DOCSLIB.ORG

Midway-Moxee Rebuild and Midway-Grandview Upgrade Transmission Line Project

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Midway-Moxee Rebuild and Midway-Grandview Upgrade Transmission Line Project BONNEVILLEPOWERADMINISTRATION Midway-Moxee Rebuild and Midway-Grandview Upgrade Transmission Line Project Draft Environmental Assessment July 2015 DOE/EA-1951 This page left intentionally blank Table of Contents Page List of Appendices ................................................................................................................................. vi List of Tables ........................................................................................................................................ vii List of Figures ....................................................................................................................................... ix Chapter 1 Purpose of and Need for Action ............................................................................................ 1-1 1.1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 1-1 1.2. Background ............................................................................................................................ 1-1 1.3. Need for Action ...................................................................................................................... 1-1 1.4. Purposes of Action ................................................................................................................. 1-2 1.5. Agency Roles ......................................................................................................................... 1-4 1.5.1. Lead and Cooperating Agencies ...................................................................................... 1-4 1.5.2. Other Agencies that may Use this Environmental Assessment ....................................... 1-4 1.6. Public Involvement ................................................................................................................. 1-5 1.6.1. Project Scoping Process ................................................................................................... 1-5 1.6.2. Distribution, Review, and Comment for the Draft Environmental Assessment ............ 1-10 1.7. Draft Environmental Assessment Content and Organization ............................................... 1-10 Chapter 2 Proposed Action and Alternatives ........................................................................................ 2-1 2.1. Overview of the Proposed Action and No Action alternatives .............................................. 2-1 2.2. Elements of the Proposed Action ........................................................................................... 2-2 2.2.1. Transmission Line Rights-of-Way ................................................................................... 2-8 2.2.2. Transmission Line Structures ........................................................................................ 2-11 2.2.3. Guy Wires and Anchors ................................................................................................. 2-15 2.2.4. Conductor, Overhead Ground Wire, Fiber Optic Cable, and Counterpoise .................. 2-15 2.2.5. Access Road Work ......................................................................................................... 2-18 2.2.6. Vegetation Management During Construction .............................................................. 2-20 2.2.7. Staging Areas ................................................................................................................. 2-22 2.2.8. Revegetation of Areas Disturbed by Construction ........................................................ 2-22 2.2.9. Waste Management ........................................................................................................ 2-22 2.2.10. Proposed Construction Schedule ................................................................................... 2-22 2.2.11. Ongoing Maintenance and Vegetation Management ..................................................... 2-23 2.3. No Action Alternative .......................................................................................................... 2-24 2.4. Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Study ............................................. 2-25 2.5. Comparison of Alternatives .................................................................................................. 2-27 2.6. Summary of Impacts Table .................................................................................................. 2-28 Bonneville Power Administration i Chapter 3 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Mitigation Measures ......................................................................................................................... 3-1 3.1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 3-1 3.2. Land Use and Recreation ....................................................................................................... 3-2 3.2.1. Affected Environment ...................................................................................................... 3-2 3.2.2. Environmental Consequences – Proposed Action ........................................................... 3-6 3.2.3. Mitigation Measures – Proposed Action .......................................................................... 3-8 3.2.4. Unavoidable Impacts Remaining After Mitigation – Proposed Action ........................... 3-9 3.2.5. Environmental Consequences – No Action Alternative .................................................. 3-9 3.3. Transportation ........................................................................................................................ 3-9 3.3.1. Affected Environment ...................................................................................................... 3-9 3.3.2. Environmental Consequences – Proposed Action ......................................................... 3-10 3.3.3. Mitigation Measures – Proposed Action ........................................................................ 3-10 3.3.4. Unavoidable Impacts Remaining After Mitigation – Proposed Action ......................... 3-11 3.3.5. Environmental Consequences – No Action Alternative ................................................ 3-11 3.4. Socioeconomics, Environmental Justice, and Public Services ............................................. 3-11 3.4.1. Affected Environment .................................................................................................... 3-11 3.4.2. Environmental Consequences – Proposed Action ......................................................... 3-15 3.4.3. Mitigation Measures – Proposed Action ........................................................................ 3-18 3.4.4. Unavoidable Impacts Remaining After Mitigation – Proposed Action ......................... 3-19 3.4.5. Environmental Consequences – No Action Alternative ................................................ 3-19 3.5. Noise ..................................................................................................................................... 3-19 3.5.1. Affected Environment .................................................................................................... 3-19 3.5.2. Environmental Consequences – Proposed Action ......................................................... 3-23 3.5.3. Mitigation Measures – Proposed Action ........................................................................ 3-25 3.5.4. Unavoidable Impacts Remaining After Mitigation – Proposed Action ......................... 3-25 3.5.5. Environmental Consequences – No Action Alternative ................................................ 3-25 3.6. Public Health and Safety ...................................................................................................... 3-26 3.6.1. Affected Environment .................................................................................................... 3-26 3.6.2. Environmental Consequences – Proposed Action ......................................................... 3-29 3.6.3. Mitigation Measures – Proposed Action ........................................................................ 3-32 3.6.4. Unavoidable Impacts Remaining After Mitigation – Proposed Action ......................... 3-33 3.6.5. Environmental Consequences – No Action Alternative ................................................ 3-33 3.7. Geology and Soils ................................................................................................................ 3-34 3.7.1. Affected Environment .................................................................................................... 3-34 3.7.2. Environmental Consequences – Proposed Action ......................................................... 3-35 3.7.3. Mitigation Measures – Proposed Action ........................................................................ 3-37 3.7.4. Unavoidable Impacts Remaining After Mitigation – Proposed Action ......................... 3-38 ii Midway-Moxee Rebuild and Midway-Grandview Upgrade Transmission Line Project EA 3.7.5. Environmental Consequences – No Action Alternative ................................................ 3-38 3.8. Vegetation ............................................................................................................................ 3-38 3.8.1. Affected Environment ...................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Native Habitat Restoration in Eastern Washington Wine Vineyards
    NATIVE HABITAT RESTORATION IN EASTERN WASHINGTON WINE VINEYARDS AS A PEST MANAGEMENT STRATEGY By KATHARINE DENISE BUCKLEY A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY WASHINGTON STATE UNIVERSITY Department of Entomology MAY 2019 © Copyright by KATHARINE DENISE BUCKLEY, 2019 All Rights Reserved © Copyright by KATHARINE DENISE BUCKLEY, 2019 All Rights Reserved To the Faculty of Washington State University: The members of the Committee appointed to examine the dissertation of KATHARINE DENISE BUCKLEY find it satisfactory and recommend that it be accepted. _______________________________ David James, Ph.D., Chair _______________________________ Elizabeth Beers, Ph.D. _______________________________ Joan Davenport, Ph.D. ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I thank Lorraine Seymour and Gerry Lauby for their expertise, their organizational skills, their excellence as sounding boards, and hopefully their ability to pass some of that on to me. I thank Cole Provence and my family who were always supportive. I thank all the people who helped me with my statistics, especially Bernardo Chaves. I thank the computer technician who saved my computer’s data and my life. I thank Michael Aquilino. He knows what he did. Finally, I’d like to thank everyone who served on my committee, as well as Laura Lavine, for their guidance along the way. iii NATIVE HABITAT RESTORATION IN EASTERN WASHINGTON WINE VINEYARDS AS A PEST MANAGEMENT STRATEGY Abstract by Katharine Denise Buckley, Ph.D. Washington State University May 2019 Chair: David James Perennial crop systems such as wine grapes have begun using cover crops and hedgerows to increase beneficial insects and promote sustainable vineyard management in areas such as New Zealand and California.
    [Show full text]
  • Riverside State Park
    Provisonal Report Rare Plant and Vegetation Survey of Riverside State Park Pacific Biodiversity Institute 2 Provisonal Report Rare Plant and Vegetation Survey of Riverside State Park Peter H. Morrison [email protected] George Wooten [email protected] Juliet Rhodes [email protected] Robin O’Quinn, Ph.D. [email protected] Hans M. Smith IV [email protected] January 2009 Pacific Biodiversity Institute P.O. Box 298 Winthrop, Washington 98862 509-996-2490 Recommended Citation Morrison, P.H., G. Wooten, J. Rhodes, R. O’Quinn and H.M. Smith IV, 2008. Provisional Report: Rare Plant and Vegetation Survey of Riverside State Park. Pacific Biodiversity Institute, Winthrop, Washington. 433 p. Acknowledgements Diana Hackenburg and Alexis Monetta assisted with entering and checking the data we collected into databases. The photographs in this report were taken by Peter Morrison, Robin O’Quinn, Geroge Wooten, and Diana Hackenburg. Project Funding This project was funded by the Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission. 3 Executive Summary Pacific Biodiversity Institute (PBI) conducted a rare plant and vegetation survey of Riverside State Park (RSP) for the Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission (WSPRC). RSP is located in Spokane County, Washington. A large portion of the park is located within the City of Spokane. RSP extends along both sides of the Spokane River and includes upland areas on the basalt plateau above the river terraces. The park also includes the lower portion of the Little Spokane River and adjacent uplands. The park contains numerous trails, campgrounds and other recreational facilities. The park receives a tremendous amount of recreational use from the nearby population.
    [Show full text]
  • Plants for Pollinators in Oregon
    TECHNICAL NOTES U. S. DEPT. OF AGRICULTURE NATURAL RESOURCES CONSERVATION SERVICE Portland, Oregon March 2008 PLANT MATERIALS No. 13 PLANTS FOR POLLINATORS IN OREGON Kathy Pendergrass, Plant Materials Specialist, NRCS, Portland, Oregon Mace Vaughan, Conservation Director, Xerces Society, Portland, Oregon Joe Williams, Manager, NRCS, Plant Materials Center, Corvallis, Oregon Left – honey bee on camas flower (Pendergrass) Right – bumble bee on rabbit brush (Vaughan) The purpose of this technical note is to provide information about establishing, maintaining and enhancing habitat and food resources for native pollinators, particularly for native bees, in Riparian buffers, Windbreaks, Hedgerows, Alley cropping, Field borders, Filter strips, Waterways, Range plantings and other NRCS practices. We welcome your comments for improving any of the content of this publication for future editions. Please contact us! PLANTS FOR POLLINATORS IN OREGON Native pollinators are a vital part of our environment. Pollinators are essential for the reproduction of native plants, as well as many crops. Pollinators include some bird and bat species and a wide array of insect species, but bees are the most important for our agricultural landscapes. Native bees are becoming more important pollinators for crop plants in light of recent challenges to honey bee keepers across the U.S., namely Colony Collapse Disorder and the variety of other ailments honey bees face. As a group, pollinators are threatened world-wide by habitat loss and fragmentation, pesticides, introduced diseases and parasites. Habitat enhancement for pollinators can also support other beneficial insects. For example, maintaining native sources of nectar and pollen, as well as protecting or establishing nest sites, provides important resources for other insects which might parasitize or predate upon harmful crop pests.
    [Show full text]
  • Washington Windplant #1 Botanical Resources Field Survey Prepared for Klickitat County Planning Department Bonneville Power Admi
    WASHINGTON WINDPLANT #1 BOTANICAL RESOURCES FIELD SURVEY PREPARED FOR KLICKITAT COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT BONNEVILLE POWER ADMINISTRATION APPENDIX B to Washington Windplant #1 EIS DECEMBER 1994 I I Table of Contents I 1.0 Introduction . 1 2.0 Study Methods . 1 I 2.1 Study Objectives and Pre-Survey Investigations . 1 2.1.1 Pre-survey Investigations . 2 2.1.2 Special Status Plant Species . 2 I 2.1.3 Native Plant Communities . 2 2.1.4 Plant Species of Potential Cultural Importance . 3 2.1.5 Habitat Types . 3 I 2.2 Field Survey Methodology . 5 3.0 Field Survey Results . 5 I 3.1 Habitat Types in the Project Area . 5 3.2 Special-Status Plant Species in Surveyed Corridors . 7 3.3 High-Quality Native Plant Communities in Surveyed Corridors . 7 3.3.1 Douglas' buckwheat/Sandberg's bluegrass (Eriogonum douglasii/ I Poa secunda) Community . 7 3.3.2 Bluebunch wheatgrass-Sandberg's bluegrass (Agropyron spicatum- Poa secunda) Lithosolic Phase Community . 7 I 3.3.3 Bluebunch wheatgrass-Idaho fescue (Agropyron spicatum-Festuca idahoensis Community . 8 3.3.4 Oregon white oak (Quercus garryana)and Oregon white oak-ponderosa I pine (Q. garryana-Pinus ponderosa) Woodland Communities . 8 3.3.5 Other Communities . 8 3.4 Plant Species of Potential Cultural Importance . 9 I 3.5 Wetlands . 10 4.0 Project Impacts . 10 I 4.1 Impacts on Plant Communities . 10 4.1.1 Overview . 10 4.1.2 Douglas' buckwheat/Sandberg' s bluegrass (Eriogonum douglasii/ I Poa secunda) Community . 12 4.1.3 Bluebunch wheatgrass-Sandberg' s bluegrass (Agropyron spicatum- Poa secunda and bluebunch wheatgrass-Idaho fescue (A.
    [Show full text]
  • Washington Flora Checklist a Checklist of the Vascular Plants of Washington State Hosted by the University of Washington Herbarium
    Washington Flora Checklist A checklist of the Vascular Plants of Washington State Hosted by the University of Washington Herbarium The Washington Flora Checklist aims to be a complete list of the native and naturalized vascular plants of Washington State, with current classifications, nomenclature and synonymy. The checklist currently contains 3,929 terminal taxa (species, subspecies, and varieties). Taxa included in the checklist: * Native taxa whether extant, extirpated, or extinct. * Exotic taxa that are naturalized, escaped from cultivation, or persisting wild. * Waifs (e.g., ballast plants, escaped crop plants) and other scarcely collected exotics. * Interspecific hybrids that are frequent or self-maintaining. * Some unnamed taxa in the process of being described. Family classifications follow APG IV for angiosperms, PPG I (J. Syst. Evol. 54:563?603. 2016.) for pteridophytes, and Christenhusz et al. (Phytotaxa 19:55?70. 2011.) for gymnosperms, with a few exceptions. Nomenclature and synonymy at the rank of genus and below follows the 2nd Edition of the Flora of the Pacific Northwest except where superceded by new information. Accepted names are indicated with blue font; synonyms with black font. Native species and infraspecies are marked with boldface font. Please note: This is a working checklist, continuously updated. Use it at your discretion. Created from the Washington Flora Checklist Database on September 17th, 2018 at 9:47pm PST. Available online at http://biology.burke.washington.edu/waflora/checklist.php Comments and questions should be addressed to the checklist administrators: David Giblin ([email protected]) Peter Zika ([email protected]) Suggested citation: Weinmann, F., P.F. Zika, D.E. Giblin, B.
    [Show full text]
  • Montana Botany Notes Containing Description of New Species, List of Plants Not Heretofore Recorded from the State, and Notes on Disputed Species, 1910
    University of Montana ScholarWorks at University of Montana University of Montana Bulletin: Biological Series, 1901-1910 Flathead Lake Biological Station 3-1-1910 Montana Botany Notes Containing Description of New Species, List of Plants Not Heretofore Recorded from the State, and Notes on Disputed Species, 1910 University of Montana (Missoula, Mont. : 1893-1913). Biological Station, Flathead Lake Marcus E. Jones Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.umt.edu/umbiologicalseries Let us know how access to this document benefits ou.y Recommended Citation University of Montana (Missoula, Mont. : 1893-1913). Biological Station, Flathead Lake and Jones, Marcus E., "Montana Botany Notes Containing Description of New Species, List of Plants Not Heretofore Recorded from the State, and Notes on Disputed Species, 1910" (1910). University of Montana Bulletin: Biological Series, 1901-1910. 15. https://scholarworks.umt.edu/umbiologicalseries/15 This Book is brought to you for free and open access by the Flathead Lake Biological Station at ScholarWorks at University of Montana. It has been accepted for inclusion in University of Montana Bulletin: Biological Series, 1901-1910 by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks at University of Montana. For more information, please contact [email protected]. BULLETIN. UNIVERSITY OF MONTANA Number 6 b BIOLOGICAL SERIES No. 15 MONTANA BOTANY NOTES CONTAINING Description of New Species, List of Plants Not Heretofore Recorded From the State, and Notes on Disputed Species, With Five Plates BY MARCUS E. JONES, A. M. Prepared From Material Collected at the University of Montana Biological Station UNIVERSITY OF MONTANA Missoula, Montana, U. S. A. March, 1910 Entered August 24, 1901, at Missonla, Montana, as second class matter, under act of Congress, July 16, 1894 BULLETIN, UNIVERSITY OF MONTANA Number 61 BIOLOGICAL SERIES No.
    [Show full text]
  • Sage Notes September 2018
    Vol. 40 No. 3 September 2018 Newsletter of the Idaho Native Plant Society ● Promoting Interest in Idaho’s Native Flora INPS 2018 Annual Meeting in the Coeur d'Alene Mountains By Derek Antonelli, President, Calypso Chapter The Idaho Native Plant Society’s 2018 Annual Derek Antonelli. The morning’s walk was through Meeting was held in the beautiful Coeur d’Alene Settler’s Grove of Ancient Cedars. This grove of Mountains from Friday, June 29, through giant western red cedars (Thuja plicata) has been Monday, July 2. Fifty-seven people registered for established since the time of Columbus. The grove the four-day event, hosted by the Calypso Chapter. experienced a forest fire in 2015, and it was inter- We staged activities out of the U.S. Forest Service esting to see how resilient this habitat was to the Bumblebee Campground Group Site along the effects of fire. The afternoon walk was up Coal Little North Fork of the Coeur d’Alene River. The Creek and provided a good example of the mesic focus of the event was John Leiberg, a Swedish- forests of north Idaho. The birders in our group American pioneering botanical collector, forester, were impressed by the American dippers being and bryologist. Leiberg was responsible for docu- very active in the creek. menting floras throughout the Pacific Northwest, Saturday evening incorporated the official por- but particularly north Idaho. tions of the Annual Meeting. The evening started Activities began Friday. As people checked in, off with a dinner catered by the Snake Pit, a com- they were given the opportunity to participate in a pany that has been in business since the 1880s plant scavenger hunt.
    [Show full text]
  • Rare, Threatened and Endangered Species of Oregon
    Portland State University PDXScholar Institute for Natural Resources Publications Institute for Natural Resources - Portland 8-2016 Rare, Threatened and Endangered Species of Oregon James S. Kagan Portland State University Sue Vrilakas Portland State University, [email protected] John A. Christy Portland State University Eleanor P. Gaines Portland State University Lindsey Wise Portland State University See next page for additional authors Follow this and additional works at: https://pdxscholar.library.pdx.edu/naturalresources_pub Part of the Biodiversity Commons, Biology Commons, and the Zoology Commons Let us know how access to this document benefits ou.y Citation Details Oregon Biodiversity Information Center. 2016. Rare, Threatened and Endangered Species of Oregon. Institute for Natural Resources, Portland State University, Portland, Oregon. 130 pp. This Book is brought to you for free and open access. It has been accepted for inclusion in Institute for Natural Resources Publications by an authorized administrator of PDXScholar. Please contact us if we can make this document more accessible: [email protected]. Authors James S. Kagan, Sue Vrilakas, John A. Christy, Eleanor P. Gaines, Lindsey Wise, Cameron Pahl, and Kathy Howell This book is available at PDXScholar: https://pdxscholar.library.pdx.edu/naturalresources_pub/25 RARE, THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES OF OREGON OREGON BIODIVERSITY INFORMATION CENTER August 2016 Oregon Biodiversity Information Center Institute for Natural Resources Portland State University P.O. Box 751,
    [Show full text]
  • Eastern Washington Plant List
    The NatureMapping Program Revised: 9/15/2011 Eastern Washington Plant List - Scientific Name 1- Non- native, 2- ID Scientific Name Common Name Plant Family Invasive √ 1141 Abies amabilis Pacific silver fir Pinaceae 1 Abies grandis Grand fir Pinaceae 1142 Abies lasiocarpa Sub-alpine fir Pinaceae 762 Abronia mellifera White sand verbena Nyctaginaceae 1143 Abronia umbellata Pink sandverbena Nyctaginaceae 763 Acer glabrum Douglas maple Aceraceae 3 Acer macrophyllum Big-leaf maple Aceraceae 470 Acer platinoides* Norway maple Aceraceae 1 5 Achillea millifolium Yarrow Asteraceae 1144 Aconitum columbianum Monkshood Ranunculaceae 8 Actaea rubra Baneberry Ranunculaceae 9 Adenocaulon bicolor Pathfinder Asteraceae 10 Adiantum pedatum Maidenhair fern Polypodiaceae 764 Agastache urticifolia Nettle-leaf horse-mint Lamiaceae 1145 Agoseris aurantiaca Orange agoseris Asteraceae 1146 Agoseris elata Tall agoseris Asteraceae 705 Agoseris glauca Mountain agoseris Asteraceae 608 Agoseris grandiflora Large-flowered agoseris Asteraceae 716 Agoseris heterophylla Annual agoseris Asteraceae 11 Agropyron caninum Bearded wheatgrass Poaceae 560 Agropyron cristatum* Crested wheatgrass Poaceae 1 1147 Agropyron dasytachyum Thickspike wheatgrass Poaceae 739 Agropyron intermedium* Intermediate ryegrass Poaceae 1 12 Agropyron repens* Quack grass Poaceae 1 744 Agropyron smithii Bluestem Poaceae 523 Agropyron spicatum Blue-bunch wheatgrass Poaceae 687 Agropyron trachycaulum Slender wheatgrass Poaceae 13 Agrostis alba* Red top Poaceae 1 799 Agrostis exarata* Spike bentgrass
    [Show full text]
  • Recovery Strategy for the Grand Coulee Owl-Clover (Orthocarpus Barbatus) in British Columbia
    British Columbia Recovery Strategy Series Recovery Strategy for the Grand Coulee owl-clover (Orthocarpus barbatus) in British Columbia Prepared by the Southern Interior Rare Plants Recovery Team November 2007 DRAFT About the British Columbia Recovery Strategy Series This series presents the recovery strategies that are prepared as advice to the Province of British Columbia on the general strategic approach required to recover species at risk. The Province prepares recovery strategies to meet our commitments to recover species at risk under the Accord for the Protection of Species at Risk in Canada, and the Canada – British Columbia Agreement on Species at Risk. What is recovery? Species at risk recovery is the process by which the decline of an endangered, threatened, or extirpated species is arrested or reversed, and threats are removed or reduced to improve the lik elihood of a species’ persistence in the wild. What is a recovery strategy? A recovery strategy represents the best available scientific knowledge on what is required to achieve recovery of a species or ecosystem. A recovery strategy outlines what is and what is not known about a species or ecosystem; it also identifies threats to the species or ecosystem, and what should be done to mitigate those threats. Recovery strategies set recovery goals and objectives, and recommend approaches to recover the species or ecosystem. Recovery strategies are usually prepared by a recovery team with members from agencies responsible for the management of the species or ecosystem, experts from other agencies, universities, conservation groups, aboriginal groups, and stakeholder groups as appropriate. What’s next? In most cases, one or more action plan(s) will be developed to define and guide implementation of the recovery strategy.
    [Show full text]
  • Bunchgrass Plant Communities of the Blue and Ochoco Mountains: a Guide for Managers
    United States Department of Agriculture Bunchgrass Plant Communities of Forest Service the Blue and Ochoco Mountains: Pacific Northwest Research Station A Guide for Managers General Technical Report PNW-GTR-641 Charles Grier Johnson, Jr., and David K. Swanson August 2005 The Forest Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture is dedicated to the principle of multiple use man- agement of the Nation’s forest resources for sustained yields of wood, water, forage, wildlife, and recreation. Through forestry research, cooperation with the States and private forest owners, and management of the national forests and national grasslands, it strives—as directed by Congress—to provide increasingly greater service to a growing Nation. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or part of an individual’s income is derived from any public assistance program. (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, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20250-9410 or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. Authors Charles Grier Johnson, Jr. was the area ecologist (retired), and David K.
    [Show full text]
  • ICBEMP Analysis of Vascular Plants
    APPENDIX 1 Range Maps for Species of Concern APPENDIX 2 List of Species Conservation Reports APPENDIX 3 Rare Species Habitat Group Analysis APPENDIX 4 Rare Plant Communities APPENDIX 5 Plants of Cultural Importance APPENDIX 6 Research, Development, and Applications Database APPENDIX 7 Checklist of the Vascular Flora of the Interior Columbia River Basin 122 APPENDIX 1 Range Maps for Species of Conservation Concern These range maps were compiled from data from State Heritage Programs in Oregon, Washington, Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, Utah, and Nevada. This information represents what was known at the end of the 1994 field season. These maps may not represent the most recent information on distribution and range for these taxa but it does illustrate geographic distribution across the assessment area. For many of these species, this is the first time information has been compiled on this scale. For the continued viability of many of these taxa, it is imperative that we begin to manage for them across their range and across administrative boundaries. Of the 173 taxa analyzed, there are maps for 153 taxa. For those taxa that were not tracked by heritage programs, we were not able to generate range maps. (Antmnnrin aromatica) ( ,a-’(,. .e-~pi~] i----j \ T--- d-,/‘-- L-J?.,: . ey SAP?E%. %!?:,KnC,$ESS -,,-a-c--- --y-- I -&zII~ County Boundaries w1. ~~~~ State Boundaries <ii&-----\ \m;qw,er Columbia River Basin .---__ ,$ 4 i- +--pa ‘,,, ;[- ;-J-k, Assessment Area 1 /./ .*#a , --% C-p ,, , Suecies Locations ‘V 7 ‘\ I, !. / :L __---_- r--j -.---.- Columbia River Basin s-5: ts I, ,e: I’ 7 j ;\ ‘-3 “.
    [Show full text]