DOCSLIB.ORG

Ecoregional Planning in the Northern Great Plains Steppe

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Ecoregional Planning in the Northern Great Plains Steppe Ecoregional Planning in the Northern Great Plains Steppe Northern Great Plains Steppe Ecoregional Planning Team February 4, 1999 Ecoregional Planning in the Northern Great Plains Steppe Northern Great Plains Steppe Ecoregional Conservation Team February 5, 1999 ii TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS.......................................................................................................................... ii LIST OF TABLES, FIGURES AND APPENDICES.......................................................................... vi ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ...................................................................................................................... vii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...................................................................................................................viii CHAPTER 1: ECOREGIONAL PLANNING IN THE NORTHERN GREAT PLAINS STEPPE ……… ........................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Background ........................................................................................................................... 2 1.1.1 Introduction............................................................................................................. 2 1.1.2 The Structure of Ecoregional Planning.................................................................... 2 1.2 The Northern Great Plains Steppe ...................................................................................... 3 1.2.1 The Northern Great Plains Steppe Conservation Goal............................................. 3 1.2.2 An Ecological Description of the Ecoregion ........................................................... 4 1.3 Trends in Biodiversity........................................................................................................... 4 1.4 Ecoregional Planning Team History.................................................................................... 6 CHAPTER 2: ECOREGIONAL ASSESSMENT.................................................................................. 7 2.1 The Assessment Process: Approach and Rationale ........................................................... 8 2.1.1 Information Management ........................................................................................ 8 2.2 Assessment Information Sources ......................................................................................... 8 2.2.1 Natural Heritage/CDC Network Data Base ............................................................. 8 2.2.2 Landscape Analysis................................................................................................. 9 2.2.3 Expert Workshops ................................................................................................. 12 2.2.4 Published Literature .............................................................................................. 13 2.3 Products for Portfolio Assembly ..................................................................................................... 13 2.3.1 Conservation Targets............................................................................................. 13 2.3.2 Information Confidence Levels ............................................................................. 17 2.3.3 Viability Assessment............................................................................................. 17 2.3.4 Ecoregion Conservation Goals .............................................................................. 18 2.3.5 Ecological Backdrop ............................................................................................. 22 iii 2.3.6 Managed Area Identification................................................................................. 22 CHAPTER 3: THE ECOREGIONAL PORTFOLIO DESIGN......................................................... 23 3.1 Background ......................................................................................................................... 24 3.2 Assembling the Portfolio of Sites........................................................................................ 24 3.2.1 Assembly Sequence............................................................................................... 24 3.2.2 Site Mapping ......................................................................................................... 27 3.3 The Resulting Portfolio Design........................................................................................... 27 3.3.1 Meeting Target Conservation Goals...................................................................... 28 CHAPTER 4: FROM ASSEMBLY TO IMPLEMENTATION......................................................... 35 4.1 Introduction......................................................................................................................... 36 4.2 Portfolio Threats Assessment ............................................................................................. 36 4.2.1 Frequency of Occurrence ...................................................................................... 36 4.2.2 Severity of Threat.................................................................................................. 37 4.2.3 Analysis and Abatement of Threats....................................................................... 38 4.3 Feasibility Assessment......................................................................................................... 38 4.4 Site Prioritization for Conservation Action....................................................................... 39 4.4.1 The Prioritization Matrix....................................................................................... 39 4.4.2 Results: Conservation Priorities for the Northern Great Plains Steppe ............................................................................................ 40 4.5 Managed Areas Assessment................................................................................................ 41 4.6 Data Gaps ........................................................................................................................... 44 CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSIONS AND THE ECOREGIONAL ACTION PLAN.............................. 51 5.1 Project Expenses ................................................................................................................. 52 5.2 Lessons Learned.................................................................................................................. 52 5.3 An Action Plan for the Northern Great Plains Steppe ..................................................... 53 5.3.1 Priorities for Conservation Action......................................................................... 53 5.3.2 Evaluating and Charting Progress ......................................................................... 54 5.4 The Next Iteration............................................................................................................... 55 5.4.1 Existing Data......................................................................................................... 55 5.4.2 Filling Data Gaps .................................................................................................. 55 iv LITERATURE CITED........................................................................................................................... 56 APPENDICES ........................................................................................................................................ 58 v TABLES, FIGURES AND APPENDICES TABLES Table 1: Northern Great Plains Steppe Ecological Complexes...................................................... 16 Table 2: Conservation Guidelines for Species Targets.................................................................. 19 Table 3: Occurrence Goal and Number of Occurrences Captured for Primary Conservation Target Species within Sites in the Northern Great Plains Steppe .............. 31 Table 4: Number of Ecological Complexes Selected and Goal for each by Section in The Northern Great Plains Steppe Ecoregion.................................................................. 33 Table 5: Northern Great Plains Steppe Portfolio Threat Analysis ................................................. 37 Table 6: Managed Areas Classification......................................................................................... 43 Table 7: Northern Great Plains Steppe Expenses .......................................................................... 52 FIGURES Figure 1: Ecoregional Planning ........................................................................................................ 3 Figure 2: Northern Great Plains Steppe Ecoregion .......................................................................... 5 Figure 3: Element Occurrences of Primary Conservation Targets.................................................. 10 Figure 4: Untilled Landscapes of the U.S. and Portions of Southern Canada ................................. 11 Figure 5: Expert Workshops Composite Sites ................................................................................ 14 Figure 6: Selection Sequence for Ecological Complexes................................................................ 20 Figure 7: Target Selection Sequence .............................................................................................. 21 Figure 8: Ecological Sections Delineated for the Mixedgrass Ecoregion
Load more

Recommended publications
  • SALT TOLERANT PLANTS Recommended for Pender County Landscapes
    North Carolina Cooperative Extension NC STATE UNIVERSITY SALT TOLERANT PLANTS Recommended for Pender County Landscapes Pender County Cooperative Extension Urban Horticulture Leaflet 14 Coastal Challenges Plants growing at the beach are subjected to environmental conditions much different than those planted further inland. Factors such as blowing sand, poor soils, high temperatures, and excessive drainage all influence how well plants perform in coastal landscapes, though the most significant effect on growth is salt spray. Most plants will not tolerate salt accumulating on their foliage, making plant selection for beachfront land- scapes particularly challenging. Salt Spray Salt spray is created when waves break on the beach, throwing tiny droplets of salty water into the air. On-shore breezes blow this salt laden air landward where it comes in contact with plant foliage. The amount of salt spray plants receive varies depending on their proximity to the beachfront, creating different vegetation zones as one gets further away from the beachfront. The most salt-tolerant species surviving in the frontal dune area. As distance away from the ocean increases, the level of salt spray decreases, allowing plants with less salt tolerance to survive. Natural Protection The impact of salt spray on plants can be lessened by physically blocking salt laden winds. This occurs naturally in the maritime forest, where beachfront plants protect landward species by creating a layer of foliage that blocks salt spray. It is easy to see this effect on the ocean side of maritime forest plants, which are “sheared” by salt spray, causing them to grow at a slant away from the oceanfront.
    [Show full text]
  • Western Juniper Woodlands of the Pacific Northwest
    Western Juniper Woodlands (of the Pacific Northwest) Science Assessment October 6, 1994 Lee E. Eddleman Professor, Rangeland Resources Oregon State University Corvallis, Oregon Patricia M. Miller Assistant Professor Courtesy Rangeland Resources Oregon State University Corvallis, Oregon Richard F. Miller Professor, Rangeland Resources Eastern Oregon Agricultural Research Center Burns, Oregon Patricia L. Dysart Graduate Research Assistant Rangeland Resources Oregon State University Corvallis, Oregon TABLE OF CONTENTS Page EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................... i WESTERN JUNIPER (Juniperus occidentalis Hook. ssp. occidentalis) WOODLANDS. ................................................. 1 Introduction ................................................ 1 Current Status.............................................. 2 Distribution of Western Juniper............................ 2 Holocene Changes in Western Juniper Woodlands ................. 4 Introduction ........................................... 4 Prehistoric Expansion of Juniper .......................... 4 Historic Expansion of Juniper ............................. 6 Conclusions .......................................... 9 Biology of Western Juniper.................................... 11 Physiological Ecology of Western Juniper and Associated Species ...................................... 17 Introduction ........................................... 17 Western Juniper — Patterns in Biomass Allocation............ 17 Western Juniper — Allocation Patterns of Carbon and
    [Show full text]
  • UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT AUG 0 5 2016 Owner, Operator, And
    Case 5:16-cv-05068-JLV Document 1 Filed 08/05/16 Page 1 of 6 PageID #: 1 FILED UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT AUG 0 5 2016 DISTRICT OF SOUTH DAKOTA i WESTERN DIVISION 'CLfcfiK KARRIE K. YANKTON, CIVIL FILE NO. Plaintiff, V. COMPLAINT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendants. COMES NOW the Plaintiff Karrie K. Yankton, by and through legal counsel, and for her complaint, states as follows: 1. Plaintiff, Karrie K. Yankton is Native American and a member of the Oglala Sioux Tribe, residing in Pine Ridge, Oglala Lakota County, South Dakota. 2. At all times relevant hereto, the Department of Health and Human Services, a federal agency of the Defendant United States government, was and is now the owner, operator, and/or manager of the Pine Ridge Indian Health Service (IHS) Hospital in Pine Ridge, Oglala Lakota County, South Dakota. The Pine Ridge Indian Health Service Hospital is located within the exterior boundaries of the Pine Ridge Sioux Indian Reservation, and is legally obligated to provide health care services to Native Americans by statutory and treaty mandates. .nJRISDICTION 3. At all times relevant hereto, the United States, the Unites States Department of Health and Human Services, and the Pine Ridge IHS Hospital, are legally obligated to provide health care services to Native Americans by statutory and treaty mandates. The Oglala Sioux Tribe and the Department of Health Human Services are covered under the Federal Tort Claims Case 5:16-cv-05068-JLV Document 1 Filed 08/05/16 Page 2 of 6 PageID #: 2 Act(FTCA). A recent FTCA administrative claim was filed on June 4, 2012, naming those entities, and was denied on January 23, 2014.
    [Show full text]
  • Small Size Plants Fall 2019
    small size plants Fall 2019 Item number Name pot size 28501 Abies koreana 'Cis' #1 29501 Abies koreana 'Ice Breaker' #1 30401 Abies koreana 'Silberperle' #1 31501 Abies koreana 'Wellenseind' #1 36001 Abies nordmanniana 'Hupp's Perfect Pillar' #1 10710001 Acer palmatum 'Bihou' #1 10750000J Acer palmatum 'Butterfly' 6" RGP 10750001 Acer palmatum 'Butterfly' #1 10885001 Acer palmatum 'Katsura' #1 10916000J Acer palmatum 'Koto-no-Ito' 6" RGP 10950400J Acer palmatum 'Mikawa yatsubusa' 6" RGP 11011000J Acer palmatum 'Rhode Island Red' 6" RGP 11050001 Acer palmatum 'Sango kaku' #1 11020000J Acer palmatum 'Sharp's Pygmy' 6" RGP 11130501 Acer palmatum 'Shindeshojo' #1 11061401 Acer palmatum 'Twombly's Red Sentinel' #1 11320000J Acer palmatum dissectum 'Crimson Queen' 6" RGP 11390001 Acer palmatum dissectum 'Seiryu' #1 11390200J Acer palmatum dissectum 'Spring Delight' 6" RGP 10560000J Acer shirasawanum 'Aureum' 6" RGP 11437800J Acer shirasawanum 'Autumn Moon' 6" RGP 11438000J Acer shirasawanum 'Jordan' 6" RGP 11427301 Acer x pseudosieboldianum First Flame®('IslFirFl') #1 31562001 Berberis thunbergii 'Bagatelle' #1 31565701 Berberis thunbergii 'Golden Devine' #1 11631001 Betula jacquemontii 'Tickle Creek' #1 31671700J Buxus sempervirens 'Mont Bruno' 6" RGP 31673700J Buxus sempervirens 'Variegata' 6" RGP 31668300J Buxus sinica var. insularis 'Justin Brouwers' 6" RGP 32700001 Callicarpa bodinieri 'Profusion' #1 193501 Cedrus deodara 'Prostrate Beauty' #1 199001 Cedrus deodara 'Snow Sprite' #1 230901 Chamaecyparis obtusa 'Bridget' #1 231100J Chamaecyparis
    [Show full text]
  • Grassland Resources and Development of Grassland Agriculture in Temperate China
    124 Rangelands 10(3), June 1988 Grassland Resources and Development of Grassland Agriculture in Temperate China Zhu Tinachen Natural temperate grasslands occupy 2.4 million km2 or one-quarter ofthe area of China. They form a broad beltfrom the plains of the northeast to the Tibetan Plateau of the southwest (Fig. 1). The nature and distribution of thegrassland is determined in large part by the influence of the monsoon. In the north- east where the monsoon is well developed, the grassland owes its existenceto dry conditions in the spring. Westward and southwestward wherethe monsooninfluence is weaker, the grasslandsoccupy higherelevations (to as high as 5,000 m) in response to the semiarid and arid regional climate. Similarly, temperate grasslands occur at high elevations in mountains of the desert region in northwestern China, far beyond the continuous grassland belt. Some 4,000 species offlowering plants comprise thevegetation ofthese temper- ate grasslands.About 200 are important forage species. The livestock population in China is about 130 million Fig. I Steppe zone of China cattle units. Most of the livestock are dependent on these 1.Meadow steppe, 2.Typical steppe. 3.Desert steppe. 4. Shrub steppe. 5. Alpine steppe. natural temperategrasslands. GrasslandTypes responding to climate and distributed in the form of a belt. Meadows are not zonal; they are controlled by local envi- Based on the concept of zonal vegetation, the natural ronments.About 80 ofthe area of is occu- of China can be divided into two percent grassland temperategrasslands major pied by zone steppetypes and about 20 percent by meadow types: steppe and meadow.
    [Show full text]
  • Lands of the Lakota: Policy, Culture and Land Use on the Pine Ridge
    1 Lands of the Lakota: Policy, Culture and Land Use on the Pine Ridge Reservation Joseph Stromberg Senior Honors Thesis Environmental Studies and Anthropology Washington University in St. Louis 2 Abstract Land is invested with tremendous historical and cultural significance for the Oglala Lakota Nation of the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation. Widespread alienation from direct land use among tribal members also makes land a key element in exploring the roots of present-day problems—over two thirds of the reservation’s agricultural income goes to non-Natives, while the majority of households live below the poverty line. In order to understand how current patterns in land use are linked with federal policy and tribal culture, this study draws on three sources: (1) archival research on tribal history, especially in terms of territory loss, political transformation, ethnic division, economic coercion, and land use; (2) an account of contemporary problems on the reservation, with an analysis of current land policy and use pattern; and (3) primary qualitative ethnographic research conducted on the reservation with tribal members. Findings indicate that federal land policies act to effectively block direct land use. Tribal members have responded to policy in ways relative to the expression of cultural values, and the intent of policy has been undermined by a failure to fully understand the cultural context of the reservation. The discussion interprets land use through the themes of policy obstacles, forced incorporation into the world-system, and resistance via cultural sovereignty over land use decisions. Acknowledgements I would like to sincerely thank the Buder Center for American Indian Studies of the George Warren Brown School of Social Work as well as the Environmental Studies Program, for support in conducting research.
    [Show full text]
  • Vascular Plant and Vertebrate Inventory of Chiricahua National Monument
    In Cooperation with the University of Arizona, School of Natural Resources Vascular Plant and Vertebrate Inventory of Chiricahua National Monument Open-File Report 2008-1023 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey National Park Service This page left intentionally blank. In cooperation with the University of Arizona, School of Natural Resources Vascular Plant and Vertebrate Inventory of Chiricahua National Monument By Brian F. Powell, Cecilia A. Schmidt, William L. Halvorson, and Pamela Anning Open-File Report 2008-1023 U.S. Geological Survey Southwest Biological Science Center Sonoran Desert Research Station University of Arizona U.S. Department of the Interior School of Natural Resources U.S. Geological Survey 125 Biological Sciences East National Park Service Tucson, Arizona 85721 U.S. Department of the Interior DIRK KEMPTHORNE, Secretary U.S. Geological Survey Mark Myers, Director U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia: 2008 For product and ordering information: World Wide Web: http://www.usgs.gov/pubprod Telephone: 1-888-ASK-USGS For more information on the USGS-the Federal source for science about the Earth, its natural and living resources, natural hazards, and the environment: World Wide Web:http://www.usgs.gov Telephone: 1-888-ASK-USGS Suggested Citation Powell, B.F., Schmidt, C.A., Halvorson, W.L., and Anning, Pamela, 2008, Vascular plant and vertebrate inventory of Chiricahua National Monument: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2008-1023, 104 p. [http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2008/1023/]. Cover photo: Chiricahua National Monument. Photograph by National Park Service. Note: This report supersedes Schmidt et al. (2005). Any use of trade, product, or firm names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Central Mixedgrass Prairie Ecological System (Central Shortgrass Prairie Ecoregion Version)
    CENTRAL MIXEDGRASS PRAIRIE ECOLOGICAL SYSTEM (CENTRAL SHORTGRASS PRAIRIE ECOREGION VERSION) ECOLOGICAL INTEGRITY ASSESSMENT Draft of June 29, 2007 Prepared by: Karin Decker Colorado Natural Heritage Program Colorado State University 254 General Services Building Fort Collins, CO 80523 Table of Contents A. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................ 3 A.1 Classification Summary ........................................................................................... 3 A.2 Ecological System Description ................................................................................ 5 A.2.1 Environment....................................................................................................... 5 A.2.2 Vegetation & Ecosystem.................................................................................... 6 A.2.3 Dynamics ........................................................................................................... 8 A.2.4 Landscape......................................................................................................... 10 A.2.5 Size................................................................................................................... 11 A.3 Ecological Integrity................................................................................................ 12 A.3.1 Threats.............................................................................................................. 12 A.3.2 Justification of Metrics....................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Stuart, Trees & Shrubs
    Excerpted from ©2001 by the Regents of the University of California. All rights reserved. May not be copied or reused without express written permission of the publisher. click here to BUY THIS BOOK INTRODUCTION HOW THE BOOK IS ORGANIZED Conifers and broadleaved trees and shrubs are treated separately in this book. Each group has its own set of keys to genera and species, as well as plant descriptions. Plant descriptions are or- ganized alphabetically by genus and then by species. In a few cases, we have included separate subspecies or varieties. Gen- era in which we include more than one species have short generic descriptions and species keys. Detailed species descrip- tions follow the generic descriptions. A species description in- cludes growth habit, distinctive characteristics, habitat, range (including a map), and remarks. Most species descriptions have an illustration showing leaves and either cones, flowers, or fruits. Illustrations were drawn from fresh specimens with the intent of showing diagnostic characteristics. Plant rarity is based on rankings derived from the California Native Plant Society and federal and state lists (Skinner and Pavlik 1994). Two lists are presented in the appendixes. The first is a list of species grouped by distinctive morphological features. The second is a checklist of trees and shrubs indexed alphabetically by family, genus, species, and common name. CLASSIFICATION To classify is a natural human trait. It is our nature to place ob- jects into similar groups and to place those groups into a hier- 1 TABLE 1 CLASSIFICATION HIERARCHY OF A CONIFER AND A BROADLEAVED TREE Taxonomic rank Conifer Broadleaved tree Kingdom Plantae Plantae Division Pinophyta Magnoliophyta Class Pinopsida Magnoliopsida Order Pinales Sapindales Family Pinaceae Aceraceae Genus Abies Acer Species epithet magnifica glabrum Variety shastensis torreyi Common name Shasta red fir mountain maple archy.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 in the United States District
    IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTHER DAKOTA WESTERN DIVISION ROSEBUD SIOUX TRIBE and their members, OGLALA SIOUX TRIBE and their members, and FOUR DIRECTIONS, INC., Case No. Plaintiffs, v. COMPLAINT STEVE BARNETT, in his official capacity as Secretary of State for the State of South Dakota and Chairperson of the South Dakota State Board of Elections; LAURIE GILL, in her official capacity as Cabinet Secretary for the South Dakota Department of Social Services; MARCIA HULTMAN, in her official capacity as Cabinet Secretary for the South Dakota Department of Labor and Regulation; and CRAIG PRICE, in his official capacity as Cabinet Secretary for the South Dakota Department of Public Safety, Defendants. /// 1 INTRODUCTION 1. Plaintiffs, the Rosebud Sioux Tribe, the Oglala Sioux Tribe, and Four Directions, Inc., an organization engaged in voter registration and civic engagement in South Dakota and throughout Indian Country, bring this lawsuit for declaratory and injunctive relief to rectify Defendants’ past and ongoing violations of the “Motor Voter” and agency-based voter registration requirements of the National Voter Registration Act of 1993, 52 U.S.C. § 20501 et seq. (“NVRA”). 2. Because of these violations of the NVRA, South Dakota is depriving thousands of tribal members and other citizens of their federally guaranteed opportunities to register to vote and to change their voter registration addresses when these citizens interact with state agencies. 3. Congress passed the NVRA in 1993 in part “to establish procedures that will increase the number of eligible citizens who register to vote in elections for Federal office.” 52 U.S.C.
    [Show full text]
  • Biological Survey of a Prairie Landscape in Montana's Glaciated
    Biological Survey of a Prairie Landscape in Montanas Glaciated Plains Final Report Prepared for: Bureau of Land Management Prepared by: Stephen V. Cooper, Catherine Jean and Paul Hendricks December, 2001 Biological Survey of a Prairie Landscape in Montanas Glaciated Plains Final Report 2001 Montana Natural Heritage Program Montana State Library P.O. Box 201800 Helena, Montana 59620-1800 (406) 444-3009 BLM Agreement number 1422E930A960015 Task Order # 25 This document should be cited as: Cooper, S. V., C. Jean and P. Hendricks. 2001. Biological Survey of a Prairie Landscape in Montanas Glaciated Plains. Report to the Bureau of Land Management. Montana Natural Heritage Pro- gram, Helena. 24 pp. plus appendices. Executive Summary Throughout much of the Great Plains, grasslands limited number of Black-tailed Prairie Dog have been converted to agricultural production colonies that provide breeding sites for Burrow- and as a result, tall-grass prairie has been ing Owls. Swift Fox now reoccupies some reduced to mere fragments. While more intact, portions of the landscape following releases the loss of mid - and short- grass prairie has lead during the last decade in Canada. Great Plains to a significant reduction of prairie habitat Toad and Northern Leopard Frog, in decline important for grassland obligate species. During elsewhere, still occupy some wetlands and the last few decades, grassland nesting birds permanent streams. Additional surveys will have shown consistently steeper population likely reveal the presence of other vertebrate declines over a wider geographic area than any species, especially amphibians, reptiles, and other group of North American bird species small mammals, of conservation concern in (Knopf 1994), and this alarming trend has been Montana.
    [Show full text]
  • Threatened and Endangered Species Coorespondence
    APPENDIXF THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES CORRESPONDENCE INTRODUCTION Forest Service policy regarding Biological Evaluaitons is summarized in Forest Service Manual (FSM) 2672.4. The intent of the Bilogical Evaluation process is to assess the potential impacts of propsed management activities, and ensure that such activities will not jeopardize the continued existence of: 1. Species listed, or proposed to be listed, as Engangered or Threatened by the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service and 2. Species designated as sensitive by the Regional Forester. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT Project Area The Sioux Ranger District proposes to update allotment management plans for 11 domestic livestock allotments on National Forest System lands in the North and South Cave Hills and East Short Pine land units. The decision associated with this proposal and analysis wi" determine where livestock can graze, when grazing wi" occur and what specific guidelines will be established to regulate the intensity (timing and duration) of grazing. The analysis area includes about 17,700 National Forest acres. The climate is continental and semi-arid, with large seasonal and daily temperature variations being common. Most of the rainfall during the summer is from thunderstorms; flash flooding can occur form the more severe thunderstorms. Streamflow is erratic with most streams being intermittant in nature. Ecological units include hardwood draws, Ponderosa bench and slope, upland, rolling, and table top grassland, rockland, and rimrocks. Detailed information regarding plant community composition and location is found elsewhere in the environmental analysis for this proposed action. Field surveys have been conducted within or adjacent to the project area by Linda Spencer, Kim Reid, Jeff DiBenedetto, and Tim McGarvey during the 2001 field season (s).
    [Show full text]