DOCSLIB.ORG

Environmental Assessment Blue Buck Hawkweed Project

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Environmental Assessment Blue Buck Hawkweed Project Environmental Assessment Blue Buck Hawkweed Project United States Environmental Assessment Department of Agriculture Forest Blue Buck Hawkweed Project Service July 2008 Methow Valley Ranger District Okanogan and Wenatchee National Forest Okanogan County, Washington For Information Contact: John Newcom District Ranger 24 West Chewuch Winthrop, WA. 98862 Phone: (509)996-4003 Environmental Assessment Blue Buck Hawkweed Project 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. (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 toll free (866) 632-9992 (voice). TDD users can contact USDA through local relay or the Federal relay at (800) 877-8339 (TDD) or (866) 377-8642 (relay voice). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. Environmental Assessment Blue Buck Hawkweed Project Table of Contents Summary…..............................................................................................S Chapter 1 Introduction………………………………………………………………….1-1 Document Structure………………………………………………………..1-1 Background…………………………………………………………………1-1 Purpose and Need for Action…………………………………………......1-4 Proposed Action…………………………………………………………….1-5 Public Involvement…………………………………………………………1-6 Issues………………………………………………………………………..1-6 Chapter 2 Alternatives, including the Proposed Action…………………………..2-1 Alternatives………………………………………………………………...2-1 Mitigation Common to All Alternatives…………………………………..2-2 Comparison of Alternatives……………………………………………….2-5 Chapter 3 Environmental Consequences…………………………………………….3-1 Invasive Plants……………………………….…………………….………3-2 Terrestrial Wildlife………………………………………………….……...3-10 Botany………………………………………………………………………3-25 Hydrology…………………………………………………………….…….3-34 Soils…………………………………………………………………….…..3-43 Range Management……………………………………………………...3-50 Aquatic Resources…………………………………………………….….3-56 Human Health………………………………………………………….….3-69 Other Required Disclosures……………………………………………. 3-70 Chapter 4 Consultation and Coordination……..…………………………………….4-1 Environmental Assessment Blue Buck Hawkweed Project List of Figures and Appendices Figures Page Number Figure 2-1. Comparison of Alternatives 2-7 Figure 3.0-1 Established, new and potential invaders found within or adjacent to the Blue Buck Hawkweed project area. 3-2 Figure 3.0-2 Existing invasive plant characteristics. 3-3 Figure 3.0-3 Amounts of herbicide application over a 10 year period. 3-8 Figure 3.2-1 List of sensitive species in special areas at potential risk from orange hawkweed invasion. 3-30 Figure 3.3-1 Concentration levels when sprayed 10 ft from stream. 3-37 Figure 3.3-2 Concentration levels when sprayed 50 ft from stream. 3-38 Figure 3.3-1 Concentration levels when sprayed 100 ft from stream. 3-38 Figure 3.3-2 Concentration levels when sprayed 1 ft from stream. 3-39 Figure 3.3-5 Saturated soil water movement by soil hydraulic conductivity and slope gradient. 3-40 Figure 3.4-1 General research findings of pertinent herbicide characteristics relating to soils. 3-48 Figure 3.5-1 Volstead pasture acres within the Tripod Fire. 3-51 Figure 3.6-1 Sensitive fish distribution in project area. 3-61 Figure 3.6-2 Comparison of surface fine sediment data in Beaver Creek and Blue Buck Creek 2007 vs. 2004. 3-62 Appendices Appendix A References Appendix B Spill Plan Appendix C Project Maps Appendix D Plant List Environmental Assessment Blue Buck Hawkweed Project SUMMARY The Okanogan and Wenatchee National Forest proposes to treat a population of orange hawkweed (Hieracium aurantiacum) by implementing an integrated weed management approach and early detection and rapid response (EDRR). The project includes the use of chemical herbicides applied by back pack pumps and monitoring of treated sites. The project area is located in the Blue Buck, Beaver and the southern portion of the Boulder Creek drainages east of Winthrop and is located on the Methow Valley Ranger District, Okanogan and Wenatchee National Forest, Washington. This action is needed because the proposed treatment area is not currently covered in a Forest wide invasive species planning document that allows treating invasive species with the use of herbicides. A Forest wide noxious weed document is expected to be completed in 2009. The proposed action is designed to control the populations of orange hawkweed in the Blue Buck Creek drainage and lead to eventual eradication. The treatments may restore and retain healthy plant communities, biodiversity and overall ecosystem integrity. Potential effects on TES plant, wildlife, fish, and other resources would be mitigated by applying mitigation measures (see Mitigation Measures Common to All Alternatives in Chapter 2). Potential effects on human health from herbicides would also be mitigated by following mitigation measures in Chapter 2. In addition to the proposed action, the Forest Service also evaluated the following alternatives: Alternative 1: No Action, orange hawkweed continues to spread by rhizomes, stolons and seeds into suitable habitats in the analysis area and beyond (See Vicinity Map in Appendix C). Alternative 2: Proposed Action, treat upland sites by spot spraying with picloram (Tordon) or clopyralid (Transline). Sites within 15 feet of water would be treated by hand-wicking the aquatic formulation of glyphosate (Rodeo). Orange hawkweed sites that occur outside the 15 foot buffer and out to the RHCA boundary would be treated with clopyralid by hand spraying with a backpack sprayer. As part of an integrated weed management approach, geotextile cloth would also be used in suitable and appropriate sites (a monoculture of orange hawkweed at least 100 sq ft in area, relatively flat and no obstructions). The proposed action would prevent spread, reduce sites and eventually eradicate the weed in the analysis area. Proposed acres to be treated include 11 acres of existing orange hawkweed plus up to 25% more for any new detections within the project area. The actual size of the total project area is about 13,836 acres (See Proposed Action Project Area Map in Appendix C). Alternative 3. Manual removal of flower heads and the use of geotextile cloth in appropriate areas; no use of herbicides, reduces seed production for the year but stimulates stolon growth, so reduces potential for new adjacent sites from seed dispersal but enlarges existing sites. Geotextile cloth would reduce spread, seed production and seed dispersal when used in suitable areas. Proposed acres to be treated include 11 acres of existing orange hawkweed plus up to 25% more for any new detections (See Vicinity Map in Appendix C). Based upon the effects of the alternatives, the responsible official will decide whether or not to implement weed treatment activities, modify weed treatment activities and if weed treatments are chosen, what mitigation and monitoring measures are needed. Environmental Assessment Blue Buck Hawkweed Project CHAPTER 1 Purpose and Need INTRODUCTION Document Structure _______________________________ The Forest Service has prepared this Environmental Assessment in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and other relevant Federal and State laws and regulations. The document is organized into four Chapters and Appendices: Summary Chapter 1. Purpose and Need for Action: This section includes information on the history of the project proposal, the purpose of and need for the project, and the agency’s proposal for achieving that purpose and need. This section also details how the Forest Service informed the public of the proposal and how the public responded. Chapter 2. Alternatives, including the Proposed Action: This section provides a more detailed description of the agency’s proposed action as well as alternative methods for achieving the stated purpose. These alternatives were developed based on significant issues raised by the public and other agencies. This discussion also includes mitigation measures. Finally, this section provides a summary table of the environmental consequences associated with each alternative. Chapter 3. Environmental Consequences: This section displays the expected effects to the environment that would occur with the implementation of alternatives presented in Chapter 2. The scientific and analytical basis for the alternative comparison at the end of Chapter 2 is presented here. Chapter 4. Consultation and Coordination: A list of the other agencies and organizations that were consulted on the project, as well as a list of the interdisciplinary team members. Appendices: The appendices provide more detailed information to support the analyses presented in the environmental assessment. Background______________________________________ The Methow Valley Ranger District on the Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest contains a population of orange hawkweed (Hieracium aurantiacum) in the Blue Buck Creek drainage east of Winthrop, Okanogan County, WA. Washington State
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Grizzly Bear Scientific Name: Ursus Arctos Species Code: M-URAR Status
    Grizzly Bear Scientific Name: Ursus arctos Species Code: M-URAR Status: Blue-listed Distribution • Provincial Range Grizzly bears are distributed throughout most of the mainland of the province. They are absent from Vancouver Island, the Queen Charlotte Islands and outer coastal islands. They occur in all biogeoclimatic zones in the province, except the Coastal Douglas Fir zone (CDF). They utilize a wide variety of habitats ranging from coastal estuaries to alpine meadows. • Elevational Range: Sea-Level to Alpine • Provincial Context Grizzly bears are most abundant in the coastal ecosystems and in areas in the southern Rocky Mountains (Flathead area and Glacier National Park). The current population estimate for grizzly bears in British Columbia is approximately 13,000 (Fuhr and Demarchi 1990). • Range in Project Area: Ecoprovince: Southern Interior Mountains Ecoregions: Columbia Mountains and Highlands, Southern Rocky Mountain Trench, Western Continental Ranges Ecosections: Eastern Purcell Mountains, East Kootenay Trench, Southern Park Ranges Biogeoclimatic Zones: IDFdm2; MSdk; ESSFdk, ESSFdku; ESSFdkp; ESSFwm; AT Ecology and Key Habitat Requirements Habitat use by grizzly bears is influenced primarily by food availability, the presence of suitable resting, denning and mating sites, the presence of other bears and by human development. They are very adaptable and inhabit a wide variety of habitat types from coastal coniferous forests through boreal forests to alpine/subalpine meadows and alpine tundra. Grizzly bears are omnivorous and opportunistic in their feeding habits. In late spring and early summer, the bulk of their diet is green leafy material. They will also feed on insects, fruits, berries, fish, carrion and small and large mammals.
    [Show full text]
  • The Role of the Brown Bear Ursus Arctos As Seed Disperser: a Case Study with the Bilberry Vaccinium Myrtillus
    The role of the brown bear Ursus arctos as seed disperser: a case study with the bilberry Vaccinium myrtillus Rola niedźwiedzia brunatnego Ursus arctos w rozprzestrzenianiu nasion: studium przypadku na przykładzie borówki czarnej Vaccinium myrtillus PhD thesis Alberto García-Rodríguez Kraków, 2021 To the memory of José Ignacio and Javier Rodríguez Val Female brown bear with two cubs of the year feeding on bilberry fruits in Tatra National Park (July 2020) “They thought they were burying you, they did not know they were burying a seed” Ernesto Cardenal, Nicaraguan priest, poet and politician PhD CANDIDATE mgr. ALBERTO GARCÍA-RODRÍGUEZ Institute of Nature Conservation of the Polish Academy of Sciences Al. Adama Mickiewicza 33, 31-120, Krakow, Poland SUPERVISOR dr. hab. NURIA SELVA FERNÁNDEZ Institute of Nature Conservation of the Polish Academy of Sciences Al. Adama Mickiewicza 33, 31-120, Krakow, Poland CO-SUPERVISOR dr. JÖRG ALBRECHT Senckenberg Biodiversity and Climate Research Centre (SBiK-F) Senckenberganlage 25, 60325, Frankfurt am Main, Germany. The PhD thesis was prepared during doctoral studies in the Doctoral Study of Natural Sciences of the Polish Academy of Sciences in Kraków. CONTENTS SUMMARY…………..……………..…………………………...………………………………………………...5 STRESZCZENIE……...………….……………………………………………………………………………….8 INTRODUCTION……………………...………………………………………………….……………………...11 PAPER I The role of the brown bear Ursus arctos as a legitimate megafaunal seed disperser………………..…30 PAPER II The bear-berry connection: ecological and management implications of
    [Show full text]
  • Likely to Have Habitat Within Iras That ALLOW Road
    Item 3a - Sensitive Species National Master List By Region and Species Group Not likely to have habitat within IRAs Not likely to have Federal Likely to have habitat that DO NOT ALLOW habitat within IRAs Candidate within IRAs that DO Likely to have habitat road (re)construction that ALLOW road Forest Service Species Under NOT ALLOW road within IRAs that ALLOW but could be (re)construction but Species Scientific Name Common Name Species Group Region ESA (re)construction? road (re)construction? affected? could be affected? Bufo boreas boreas Boreal Western Toad Amphibian 1 No Yes Yes No No Plethodon vandykei idahoensis Coeur D'Alene Salamander Amphibian 1 No Yes Yes No No Rana pipiens Northern Leopard Frog Amphibian 1 No Yes Yes No No Accipiter gentilis Northern Goshawk Bird 1 No Yes Yes No No Ammodramus bairdii Baird's Sparrow Bird 1 No No Yes No No Anthus spragueii Sprague's Pipit Bird 1 No No Yes No No Centrocercus urophasianus Sage Grouse Bird 1 No Yes Yes No No Cygnus buccinator Trumpeter Swan Bird 1 No Yes Yes No No Falco peregrinus anatum American Peregrine Falcon Bird 1 No Yes Yes No No Gavia immer Common Loon Bird 1 No Yes Yes No No Histrionicus histrionicus Harlequin Duck Bird 1 No Yes Yes No No Lanius ludovicianus Loggerhead Shrike Bird 1 No Yes Yes No No Oreortyx pictus Mountain Quail Bird 1 No Yes Yes No No Otus flammeolus Flammulated Owl Bird 1 No Yes Yes No No Picoides albolarvatus White-Headed Woodpecker Bird 1 No Yes Yes No No Picoides arcticus Black-Backed Woodpecker Bird 1 No Yes Yes No No Speotyto cunicularia Burrowing
    [Show full text]
  • W a S H in G T O N N a T U R a L H E R It
    PROGRAM HERITAGE NATURAL Status of Federally Listed Plant Taxa in Washington State Prepared for WASHINGTON U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 1 Prepared by Walter Fertig 28 June 2021 Natural Heritage Report 2021-01 1 Status of Federally Listed Plant Taxa in Washington State Award Number F18AF01216 Report Date: June 28, 2021 Prepared for U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Western Washington Fish and Wildlife Office Region 1 Section 6 funding by Walter Fertig Botanist Washington Natural Heritage Program Washington Department of Natural Resources PO Box 47014 Olympia, WA 98504-7014 ii Cover: Ute ladies’ tresses (Spiranthes diluvialis). Photo by Walter Fertig, WNHP, 22 August 2018. Acknowledgements: Thanks to the following individuals for sharing data, providing reviews, or otherwise helping with this project: Jane Abel, Keith Abel, Jon Bakker, Susan Ballinger, Molly Boyter, Paula Brooks, Tom Brumbelow, Keyna Bugner, Tara Callaway, Jeff Chan, Alex Chmielewski, Karen Colson, Kelly Cordell, Ernie Crediford, Vicki Demetre, Nate Dietrich, Peter Dunwiddie, Ethan Coggins, Matt Fairbarns, Kim Frymire, John Gamon, Wendy Gibble, Rod Gilbert, Bridgette Glass, Sarah Hammon, Jamie Hanson, Anthony Hatcher, John Hill, Jasa Holt, Molly Jennings, Regina Johnson, Tom Kaye, Stacy Kinsell, Jake Kleinknecht, Hailee Leimbach-Maus, Joe LeMoine, Peter Lesica, Laurie Malmquist, Adam Martin, Heidi Newsome, Robert Pelant, Jenifer Penny, Von Pope, Tynan Ramm-Granberg, James Rebholz, Nathan Reynolds, Randi Riggs, Joe Rocchio, Jenny Roman, Mike Rule, Melissa Scholten, Sarah Shank, Mark Sheehan, Jacques Sirois, Karen Stefanyk, Mike Stefanyk, George Thornton, Sheri Whitfield, David Wilderman, and David Woodall. My apologies (and thanks!) to anyone I may have omitted. i Table of Contents Contents Introduction...........................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Natural Communities of Michigan: Classification and Description
    Natural Communities of Michigan: Classification and Description Prepared by: Michael A. Kost, Dennis A. Albert, Joshua G. Cohen, Bradford S. Slaughter, Rebecca K. Schillo, Christopher R. Weber, and Kim A. Chapman Michigan Natural Features Inventory P.O. Box 13036 Lansing, MI 48901-3036 For: Michigan Department of Natural Resources Wildlife Division and Forest, Mineral and Fire Management Division September 30, 2007 Report Number 2007-21 Version 1.2 Last Updated: July 9, 2010 Suggested Citation: Kost, M.A., D.A. Albert, J.G. Cohen, B.S. Slaughter, R.K. Schillo, C.R. Weber, and K.A. Chapman. 2007. Natural Communities of Michigan: Classification and Description. Michigan Natural Features Inventory, Report Number 2007-21, Lansing, MI. 314 pp. Copyright 2007 Michigan State University Board of Trustees. Michigan State University Extension programs and materials are open to all without regard to race, color, national origin, gender, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, marital status or family status. Cover photos: Top left, Dry Sand Prairie at Indian Lake, Newaygo County (M. Kost); top right, Limestone Bedrock Lakeshore, Summer Island, Delta County (J. Cohen); lower left, Muskeg, Luce County (J. Cohen); and lower right, Mesic Northern Forest as a matrix natural community, Porcupine Mountains Wilderness State Park, Ontonagon County (M. Kost). Acknowledgements We thank the Michigan Department of Natural Resources Wildlife Division and Forest, Mineral, and Fire Management Division for funding this effort to classify and describe the natural communities of Michigan. This work relied heavily on data collected by many present and former Michigan Natural Features Inventory (MNFI) field scientists and collaborators, including members of the Michigan Natural Areas Council.
    [Show full text]
  • Biological Opinion on USFS Aerial Application of Fire Retardants on NFS Lands
    2011 USFWS Biological Opinion on USFS Aerial Application of Fire Retardants on NFS Lands BIOLOGICAL OPINION Effects to Listed Species from U.S. Forest Service Aerial Application of Fire Retardants on National Forest System Lands Consultation Conducted by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Regions 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 8) December 6, 2011 Return to Table of Contents 1 | P a g e 2011 USFWS Biological Opinion on USFS Aerial Application of Fire Retardants on NFS Lands Table of Contents Table of Figures ............................................................................................................................................. 8 Introduction ................................................................................................................................................ 10 Consultation History ................................................................................................................................... 11 Species not likely to be adversely affected ................................................................................................. 17 BIOLOGICAL OPINION ................................................................................................................................. 27 Description of the Proposed Action ........................................................................................................ 27 Aerial Application of Fire Retardant Direction .................................................................................... 28 Reporting and Monitoring
    [Show full text]
  • Fall 2013 NARGS
    Rock Garden uar terly � Fall 2013 NARGS to ADVERtISE IN thE QuARtERly CoNtACt [email protected] Let me know what yo think A recent issue of a chapter newsletter had an item entitled “News from NARGS”. There were comments on various issues related to the new NARGS website, not all complimentary, and then it turned to the Quarterly online and raised some points about which I would be very pleased to have your views. “The good news is that all the Quarterlies are online and can easily be dowloaded. The older issues are easy to read except for some rather pale type but this may be the result of scanning. There is amazing information in these older issues. The last three years of the Quarterly are also online but you must be a member to read them. These last issues are on Allen Press’s BrightCopy and I find them harder to read than a pdf file. Also the last issue of the Quarterly has 60 extra pages only available online. Personally I find this objectionable as I prefer all my content in a printed bulletin.” This raises two points: Readability of BrightCopy issues versus PDF issues Do you find the BrightCopy issues as good as the PDF issues? Inclusion of extra material in online editions only. Do you object to having extra material in the online edition which can not be included in the printed edition? Please take a moment to email me with your views Malcolm McGregor <[email protected]> CONTRIBUTORS All illustrations are by the authors of articles unless otherwise stated.
    [Show full text]
  • Alplains 2013 Seed Catalog P.O
    ALPLAINS 2013 SEED CATALOG P.O. BOX 489, KIOWA, CO 80117-0489, U.S.A. Three ways to contact us: FAX: (303) 621-2864 (24 HRS.) email: [email protected] website: www.alplains.com Dear Growing Friends: Welcome to our 23rd annual seed catalog! The summer of 2012 was long, hot and brutal, with drought afflicting most of the U.S. Most of my botanical explorations were restricted to Idaho, Wash- ington, Oregon and northern California but even there moisture was below average. In a year like this, seeps, swales, springs, vestigial snowbanks and localized rainstorms became much more important in my search for seeding plants. On the Snake River Plains of southern Idaho and the scab- lands of eastern Washington, early bloomers such as Viola beckwithii, V. trinervata, Ranunculus glaberrimus, Ranunculus andersonii, Fritillaria pudica and Primula cusickiana put on quite a show in mid-April but many populations could not set seed. In northern Idaho, Erythronium idahoense flowered extensively, whole meadows were covered with thousands of the creamy, pendant blossoms. One of my most satisfying finds in the Hells Canyon area had to be Sedum valens. The tiny glaucous rosettes, surround- ed by a ring of red leaves, are a succulent connoisseur’s dream. Higher up, the brilliant blue spikes of Synthyris missurica punctuated the canyon walls. In southern Oregon, the brilliant red spikes of Pedicularis densiflora lit up the Siskiyou forest floor. Further north in Oregon, large populations of Erythronium elegans, Erythronium oregonum ssp. leucandrum, Erythro- nium revolutum, trilliums and sedums provided wonderful picture-taking opportunities. Eriogonum species did well despite the drought, many of them true xerics.
    [Show full text]
  • Auggie Creek Restoration/Fuels Project Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Plant Report Darlene Lavelle December 17, 2008
    Auggie Creek Restoration/Fuels Project Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Plant Report Darlene Lavelle December 17, 2008 Introduction The Seeley Lake Ranger District, Lolo National Forest (LNF), is proposing a restoration project designed to restore forest conditions on approximately 965 acres of Forest Service lands within the Auggie, Seeley, and Mountain Creek drainages. The vegetation treatments are designed to develop a diverse mix of vegetative composition and structure, reduce the risk of bark beetle infestations, and reduce the threat of sustained high intensity wildfire in the wildland-urban interface. Commercial and noncommercial treatments are proposed to reduce stand density, ladder fuels and ground litter, and some dead and down woody debris. Reducing fuels would thereby reduce the risk from insect and disease damage and also the potential for high intensity natural fires around private homes. Fire would also allow an increase of nutrients to plants on the site. Other project proposals include: • Herbicide treatment of weeds along the approximate 12.45 miles of timber haul routes and landings and the approximate 2.37 miles of stored or decommissioned roads mentioned below; • Build about 0.59 miles of temporary road for tree harvest and then decommission these roads. • Store about 1.78 miles of road (close roads to vehicular traffic but keep roads for future use) • Plant western larch and Douglas-fir on about 44 acres within the commercial treatment units to enhance species diversity. • Replace two culverts which are fish barriers, along Swamp Creek and Trail Creek. • Implement additional best management practices (BMPs) involving road drainage at the Morrell Creek Bridge.
    [Show full text]
  • Acid/Heavy Metal Tolerant Plants
    EPA/600/R-07/114 August 2007 Mine Waste Technology Program Acid/Heavy Metal Tolerant Plants EPA/600/R-07/114 August 2007 Mine Waste Technology Program Acid/Heavy Metal Tolerant Plants By: Jay Cornish MSE Technology Applications, Inc. Mike Mansfield Advanced Technology Center Butte, Montana 59702 Under Contract No. DE-AC09-96EW96405 Through EPA IAG No. DW8993989701-0 Norma Lewis, EPA Project Manager Systems Analysis Branch National Risk Management Research Laboratory Cincinnati, Ohio 45268 This study was conducted in cooperation with U.S. Department of Energy Environmental Management Consolidated Business Center Cincinnati, Ohio 45202 National Risk Management Research Laboratory Office of Research and Development U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Cincinnati, Ohio 45268 Notice The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) through its Office of Research and Development funded the research described here under IAG ID. No. DW8993989701-0 through the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Contract DE-AC09-96EW96405. It has been subjected to the Agency’s peer and administrative review and has been cleared for publication as an EPA document. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise, does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement or recommendation. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of EPA or DOE, or any agency thereof. ii Foreword The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is charged by Congress with protecting the Nation's land, air, and water resources. Under a mandate of national environmental laws, the Agency strives to formulate and implement actions leading to a compatible balance between human activities and the ability of natural systems to support and nurture life.
    [Show full text]
  • Survey and Analysis of Plant Community Types of Writing-On-Stone Provincial Park
    Survey and Analysis of Plant Community Types of Writing-on-Stone Provincial Park Survey and Analysis of Plant Community Types of Writing-on-Stone Provincial Park FINAL REPORT Prepared for Alberta Sustainable Resource Development Resource Data Branch Edmonton, Alberta Prepared by Wildlands Ecological Consulting Ltd. #60 Neal Close, Red Deer, AB T4P 1N4 Office: (403) 346-1057 Fax: (403) 346-3257 March 29, 2004 ABSTRACT Identification and monitoring of biological diversity in Alberta is the primary mandate of Alberta Natural Heritage Information Centre (ANHIC). A fundamental strategy in the preservation of functional ecosystems is to identify and preserve a full compliment of habitat types, which in return support a diversity of animals, plants, and other life forms. Vegetation is an integral component of habitat and provides a relatively easy means of inventory and monitoring of ecosystem health both spatially and temporally. The current study, in Writing-on-Stone Provincial Park, focuses on the identification of unique riparian and coulee plant associations, or plant community type. The study area is situated approximately 8 km north of the USA border and 40 km east of the town of Milk River and occurs at the interface between the Mixedgrass and Dry Mixedgrass Natural Subregions. Priority research is currently required to address gaps in the identification, description and distribution of plant associations within the coulee and riparian zones of these Subregions. Many of these communities recur over the landscape but may occur as very small patches of 1m2 or less. Alberta Sustainable Resource Development (ASRD) Resource Data Division contracted Wildlands Ecological to complete an inventory of natural/semi-natural plant communities, statistically analyse the data, and describe potential plant community or association types.
    [Show full text]
  • Draft Hanford Injury Assessment Plan Appendices
    Public Review Draft Hanford Natural Resource Injury Assessment Plan APPENDIX A | THE FOUR HANFORD NPL SITES On November 3, 1989, Hanford was added to the NPL as four separate sites: the 100 Area, 200 Area, 300 Area, and 1100 Area (see Exhibits B-1 through B-4, below).78 In order to coordinate response actions, each of these sites was further subdivided into operable units (OUs), based on geographic area or common waste sources. A total of 1,200 waste management units have been identified throughout the Hanford Site and are grouped among the four NPL sites (DOE 2006a). Cleanup efforts for the remaining Hanford Site contamination are organized into three major components: the River Corridor (including the 100 and 300 Areas), the Central Plateau (primarily the 200 Area), and tank waste. Cleanup of the Site is a particularly large and complex effort, dependent on many dozens of individual decision steps, stakeholder coordination, sustained funding, and the ability to address complex technical challenges. Full remediation of the NPL sites is expected to extend over the next 40 to 50 years; however, timelines are difficult to determine, due to the factors discussed above (DOE 2012). Additional summary information describing the four Hanford NPL sites and the current status of remediation efforts is provided below. More detailed information can be found at http://www.hanford.gov/. AREA 100 AREA DESCRIPTIONS The 100 Area contains the remnants of Hanford’s nine nuclear reactors, spread over six reactor sites (B/C, K, N, D, H, and F). The footprint covers about 26 sq. mi.
    [Show full text]