DOCSLIB.ORG

Petition to Permanently Close Commercial and Recreational Beaver Trapping and Hunting on Federal Lands in Oregon

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Petition to Permanently Close Commercial and Recreational Beaver Trapping and Hunting on Federal Lands in Oregon Petition to Initiate Rulemaking to Amend OAR 635-050-0070 to Permanently Close Commercial and Recreational Beaver Trapping and Hunting on Federally-Managed Public Lands and the Waters that Flows Through These Lands Brought before the Oregon Fish and Game Commission on September 10, 2020 Beaver ponds provide an “emerald refuge” in a landscape burned by the Sharps Fire, Idaho. Photo: Joe Wheaton https://www.sagegrouseinitiative.com/beavers-water-and-fire-a-new-formula-for-success/ Table of Contents I. PETITIONERS ........................................................................................................................4 II. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.....................................................................................................5 III. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................8 IV. LEGAL GROUNDS FOR PETITION ................................................................................. 12 V. AMERICAN BEAVER ........................................................................................................ 13 A. Biology ...................................................................................................................................... 13 B. Population Status ....................................................................................................................... 15 Trapping/Hunting Impacts on Beaver Populations ....................................................... 15 Beaver Response to Trapping and Hunting Closures .................................................... 17 Petitioners Respond to ODFW’s Population Statements ............................................... 19 Impacts of Compensatory vs Additive Harvest Mortality Ignored .................................. 20 Population Data Lacking ............................................................................................... 20 Harvest Percent of Population Unknown........................................................................ 21 Catch-per-Unit-Effort (CPUE) Method Unusable as Measure of Population Stability .... 21 C. Habitat Availability .................................................................................................................... 21 Abundant Unoccupied and Suitable Habitat Exists ....................................................... 22 ODFW Aquatic Habitat Inventories (AHI): Coast Range Streams .................................. 22 Beaver Restoration Assessment Tool (BRAT): North Fork Burnt River watershed and John Day Basin.............................................................................................................. 23 Conclusions ................................................................................................................... 25 Petitioners Respond to ODFW’s Limited Habitat Availability Statements .................. 25 County-Reported-Take Data Not a Measure of Available Habitat .................................. 25 Early Seral Habitat Not Required ................................................................................... 27 Eighteen Acres of Willows per Year Not Required ........................................................ 28 D. Historic and Existing Closures ................................................................................................... 32 Closure History of Beaver Trapping and Hunting in Oregon ....................................... 32 Criteria for Effective Closures ........................................................................................ 34 Assessing ODFW Closure Language .............................................................................. 34 Rule Language Ambiguous and Ineffective.................................................................... 34 Rule Language Out-of-Date with Respect to Private Land Closures ............................... 35 Assessing ODFW Closures for Effectiveness .................................................................. 35 Effective ODFW Closures ............................................................................................. 35 Ineffective ODFW Closures........................................................................................... 36 Petitioners Respond to ODFW’s Closure Misrepresentations....................................... 37 2 Closures and Beavers at Risk on Public Lands Grazing Allotments due to Incorrect Statement in ODFW Publication .................................................................................... 37 ODFW Inflates Closure Sizes in Furbearer Regulations Proposal’s Table 2 ................... 38 E. Economic Benefits of Amending the Rule.................................................................................... 39 F. Social Benefits of Amending the Rule ......................................................................................... 41 G. Additional Benefits of Amending the Rule ................................................................................... 43 Meets the Standards of the Climate and Ocean Change Policy ....................................... 43 Contributes to the Recovery of Threatened and Endangered Salmon .............................. 44 Addresses Oregon Conservation Strategy ...................................................................... 48 Complies with ORS 496.012: Oregon’s Wildlife Policy................................................. 53 H. Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Rule ..................................................................................... 55 Conclusions ...................................................................................................................... 60 I. Oregonians and Beavers: Conflicts and Resolution .................................................................... 60 VI. RULEMAKING REQUEST ............................................................................................... 63 VII. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................. 66 VIII. LITERATURE CITED .................................................................................................. 66 IX. APPENDICES ................................................................................................................. 66 APPENDIX A: Maps Showing Areas Open and Closed Under Existing Rule and Proposed Amendment ...................................................................................................................................... 66 APPENDIX B-1: Studies Related to Beavers and Beaver-Generated Benefits. Studies From 1924 To 2020 .................................................................................................................................................. 66 APPENDIX B-2: ODFW Publications Relevant to the Petition ....................................................... 66 APPENDIX C: Strategic Species Listed in the Oregon Conservation Strategy that rely on Beaver- Created Habitat ................................................................................................................................ 67 APPENDIX D-1: A Case Study in Photos Showing the Magnitude and Speed of Beaver-Related Water and Habitat Changes on Bridge Creek, Wheeler County, Oregon ......................................... 67 APPENDIX D-2: A Case Study in Photos Showing the Magnitude and Speed of Beaver-Related Water and Habitat Changes on Susie Creek, Elko County, Nevada ................................................. 67 APPENDIX E: Maps Showing Specific Areas Open Under Existing Rule to Address Lack of Closure Effectiveness ....................................................................................................................... 67 APPENDIX F: Economics of Beaver-created Habitat ..................................................................... 67 APPENDIX G. Beaver Contributions and Importance in Photos ..................................................... 67 3 BEFORE THE OREGON DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE Petition to Initiate Rulemaking to Amend OAR 635-050-0070 to Permanently Close Commercial and Recreational Beaver Trapping and Hunting on Federally-Managed Public Lands and the Waters that Flows Through These Lands. I. PETITIONERS Suzanne Fouty, Ph.D. Hydrologist/Soils Specialist Nick Cady Legal Director Cascadia Wildlands Quinn Read Oregon Policy Director Center for Biological Diversity Sristi Kamal Senior Northwest Representative Defenders of Wildlife 4 Wally Sykes Co-Founder Northeast Oregon Ecosystems David A. Moskowitz Executive Director The Conservation Angler John DeVoe Executive Director WaterWatch of Oregon Paul Engelmeyer Land Manager Wetlands Conservancy Stanley Petrowski Restoration Committee Chair and Board member Umpqua Watersheds Bob Sallinger Conservation Director Portland Audubon Society II. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Oregon’s existing wildlife laws categorize beavers variously as a rodent, a predatory ani- mal, a nuisance animal, or furbearer. No mention is made that they are a keystone species and ecosystem engineer with the potential to bring large economic, ecological, and social benefits to Oregon and its fish and wildlife. Nor is any mention made of their ability to help Oregonians pre- pare for climate change or take a proactive approach towards addressing climate change, drought, wildfire, threatened and endangered salmon, and declining fish and wildlife as habitat quality and abundance shrinks.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Incidental Captures of Wildlife and Domestic Dogs in Montana, 2012-2017
    Incidental Captures of Wildlife and Domestic Dogs in Montana, 2012-2017 June 2018 Prepared by Robert Inman Carnivore-Furbearer Coordinator Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks This report summarizes all incidental trapping data that FWP has from the 2012-2017 license years. Additional data are available for 2008-2011 but have not been entered into the MRRE database or used in this report. Note that the events that are required to be reported are 1) any lynx capture, 2) any dog capture, and 3) capture of any “Protected Animal” that cannot be released unharmed. Protected Animals are those defined in Montana statute as ‘Game Animals,’ ‘Furbearers,’ or ‘Migratory Birds.’ Game animals are: deer, elk, antelope, moose, bighorn sheep, mountain goat, bison, bears, mountain lions, wolf, waterfowl, turkey, upland birds, sandhill crane, mourning dove, and snipe. There are 10 Furbearers: wolverine, fisher, marten, otter, mink, lynx, bobcat, swift fox, beaver, and muskrat. There are many Migratory Birds that are protected species; all birds except house sparrows, crows, starlings, pigeons, and magpies. Unprotected animals that do not require reporting are ‘Predators’ and ‘Non-Game.’ There are 6 Predators: coyote, striped skunk, spotted skunk, long-tailed weasel, short-tailed weasel, and least weasel. There are many Non-Game species such as raccoon, badger, fox, ground squirrels and rabbits. Incidentally Captured Species Over the 6-year period that was the 2012-2017 FWP license years, a total of 349 incidental captures were reported (Table 1). Fifty-five percent of the incidental captures resulted in the release of the animal, and 45% of the animals died as a result of the capture (Table 1).
    [Show full text]
  • Oregon Historic Trails Report Book (1998)
    i ,' o () (\ ô OnBcox HrsroRrc Tnans Rpponr ô o o o. o o o o (--) -,J arJ-- ö o {" , ã. |¡ t I o t o I I r- L L L L L (- Presented by the Oregon Trails Coordinating Council L , May,I998 U (- Compiled by Karen Bassett, Jim Renner, and Joyce White. Copyright @ 1998 Oregon Trails Coordinating Council Salem, Oregon All rights reserved. No part of this document may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher. Printed in the United States of America. Oregon Historic Trails Report Table of Contents Executive summary 1 Project history 3 Introduction to Oregon's Historic Trails 7 Oregon's National Historic Trails 11 Lewis and Clark National Historic Trail I3 Oregon National Historic Trail. 27 Applegate National Historic Trail .41 Nez Perce National Historic Trail .63 Oregon's Historic Trails 75 Klamath Trail, 19th Century 17 Jedediah Smith Route, 1828 81 Nathaniel Wyeth Route, t83211834 99 Benjamin Bonneville Route, 1 833/1 834 .. 115 Ewing Young Route, 1834/1837 .. t29 V/hitman Mission Route, 184l-1847 . .. t4t Upper Columbia River Route, 1841-1851 .. 167 John Fremont Route, 1843 .. 183 Meek Cutoff, 1845 .. 199 Cutoff to the Barlow Road, 1848-1884 217 Free Emigrant Road, 1853 225 Santiam Wagon Road, 1865-1939 233 General recommendations . 241 Product development guidelines 243 Acknowledgements 241 Lewis & Clark OREGON National Historic Trail, 1804-1806 I I t . .....¡.. ,r la RivaÌ ï L (t ¡ ...--."f Pðiräldton r,i " 'f Route description I (_-- tt |".
    [Show full text]
  • Imaginative Geographies of Mars: the Science and Significance of the Red Planet, 1877 - 1910
    Copyright by Kristina Maria Doyle Lane 2006 The Dissertation Committee for Kristina Maria Doyle Lane Certifies that this is the approved version of the following dissertation: IMAGINATIVE GEOGRAPHIES OF MARS: THE SCIENCE AND SIGNIFICANCE OF THE RED PLANET, 1877 - 1910 Committee: Ian R. Manners, Supervisor Kelley A. Crews-Meyer Diana K. Davis Roger Hart Steven D. Hoelscher Imaginative Geographies of Mars: The Science and Significance of the Red Planet, 1877 - 1910 by Kristina Maria Doyle Lane, B.A.; M.S.C.R.P. Dissertation Presented to the Faculty of the Graduate School of The University of Texas at Austin in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy The University of Texas at Austin August 2006 Dedication This dissertation is dedicated to Magdalena Maria Kost, who probably never would have understood why it had to be written and certainly would not have wanted to read it, but who would have been very proud nonetheless. Acknowledgments This dissertation would have been impossible without the assistance of many extremely capable and accommodating professionals. For patiently guiding me in the early research phases and then responding to countless followup email messages, I would like to thank Antoinette Beiser and Marty Hecht of the Lowell Observatory Library and Archives at Flagstaff. For introducing me to the many treasures held deep underground in our nation’s capital, I would like to thank Pam VanEe and Ed Redmond of the Geography and Map Division of the Library of Congress in Washington, D.C. For welcoming me during two brief but productive visits to the most beautiful library I have seen, I thank Brenda Corbin and Gregory Shelton of the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Beaver Wildlife Note
    Beaver The beaver, Castor canadensis, is North America’s largest pelage consists of dense underfur covered with longer rodent. Before European colonists arrived, the species was guard hairs. The thick pelt and deposits of body fat insulate plentiful from the Mexican border to the Arctic. Beaver fur the animal and allow it to remain in the water many hours is thick and considered valuable. Raw pelts brought $4 each at a time. in the early 1800s. Adjusting for inflation, beaver pelts back A beaver’s tail is trowel-shaped, 8 to 12 inches long and five then would be about $80 each in today’s dollars. The fur or six inches wide. It has a scaly, leathery covering. When was used to make top hats and to trim clothes. Tremendous this furbearer swims, it uses its tail as a propeller and a demand for beaver fur sent trapping expeditions rudder. The tail also supports a beaver when it sits erect or throughout the unexplored West, stimulating expansion of gnaws a tree on dry land. A sharp slap of the tail on water the new American nation. is a signal warning other beavers of danger. Tail slapping is By the end of the nineteenth century, uncontrolled trapping also a diving aid that gives a beaver extra propulsion to tip and habitat loss eliminated beavers in Pennsylvania and its body down for descent and may not always be intended most eastern states. But, today this aquatic furbearer is to be a danger signal. back. Aided by modern wildlife management, the beaver A beaver’s front feet are remarkably dexterous.
    [Show full text]
  • Do Wolves Ambush Beavers? Video Evidence for Higher-Order Hunting Strategies 1, 2 3 1 THOMAS D
    Do wolves ambush beavers? Video evidence for higher-order hunting strategies 1, 2 3 1 THOMAS D. GABLE , TRENT STANGER, STEVE K. WINDELS, AND JOSEPH K. BUMP 1University of Minnesota, 2003 Buford Circle, St. Paul, Minnesota 55108 USA 2Remigny, Quebec J0Z 3H0 Canada 3Voyageurs National Park, 360 Highway 11 E, International Falls, Minnesota 56649 USA Citation: Gable, T. D., T. Stanger, S. K. Windels, and J. K. Bump. 2018. Do wolves ambush beavers? Video evidence for higher-order hunting strategies. Ecosphere 9(3):e02159. 10.1002/ecs2.2159 Abstract. Over the past decade, there has been much debating about whether wolves possess high-order cognitive abilities that facilitate deliberate or cooperative hunting strategies such as ambush to capture prey. Beavers can be important alternate or primary prey for wolves in North America and Europe, but no observations of wolves hunting and killing beavers exist. We describe the first documented observation of a gray wolf killing a beaver, an observation that has provided valuable insight into how beavers defend themselves when attacked by wolves, how wolves hunt beavers, and the predatory strategies and cogni- tive abilities of wolves. Our observation confirms that wolves do hunt and kill beavers by surprising and ambushing them, which demonstrates that wolves have a unique ability to switch between cursorial and ambush hunting strategies depending on the prey. We suggest that wolves learn how to hunt beavers using high-order mental abilities combined with information learned from prior interactions with beavers. Key words: alternate prey; cognition; hunting behavior; kill site; predation behavior; predation risk; predator–prey; wolf predation.
    [Show full text]
  • Beaver Management in Pennsylvania 2010-2019
    Beaver Management in Pennsylvania (2010-2019) prepared by Tom Hardisky Wildlife Biologist Pennsylvania Game Commission April 2011 So important was the pursuit of the beaver as an influence in westward movement of the American frontier that it is sometimes suggested that this furbearer would be a more appropriate symbol of the United States than the bald eagle. -- Encyclopedia Americana 12:178, 1969. This plan was prepared and will be implemented at no cost to Pennsylvania taxpayers. The Pennsylvania Game Commission is an independently-funded agency, relying on license sales, State Game Land timber, mineral, and oil/gas revenues, and federal excise taxes on sporting arms and ammunition. The Game Commission does not receive any state general fund money collected through taxes. For more than 115 years, sportsmen and women have funded game, non-game, and endangered species programs involving birds and mammals in Pennsylvania. Hunters and trappers continue to financially support all of Pennsylvania’s wildlife programs including beaver management. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Native Americans maintained a well-calculated balance between beaver populations and man for centuries. The importance of beavers to the livelihood and culture of native North Americans was paramount. When western civilization nearly wiped out beavers in Europe, then successfully proceeded to do the same in North America, the existence of beavers was seriously endangered across the continent. Native American respect for beavers was replaced by European greed over a 300-year period. Conservation-minded individuals and state agencies began beaver recovery efforts during the early 1900s. The return of beavers to most of North America was a miraculous wildlife management achievement.
    [Show full text]
  • Trapping Regulations You May Trap Wildlife for Subsistence Uses Only Within the Seasons and Harvest Limits in These Unit Trapping Regulations
    Trapping Regulations You may trap wildlife for subsistence uses only within the seasons and harvest limits in these unit trapping regulations. Trapping wildlife out of season or in excess of harvest limits for subsistence uses is illegal and prohibited. However, you may trap unclassified wildlife (such as all squirrel and marmot species) in all units, without harvest limits, from July 1, 2014 through June 30, 2016. Subsistence Trapping Restrictions When taking wildlife for subsistence purposes, ● Take (or assist in the taking of) furbearers by firearm trappers may not: before 3:00 a.m. on the day following the day on which airborne travel occurred. This does not apply to a ● Disturb or destroy a den (except any muskrat pushup trapper using a firearm to dispatch furbearers caught in or feeding house that may be disturbed in the course of a trap or snare. trapping). ● Use a net or fish trap (except a blackfish or fyke trap). ● Disturb or destroy any beaver house. ● Use a firearm other than a shotgun, muzzle-loaded ● Take beaver by any means other than a steel trap or rifle, rifle or pistol using center-firing cartridges, for the snare, except certain times of the year when firearms taking of a wolf or wolverine, except that: may be used to take beaver in Units 9, 12, 17, 18, 20E, ■ You may use a firearm that shoots rimfire 21E, 22 and 23. See Unit-specific regulations. cartridges to take wolf and wolverine under a ● Under a trapping license, take a free-ranging furbearer trapping license. You may sell the raw fur or tanned with a firearm on NPS lands.
    [Show full text]
  • September 29, 2014 Land Management Plan Revision USDA
    September 29, 2014 Land Management Plan Revision USDA Forest Service Ecosystem Planning Staff 1323 Club Drive Vallejo, CA 94592 Submitted via Region 5 website Re: Comments on Notice of Intent and Detailed Proposed Action for the Forest Plan Revisions on the Inyo, Sequoia and Sierra National Forests To the Forest Plan Revision Team: These comments are provided on behalf of Sierra Forest Legacy and the above conservation organizations. We have reviewed the Notice of Intent (NOI), detailed Proposed Action (PA), and supporting materials posted on the Region 5 planning website and offer the following comments on these documents. We have submitted numerous comment letters since the forest plan revision process was initiated for the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra national forests. Specifically, we submitted comment letters on the forest assessments for each national forest (Sierra Forest Legacy et al. 2013a, Sierra Forest Legacy et al. 2013b, Sierra Forest Legacy et al. 2013c), comments on two need for change documents (Sierra Forest Legacy et al. 2014a, Sierra Forest Legacy et al. 2014b) and comments on detailed desired conditions (Sierra Forest Legacy et al. 2014c). We incorporate these comments by reference and attach the letters to these scoping comments. We have included these letters in our scoping comments because significant issues that we raised in these comments have not yet been addressed in the NOI, or the detailed PA creates significant conflict with resource areas on which we commented. Organization of Comments The following comments address first the content of the NOI, including the purpose and need for action, issues not addressed in the scoping notice, and regulatory compliance of the PA as written.
    [Show full text]
  • Educator's Guide
    Educator’s Guide the jill and lewis bernard family Hall of north american mammals inside: • Suggestions to Help You come prepared • essential questions for Student Inquiry • Strategies for teaching in the exhibition • map of the Exhibition • online resources for the Classroom • Correlations to science framework • glossary amnh.org/namammals Essential QUESTIONS Who are — and who were — the North as tundra, winters are cold, long, and dark, the growing season American Mammals? is extremely short, and precipitation is low. In contrast, the abundant precipitation and year-round warmth of tropical All mammals on Earth share a common ancestor and and subtropical forests provide optimal growing conditions represent many millions of years of evolution. Most of those that support the greatest diversity of species worldwide. in this hall arose as distinct species in the relatively recent Florida and Mexico contain some subtropical forest. In the past. Their ancestors reached North America at different boreal forest that covers a huge expanse of the continent’s times. Some entered from the north along the Bering land northern latitudes, winters are dry and severe, summers moist bridge, which was intermittently exposed by low sea levels and short, and temperatures between the two range widely. during the Pleistocene (2,588,000 to 11,700 years ago). Desert and scrublands are dry and generally warm through- These migrants included relatives of New World cats (e.g. out the year, with temperatures that may exceed 100°F and dip sabertooth, jaguar), certain rodents, musk ox, at least two by 30 degrees at night. kinds of elephants (e.g.
    [Show full text]
  • Thank You for Investing in SILS
    1 Thank you for investing in SILS SILS is pleased to recognize and honor the following donors for their generous support. Much of what SILS is, and what we hope to be in the future, is the result of private support. Your gifts help SILS recruit and educate talented student as well as preeminent faculty. Private support also helps spark new initiatives as well as sustain current areas of scholarship and research. This listing reflects gifts to SILS, received between July 1, 2010 and June 30, 2011. Andrea Louise Rohrbacher '90 Mabel Marie Shaw '85 Legacy Society ($1M +) no donors Kim Lee Bartholomew '00 and William Cary Sibert Jr. '99 Duncan Franklin Smith '76, '80 Elizabeth Anne Bartlett '89 John Ray Turbyfill Jr.'88 Alice Lee Googe Bauer '38 Louis Round Wilson Society ($100,000- Edith E. Yakutis and Leo Yakutis '88, '91 Jeffrey Beall '90 999,999) Patricia Warren Becker '59 Duke University Associates ($250-499) Jean Maragert Robinson Beecher '74 Larry Paul Alford '73 and '78 Peggy White Bellamy '67 Joan Nancy Bardez '68 David B. Bennett '87 Susan Grey Akers Affiliates ($50,000-99,999) Philip Mathews Cheney '77 Sylvia Cratch Bennett '80 no donors Evelyn Hope Daniel Susan Ruth Percy Benning '89 Michol Dawson '99, '03 and David O. Amuda '03 Dale Monroe Bentz '40 Fannie Jones Dillard '76, '78 and Tom Dillard Jr. '77 Lucille K. Henderson Affiliates ($10,000-49,999) Damien Mario Berahzer '05 Baker & Taylor Susan Dillard Donkar '73, '75 Laura Jeanne Berberian '08 IBM Corporation Kevin Timothy Doupe '01 Marcia Hall Bethea '87 Eleanor M.
    [Show full text]
  • Geology of the Grande Ronde Lignite Field, Asotin County
    BRIAN J. BOYLE COMMISSIONER OF PUBLIC LANDS STATE OF WASHINGTON ART STEARNS, Supervisor RAYMOND LASMANIS, State Geologist DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES DIVISION OF GEOLOGY AND EARTH RESOURCES GEOLOGY OF THE GRANDE RONDE LIGNITE FIELD, ASOTIN COUNTY, WASHINGTON By Keith L. Stoffel Report of Investigations 27 1984 BRIAN J. BOYLE COMMISSIONER OF PUBLIC LANDS STATE OF WASHINGTON ART STEARNS, Supervisor RAYMOND LASMANIS, State Geologist DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES DIVISION OF GEOLOGY AND EARTH RESOURCES GEOLOGY OF THE GRANDE RONDE LIGNITE FIELD, ASOTIN COUNTY, WASHINGTON By Keith L. Stoff el Report of Investigations 27 Printed in the United States of America 1984 For sale by the Department of Natural Resources, Olympia, Washington Price $4.00 CONTENTS Page Abstract t • t t Ott t t t t t I It t t t t t too It Ott It t It t It t t t Ott t t t t t t t I t t I It t It t t It 1 Introduction . 2 Location and geographic setting . 2 Purpose and scope of study . 3 Methods of study . 3 Acknowledgments . 4 Geology of the Columbia Plateau . 6 General geologic setting . 6 Stratigraphic nomenclature . 7 Columbia River Basalt Group . 7 Ellensburg and Latah Formations . 8 Stratigraphy . 8 Regional stratigraphy . 8 Imnaha and Picture Gorge Basalts . 8 Yakima Basalt Subgroup . 9 Grande Ronde Basalt . 9 Wanapum Basalt . 9 Saddle Mountains Basalt ... .............. .. ........ .... 10 Stratigraphy of the Grande Ronde lignite field . 11 Structure ................................. ...................... .. 13 Evolution of the Blue Mountains province . 13 Structural geology of the Grande Ronde River-Blue Mountains region .......... 15 Folds . ............. .................... .............. 15 Faults .
    [Show full text]
  • Characterization of Ecoregions of Idaho
    1 0 . C o l u m b i a P l a t e a u 1 3 . C e n t r a l B a s i n a n d R a n g e Ecoregion 10 is an arid grassland and sagebrush steppe that is surrounded by moister, predominantly forested, mountainous ecoregions. It is Ecoregion 13 is internally-drained and composed of north-trending, fault-block ranges and intervening, drier basins. It is vast and includes parts underlain by thick basalt. In the east, where precipitation is greater, deep loess soils have been extensively cultivated for wheat. of Nevada, Utah, California, and Idaho. In Idaho, sagebrush grassland, saltbush–greasewood, mountain brush, and woodland occur; forests are absent unlike in the cooler, wetter, more rugged Ecoregion 19. Grazing is widespread. Cropland is less common than in Ecoregions 12 and 80. Ecoregions of Idaho The unforested hills and plateaus of the Dissected Loess Uplands ecoregion are cut by the canyons of Ecoregion 10l and are disjunct. 10f Pure grasslands dominate lower elevations. Mountain brush grows on higher, moister sites. Grazing and farming have eliminated The arid Shadscale-Dominated Saline Basins ecoregion is nearly flat, internally-drained, and has light-colored alkaline soils that are Ecoregions denote areas of general similarity in ecosystems and in the type, quality, and America into 15 ecological regions. Level II divides the continent into 52 regions Literature Cited: much of the original plant cover. Nevertheless, Ecoregion 10f is not as suited to farming as Ecoregions 10h and 10j because it has thinner soils.
    [Show full text]