YAKAMA CONFEDERATED TRIBES $27,344,154 TRIBE TOTAL $117,613,403 p. 1 Contractor Type Prime Contractor 2016 INTERSTATE COMPACT PACIFIC STATES MARINE FISHERIES COMMISSION (PSMFC) $13,908,920 UNIVERSITY UNIVERSITIES $3,036,343 OTHER PRIVATE/NON-PROFIT/OTHER $25,183,985 American Indian Science and Engineering 7,944 Clackamas River Basin Council 84,294 Columbia Land Trust 1,802,730 Columbia River Estuary Study Taskforce (CREST) 2,718,296 Friends of Buford Park 20,807 Grande Ronde Model Watershed Foundation 862,568 Greenbelt Land Trust 156,488 Lake Roosevelt Development Association 187,210 Lake Roosevelt Forum 19,140 Long Tom Watershed Council 298,688 Lower Columbia Estuary Partnership 3,664,902 Luckiamute Watershed Council 18,987 Methow Salmon Recovery Foundation 538,037 Northwest Power and Conservation Council 629,204 Tri-State Steelheaders 70,124 Trout Unlimited (TU) 1,109,499 Upper Columbia Salmon Recovery Board 320,895 Wallowa Resources 6,651 Washington Resource Conservation and Development 861,628 Willamette Riverkeeper 84,374 Bioanalysts, Inc. 1,141,618 Cardno Inc 38,625 Cramer Fish Sciences 202,302 Cultural Resource Consultants Inc -3,055 Eco Logical Research 1,876,952 Falling Springs, LLC 503,566 HDR Engineering, Inc. 256,855 ICF Jones & Stokes Inc 6,156 Intermountain Communications 148,412 Jones and Stokes Associates 174,925 Luis A Prado 954 Mackay Sposito 1,363 McMillen Jacobs Associates 449,630 Natural Systems Design 462,646 Pacific Habitat Services Inc 22,895 PBS Engineering and Environmental 9,280 PC Trask and Associates 308,130 Pyramid Communications Inc 18,726 Quantitative Consultants Inc 1,709,060 Sitka Technology Group 1,151,684 South Fork Research, Inc. 754,014 Terraqua, Inc. 2,167,509 Tetra Tech, Inc. 286,372 Synergy Consulting Inc 32,901 LOCAL/SEMI GOVERNMENT $7,743,399 Chelan County 155,910 p. 2 Contractor Type Prime Contractor 2016 City of Yakima -7,712 Clatsop County Fisheries 477,313 Gardena Farms Irrigation District #13 96,063 Hudson Bay District Improvement Company 56,680 Walla Walla Basin Watershed Council 1,002,406 Westland Irrigation District 512,811 Asotin County Conservation District 488,912 Benton Soil and Water Conservation District 7,441 Cascadia Conservation District 40,174 Columbia Conservation District (SWCD) 848,030 Custer Soil and Water Conservation District (SWCD) 830,799 Gilliam County Soil and Water Conservation District (SWCD) 78,377 Jefferson County Soil and Water Conservation District (SWCD) 158,488 Kittitas County Conservation District 20,095 Latah Soil and Water Conservation District (SWCD) 883,471 Nez Perce Soil and Water Conservation District (SWCD) 260,606 Sherman Soil and Water Conservation District (SWCD) -40,388 Underwood Conservation District (UCD) 51,421 Union County Soil and Water Conservation District (SWCD) 1,574,072 Walla Walla County Conservation District (SWCD) 6,641 Wasco County Soil and Water Conservation District (SWCD) 162,196 Wheeler County Soil and Water Conservation District (SWCD) 79,591 LAND ACQUISITIONS2
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Draft Clearwater Assessment: 8. Fishery Resources
    8 Fishery Resources 8.1 Fish Status Currently more than 30 species of fish inhabit the Clearwater subbasin, including 19 native species, two of which have been reintroduced (Table 43). Salmonids and cyprinids are most numerous, representing 10 and 6 species, respectively. Exotic species within the subbasin are generally introduced sport or forage species, and include primarily centrarchids, ictalurids, and salmonids. Five fish species have been chosen as aquatic focal species in this assessment: chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha), steelhead trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss subspecies), westslope cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarki lewisi), bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus) and brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis). Aquatic focal species may serve as indicators of larger communities, and are listed by federal and/or state agencies as species of concern or, in the case of brook trout, have the potential to negatively impact other selected species. In addition, aquatic focal species had adequate data available for species status, distribution, and habitat use to aid future decision making. Information is also provided for additional species of interest for which only limited data exists, redband trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss subspecies), Pacific lamprey (Lampetra tridentata) and coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch). Although species status is discussed, data limitations for these species prohibits substantial consideration of limiting factors and distribution or condition of existing habitat areas. The resident fishery in Dworshak Reservoir is also considered a substantial fishery resource in the Clearwater subbasin. The Dworshak Reservoir fishery involves multiple species, and is addressed as a single fishery rather than as a large number of individual species. Distribution and status information was compiled for the five aquatic focal species using 23 data sources.
    [Show full text]
  • Lathyrus Bijugatus
    Fire Effects Information System (FEIS) FEIS Home Page Lathyrus bijugatus Table of Contents SUMMARY INTRODUCTION DISTRIBUTION AND OCCURRENCE BOTANICAL AND ECOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS FIRE ECOLOGY AND MANAGEMENT OTHER MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS APPENDIX REFERENCES Figure 1—Drypark pea in flower. Photo by Tara Luna, used with permission. SUMMARY This Species Review summarizes the scientific information that was available on drypark pea as of February 2021. Drypark pea is a rare, leguminous forb that occurs in eastern Washington and Oregon, northern Idaho, and northwestern Montana. Within that distribution, it grows in a broad range of biogeoclimatic zones and elevations. As its common name "drypark pea" suggests, it prefers dry soils and open sites. Drypark pea grows in sagebrush-conifer and sagebrush-grassland transition zones; in ponderosa pine, Douglas-fir, and subalpine fir-Engelmann spruce woodlands and forests; and subalpine fir parklands. In conifer communities, it is most common in open stands. Drypark pea has rhizomes that grow out from its taproot. Its roots host nitrogen-fixing Rhizobium bacteria. Drypark pea regenerates from seed and has a soil-stored seed bank; however, information on seed dispersal, viability, and seedling establishment of drypark pea was not available in the literature. Fire probably top-kills drypark pea, and it likely sprouts from its rhizomes and/or caudex after top-kill; however, these responses are undocumented. Only one study provided information on the response of drypark pea to fire. In ponderosa pine forest in northern Idaho, cover and frequency of drypark pea were similar on unburned plots and plots burned under low or high intensity, when 1 averaged across 3 postfire years.
    [Show full text]
  • Potlatch River Steelhead Monitoring and Evaluation Project
    POTLATCH RIVER STEELHEAD MONITORING AND EVALUATION PROJECT 2017 AND 2018 BIENNIAL REPORT Prepared by: Brian A. Knoth, Fisheries Biologist Brett J. Bowersox, Fishery Staff Biologist Jason T. Fortier, Fisheries Technician 2 IDFG Report Number 20-15 March 2021 POTLATCH RIVER STEELHEAD MONITORING AND EVALUATION PROJECT 2017 AND 2018 BIENNIAL REPORT By: Brian A. Knoth Brett J. Bowersox Jason T. Fortier Idaho Department of Fish and Game 600 South Walnut Street P.O. Box 25 Boise, ID 83707 IDFG Report Number 20-15 March 2021 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS .........................................................................................1 FOREWORD ..............................................................................................................................2 PROJECT OVERVIEW ...............................................................................................................2 PROJECT DESIGN AND OBJECTIVES ..................................................................................... 3 PROJECT TIMELINE ..................................................................................................................4 REPORT STRUCTURE ..............................................................................................................4 LITERATURE CITED ...............................................................................................................5 FIGURES ....................................................................................................................................7
    [Show full text]
  • THE PRAIRIE OWL PALOUSE AUDUBON SOCIETY Volume 29, Issue 4, March 2001
    THE PRAIRIE OWL PALOUSE AUDUBON SOCIETY Volume 29, Issue 4, March 2001 PROGRAMS CALENDAR MOSCOW COMMUNITY CENTER MARCH MARCH 21, 2001 - 7:30 P.M. 5 PAS Board Meeting - 7:30pm Bighorn Sheep in Hell's Canyon - Frances 6 Army Corps of Engineers Open House – Cassirer, Wildlife Biologist, Idaho Department 2:00 – 8:00pm, Dworshak of Fish and Game, Clearwater Region. Through also Yukon to Yellowstone Initiative – 7:30pm, a cooperative project between the states of Idaho, University of Idaho Law School Court Rm Oregon, and Washington, the BLM, Forest Service, 13 National ORV Coalition – 7:00pm and the Foundation for North American Wild 21 PAS Membership Meeting - 7:30pm Sheep, researchers are working to restore bighorn Bighorn Sheep in Hell's Canyon sheep to Hells Canyon. Frances’ slide presentation 23-25 Othello Sandhill Crane Festival will provide information about bighorn sheep and 29 Palouse Science Center Meeting – 7:00pm what is being done to restore their populations in 31 Lewiston-Clarkston Field Trip this area. APRIL APRIL 18, 2001 - 7:30 P.M. 2 PAS Board Meeting - 7:30pm Chasing Pronghorn in Yellowstone: an Effort in 18 PAS Membership Meeting - 7:30pm Futility? - Kevin Pullen, Science Instructor and Chasing Pronghorn in Yellowstone: an Asst. Curator of the Conner Museum at WSU. Effort in Futility? 21 Turnbull National Refuge Field Trip Kevin will talk about the research being done on 28 Potlatch River Hike – Bill Warren pronghorn antelope in Yellowstone National Park. He will discuss some of the concerns for the population as well as his experience capturing MAY fawns for tagging and monitoring.
    [Show full text]
  • 2009/2010 Yakama Nation Pacific Lamprey Entosphenus Tridentatus
    Document ID #P120281 Yakama Nation Pacific Lamprey Entosphenus tridentatus Restoration Project 2009 Annual Progress Report Performance Period March 1, 2009 – February 28, 2010 Project No. 2008-470-00 Contract No. 46830 CONFEDERATED TRIBES AND BANDS OF THE YAKAMA NATION Prepared for: U. S. Department of Energy Bonneville Power Administration Environment, Fish and Wildlife P.O. Box 3621 Portland, OR 97208 Prepared by: Patrick Luke, Fisheries Biologist Yakama Nation Fisheries Resource Management Program 4 Bickleton Hwy. Goldendale, Washington 98620, USA 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS ………………………………………………………………………………………………………Page Table of Contents……………………………………………………………………........................2 Executive Summary……………………………………………………………………….………...3 Acknowledgements ............................................................................................................................5 Section I: Phase I - Initiating cooperative relationships to gather historical, implemention- Traditional Ecological Knowledge (TEK), current status of lamprey in the South-central, Washington……………………………………………………………...………….……….6 Cultural Significance…………………………………………………………….………….8 Methods…………………………………………………………………………….……….10 Results and Recommendations…………………………………………………….……....11 Discussion…………………………………………………………………………………...12 Section II: Distribution and status of the Pacific lampreys (Entosphenus tridentatus), River lamprey (Lampetra ayresi) and Western brook lamprey (Lampetra richardsoni) in the Klickitat River sub-basin…..................................................................................................................14
    [Show full text]
  • Clearwater Rapid Watershed Assessment
    Clearwater - 17060306 Idaho 8 Digit Hydrologic Unit Profile December 2006 Tensed Farmington Clearwater - 17060306 8-Digit Hydrologic Unit LATAHLATAH Location Map Potlatch Bovill WHITMAN WHITMAN Deary (Washington) (Washington) Elk River Troy Moscow CLEARWATERCLEARWATER Kendrick Juliaetta Genesee Pierce Clearwater Peck Orofino Clarkston 17060306 Lapwai Culdesac Weippe Lewiston Asotin Reubens LEWISLEWIS Kamiah Craigmont Winchester Nezperce Kooskia Ferdinand NEZNEZ Stites PERCEPERCE Cottonwood !COEUR d ALENE MOSCOW! IDAHOIDAHO Grangeville LEWISTON! !REXBURG CALDWELL! !BOISE NAMPA! !IDAHO FALLS : BLACKFOOT ! !POCATELLO 0 5 10 15 20 25 TWIN! FALLS Miles The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, and marital or family status. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’s TARGET Center at 202-720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, Room 326W, Whitten Building, 14 th and Independence Avenue, SW, Washington DC 20250-9410 or call (202) 720-5964 (voice and TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. 1 Clearwater - 17060306 Idaho 8 Digit Hydrologic Unit Profile December 2006 Introduction The Clearwater 8-Digit Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) subbasin is 1,503,992 acres. Clearwater and Nez Perce counties each account for approximately 24 percent of the subbasin. Twenty two percent of the subbasin is in Latah County, 18 percent in Lewis County, 13 percent in Idaho County and less than 0.5% in Whitman County, Washington.
    [Show full text]
  • Forest Plan Amendment No. 30 Clearwater National Forest Latah
    Forest Plan AmendmentNo. 30 Clearwater National Forest Latah County, Idaho The purpose of Amendment No. 30 is to changethe water quality objectives in Appendix K of the Clearwater National Forest Plan for Little Boulder Creek, East Fork Potlatch River, and Ruby Creek, plus, add the Potlatch River. Currently the water quality objective for Little Boulder, East Fork Potlatch and Ruby Creek is "Minimum viable" and the fish speciesis listed as rainbow. Minimum Viable does not support the requirements of the Clean Water Act to provide fishable streams. It only provides a minimal population and does not reflect the listing of the species or importance of the area for spawning. Surveys have documented steelhead in Little Boulder, East Fork Potlatph Riyer, and Ruby Creek. Steelheadwas listed as a Threatened Species within the Snake River in 1997. The Potlatch River, a migratory channel for steelhead,had only been listed in Appendix K as a placeholder to indicate the watershed geography. Stream surveys have shown the river to have a C channel and steelheadas the fish species. Spawning occurs in the East Fork Potlatch, and rearing occurs in most of the tributaries of the Potlatch River. Since the Potlatch River is proposed as critical habitat for steelhead,the water quality objective is being changed from "Minimum Viable" to "High Fish" to follow the direction of the Clean Water Act and Endangered SpeciesAct. Also, as part of the high fish standard, threshold levels of sediment for the Potlatch River should not exceed 10 out of 30 years. Since the proposed changes are not significant, adoption of this amendmentwould not significantly change the forest-wide environmental impacts disclosed in the Clearwater National Forest Plan EIS.
    [Show full text]
  • Tribal Pacific Lamprey Restoration Plan
    Tribal Pacific Lamprey Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Restorationfor the Columbia River Plan Basin Commission December 19, 2011 Nez Perce · Umatilla · Yakama · Warm Springs Acknowledgements This Tribal Pacific Lamprey Restoration Plan for the Columbia River Basin (Plan) is a product of the efforts of many tribal and non-tribal biologists, policy representatives, and independent scientists throughout the Pacific Northwest. The tribes acknowledge the collective contributions of many that offered their time and expertise to improve this tribal plan. In particular, we thank Casey Justice and Starla Roels for their extensive review of the Plan. The Plan addresses many regional comments on the draft tribal lamprey restoration plan from tribes, public utilities, federal, state and county agencies, independent scientists and the general public. These comments have greatly improved this Plan. This Plan is a living document that will be periodically updated as new information becomes available through adaptive management practices. Figure 1. Pacific lamprey spawning in an Idaho tributary. Tribal Pacific Lamprey Restoration Plan for the Columbia River Basin i Executive Summary The Creator told the people that the eels would always return as long as the people took care of them, but if the people failed to take care of them, they would disappear. —Ron Suppah, Vice Chair, Warm Springs Tribes Pacific lamprey (Lampetra tridentata) Pacific lamprey are just as important to abundance and distribution in the tribal peoples as salmon. For over 10,000 Columbia River basin and throughout years the people of the Nez Perce, the Pacific Northwest is declining Umatilla, Yakama and Warm Springs precipitously, bringing the species tribes depended on lamprey (commonly dangerously close to regional extinction.
    [Show full text]
  • Idaho Forest Action Plan: Resource Strategy—Revised, September 2015 Page 1 of 135
    Idaho Forest Action Plan: Resource Strategy—Revised, September 2015 Page 1 of 135 Idaho Forest Action Plan: Resource Strategy—Revised, September 2015 Page 2 of 135 Forest Action Plan (2010) Principal Authors / Project Co-Leaders: David Stephenson – Idaho Department of Lands Urban Interface/Planning Program Manager (co-lead) Steve Kimball – Idaho Department of Lands/ US Forest Service National Fire Plan Coordinator (co-lead) Forest Action Plan (2015 Revision) Project Leads David Stephenson – Idaho Department of Lands Urban Interface/Planning Program Manager Mary Fritz – Idaho Department of Lands Forest Stewardship Program Manager This project was funded in part through grants from the U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, National Association of State Foresters and the Western Forestry Leadership Coalition. The U.S. Department of Agriculture prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, gender, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, and marital or family status. To file a complaint call (202) 720- 5964. Idaho Forest Action Plan: Resource Strategy—Revised, September 2015 Page 3 of 135 Table of Contents: Acknowledgements ..................................................................................................... 6 Initial Forest Action Plan Development .............................................................................. 6 2015 Revision .....................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Northwest Anthropological Research Notes
    ISSN 1538-2834 JOURNAL OF NORTHWEST ANTHROPOLOGY A Collection of Papers from the Journal of Northwest Anthropology Associated with Traditional Indigenous Resources Part 2: Aquatic Spring 2011 Electronic Edition JOURNAL OF NORTHWEST ANTHROPOLOGY FORMERLY NORTHWEST ANTHROPOLOGICAL RESEARCH NOTES EDITORS Roderick Sprague Darby C. Stapp Deward E. Walker, Jr. South Fork Press Richland, WA University of Colorado ASSOCIATE EDITORS C. Melvin Aikens (University of Oregon), Haruo Aoki (University of California), Virginia Bevert (Yakama Tribe), Don E. Dumond (University of Oregon), Don D. Fowler (University of Nevada), Raymond D. Fogelson (University of Chicago), Rodney Frey (University of Idaho), Ronald Halfmoon (Lapwai), Tom F. S. McFeat (University of Toronto), and Jay Miller (Lushootseed Research). Julia G. Longenecker Operations Manager Kara N. Powers Editorial Assistant Diana C. Stapp Editorial Assistant Composed by South Fork Press, Moscow; Printed by Copy Court, Moscow; Bound by Arts & Crafts, Oakesdale. Missing issue claim limit 18 months. For back issues and catalogue of prices contact Coyote Press, P O Box 3377, Salinas, CA 93912. <http://www.californiaprehistory.com>. POLICY Journal of Northwest Anthropology, published semiannually by NARN, Inc. a non-profit organization in Richland, Washington, is a refereed journal and welcomes contributions of professional quality dealing with anthropological research in northwestern North America. Regular issues are published semiannually with additional memoirs issued as funds are available. Theoretical and interpretive studies and bibliographic works are preferred, although highly descriptive studies will be considered if they are theoretically significant. The primary criterion guiding selection of papers will be how much new research they can be expected to stimulate or facilitate. SUBSCRIPTIONS The subscription price is $40.00 U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Livestock Grazing
    Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Livestock Grazing 3.5.3 Livestock Grazing This report addresses livestock grazing and the health of associated rangelands. The scale of the analysis is the entire Nez Perce–Clearwater plan area, focusing on the range allotments located within the National Forest. Some comments related to livestock grazing were received during public scoping but none were brought forward as issues driving alternative development. Comments centered on providing for grazing opportunities on suitable rangelands, balancing forage use by domestic livestock with ecosystem functions, and regulating grazing activities by implementing more stringent standards and guidelines or enforcing compliance with existing grazing permit requirements. Livestock grazing on National Forest System land is a valuable resource to livestock owners and supports rural communities. Grazing by domestic livestock has been a legitimate use of public lands since the inception of the National Forest System and has become an import part of the culture of the rural west of the United States. The term rangeland refers to areas where natural vegetation consists principally of grasses, forbs, grass-like plants, and shrubs that are suitable for grazing or browsing (USDA, 2012). The objectives for Forest Service management of rangelands include managing range vegetation to provide ecosystem diversity and environmental quality while providing for livestock grazing and a viable livestock grazing operation; meeting the public’s needs for rangeland uses including recreation; maintaining wildlife food and habitat; and providing opportunities for economic diversity. Rangeland management is an essential part of the Forest Service’s multi-use strategy to manage public lands. This strategy ensures that rangelands provide essential ecosystem services, such as wildlife habitat and related recreation opportunities, watershed functions, and livestock forage.
    [Show full text]
  • Anadromous Fish Committee Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Authority
    Anadromous Fish Committee Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Authority Project Implementation Review Conference September 21-24, 2004 Red Lion Hotel—Richland Hanford House Richland, Washington In April 2004, the Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Authority (CBFWA) released the “Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Program Project Implementation Annual Report 2003,” (http://www.cbfwa.org) which provided an account of approximately 30% of the projects implemented through the Northwest Power and Conservation Council’s (NPCC) Rolling Provincial Review and the Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Program. While there are reports that have provided updates on the Bonneville Power Administration’s (BPA) fish and wildlife financial obligations per general purpose and species, these reports have been at a province scale and not at the subbasin and project scale. This initial effort to assess ongoing implementation activities provided a summary of location-based accomplishments and represented a concerted effort to address the lack of accountability that has plagued the Columbia River Basin. In an effort to review the anadromous fish projects that were not evaluated during 2003, the Anadromous Fish Committee of the CBFWA is convening the Project Implementation Review Conference. The purpose of this conference is to provide project sponsors an opportunity to present accomplishments relative to the project objectives that the NPCC recommended for funding during the Rolling Provincial Review. The CBFWA believes the information presented at this conference and subsequently assembled into the 2004 Annual Report will be useful for fish and wildlife managers, subbasin planners, federal regulators, and the power industry. The CBFWA is grateful to the fish and wildlife managers, NPCC, and BPA for their cooperation and participation in this conference.
    [Show full text]