DOCSLIB.ORG

Assessment of Pronghorn Habitat Potential in Eastern Washington

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Assessment of Pronghorn Habitat Potential in Eastern Washington ASSESSMENT OF PRONGHORN HABITAT POTENTIAL IN EASTERN WASHINGTON BY GEORGE K. TSUKAMOTO JUNE 2006 ASSESSMENT OF PRONGHORN HABITAT POTENTIAL IN EASTERN WASHINGTON GEORGE K. TSUKAMOTO JUNE 2006 This study was financed by the Seattle Sportsmen’s Conservation Foundation and Safari Club International-Central Washington Chapter for the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife as an initial assessment to determine the feasibility of reintroducing pronghorn antelope into the State. Table of Contents TABLE OF CONTENTS .............................................................................................................. I INTRODUCTION......................................................................................................................... 1 PURPOSE .................................................................................................................................................................... 1 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .............................................................................................................................................. 1 HISTORICAL OCCURRENCE ......................................................................................................................................... 1 PREVIOUS INTRODUCTIONS ....................................................................................................................................... 2 STUDY AREA ............................................................................................................................... 4 METHODS .................................................................................................................................... 5 GIS HABITAT SUITABILITY MODEL ........................................................................................................................... 6 Pronghorn habitat suitability model .................................................................................................................... 9 Weights of the variables ....................................................................................................................................... 9 Normalized weighted pronghorn habitat suitability score ................................................................................. 10 Other considerations .......................................................................................................................................... 10 ON-SITE FIELD HABITAT EVALUATION AND SCORING MODEL ............................................................................... 10 Vegetation .......................................................................................................................................................... 11 Terrain slope and aspect (Topographic diversity) ............................................................................................. 11 Water availability ............................................................................................................................................... 12 Size and Continuity ............................................................................................................................................ 12 Landownership/use ............................................................................................................................................ 12 Limitations/obstructions (fences, canals, highways, railroads, etc.) ................................................................. 12 Suitability Score Summary ................................................................................................................................. 12 SITE EVALUATIONS ............................................................................................................... 13 QUILOMENE ............................................................................................................................................................. 13 Location/Landownership.................................................................................................................................... 13 Vegetation .......................................................................................................................................................... 13 Topography ........................................................................................................................................................ 15 Water .................................................................................................................................................................. 15 Size and Continuity ............................................................................................................................................ 16 Climate ............................................................................................................................................................... 17 Limitations ......................................................................................................................................................... 18 Wild Horse Wind Power Project ........................................................................................................................ 20 Habitat Evaluation Score ................................................................................................................................... 21 YAKIMA TRAINING CENTER .................................................................................................................................... 23 Location/Landownership.................................................................................................................................... 23 Vegetation .......................................................................................................................................................... 23 Topography ........................................................................................................................................................ 24 Water .................................................................................................................................................................. 25 Size and Continuity ............................................................................................................................................ 26 Climate ............................................................................................................................................................... 27 Limitations ......................................................................................................................................................... 27 Habitat Evaluation Score ................................................................................................................................... 29 SWANSON LAKES..................................................................................................................................................... 31 Location/Landownership.................................................................................................................................... 31 Vegetation .......................................................................................................................................................... 31 Topography ........................................................................................................................................................ 33 Size and Continuity ............................................................................................................................................ 34 Water .................................................................................................................................................................. 34 Climate ............................................................................................................................................................... 35 Limitations ......................................................................................................................................................... 36 Habitat Evaluation Score ................................................................................................................................... 37 i COW AND ROCK CREEK ........................................................................................................................................... 38 Location/Landownership.................................................................................................................................... 38 Vegetation .......................................................................................................................................................... 38 Topography ........................................................................................................................................................ 40 Size and Continuity ............................................................................................................................................ 42 Water .................................................................................................................................................................. 42 Climate ..............................................................................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Taxonomical Notes on the Genus Piptatherum P. Beauv
    TAXONOMICAL NOTES ON THE GENUS PIPTATHERUM P. BEAUV. (POACEAE) IN IRAN ee & M. Assadi׳B. Hamzeh Received 2015. 02. 20; accepted for publication 2015. 05. 12 ee, B. & Assadi, M. 2015. 06. 30: Taxonomical notes on the genus Piptatherum P. Beauv. (Poaceae) in׳Hamzeh Iran. –Iran. J. Bot. 21 (1): 01-09. Tehran. Piptatherum denaense is described as a new species from south west of Iran, Dena Mountain. It is close to P. laterale but differs from it by having glabrous lemma in lower half and toward the apex, narrower vegetative shoots and unbearded anthers. Piptatherum holciforme subsp. holciforme var. glabrum is not accepted as a distinct variety. Piptatherum sphacelatum formerly known as a synonym of P. molinioides is established as a separate species due to having distinct morphological characters as well as molecular differences based on literature. Thus, the number of taxa in the genus Piptatherum changes to 9 species, 2 subspecies and 4 varieties in Iran. An identification key to Piptatherum taxa occuring in Iran is provided. The distribution map of P. denaense with P. laterale subsp. laterale and the illustration of the new species are included. ee (correspondence <[email protected]>) & Mostafa Assadi, Research Institute of Forests and׳Behnam Hamzeh Rangelands, P. O. Box: 13185-116, Tehran, Iran. Key words: Piptatherum; Poaceae; new species; new synonym; reestablished species; Iran ﻧﻜﺎﺗﻲ در ﻣﻮرد ﺟﻨﺲ .Poaceae ) Piptatherum P. Beauv) در اﻳﺮان ﺑﻬﻨﺎم ﺣﻤﺰة، اﺳﺘﺎدﻳﺎر ﭘﮋوﻫﺶ ﻣﺆﺳﺴﻪ ﺗﺤﻘﻴﻘﺎت ﺟﻨﮕﻠﻬﺎ و ﻣﺮاﺗﻊ ﻛﺸﻮر ﻣﺼﻄﻔﻲ اﺳﺪي، اﺳﺘﺎد ﭘﮋوﻫﺶ ﻣﺆﺳﺴﻪ ﺗﺤﻘﻴﻘﺎت ﺟﻨﮕﻠﻬﺎ و ﻣﺮاﺗﻊ ﻛﺸﻮر Piptatherum denaense ﺑﻪﻋﻨﻮان ﮔﻮﻧﻪاي ﺟﺪﻳﺪ از ﻛﻮه دﻧﺎ در ﺟﻨﻮب ﻏﺮب اﻳﺮان ﺷﺮح داده ﻣﻲﺷﻮد.
    [Show full text]
  • Washington Division of Geology and Earth Resources Open File Report
    RECONNAISSANCE SURFICIAL GEOLOGIC MAPPING OF THE LATE CENOZOIC SEDIMENTS OF THE COLUMBIA BASIN, WASHINGTON by James G. Rigby and Kurt Othberg with contributions from Newell Campbell Larry Hanson Eugene Kiver Dale Stradling Gary Webster Open File Report 79-3 September 1979 State of Washington Department of Natural Resources Division of Geology and Earth Resources Olympia, Washington CONTENTS Introduction Objectives Study Area Regional Setting 1 Mapping Procedure 4 Sample Collection 8 Description of Map Units 8 Pre-Miocene Rocks 8 Columbia River Basalt, Yakima Basalt Subgroup 9 Ellensburg Formation 9 Gravels of the Ancestral Columbia River 13 Ringold Formation 15 Thorp Gravel 17 Gravel of Terrace Remnants 19 Tieton Andesite 23 Palouse Formation and Other Loess Deposits 23 Glacial Deposits 25 Catastrophic Flood Deposits 28 Background and previous work 30 Description and interpretation of flood deposits 35 Distinctive geomorphic features 38 Terraces and other features of undetermined origin 40 Post-Pleistocene Deposits 43 Landslide Deposits 44 Alluvium 45 Alluvial Fan Deposits 45 Older Alluvial Fan Deposits 45 Colluvium 46 Sand Dunes 46 Mirna Mounds and Other Periglacial(?) Patterned Ground 47 Structural Geology 48 Southwest Quadrant 48 Toppenish Ridge 49 Ah tanum Ridge 52 Horse Heaven Hills 52 East Selah Fault 53 Northern Saddle Mountains and Smyrna Bench 54 Selah Butte Area 57 Miscellaneous Areas 58 Northwest Quadrant 58 Kittitas Valley 58 Beebe Terrace Disturbance 59 Winesap Lineament 60 Northeast Quadrant 60 Southeast Quadrant 61 Recommendations 62 Stratigraphy 62 Structure 63 Summary 64 References Cited 66 Appendix A - Tephrochronology and identification of collected datable materials 82 Appendix B - Description of field mapping units 88 Northeast Quadrant 89 Northwest Quadrant 90 Southwest Quadrant 91 Southeast Quadrant 92 ii ILLUSTRATIONS Figure 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Lecture 21: Glaciers and Paleoclimate Read: Chapter 15 Homework Due Thursday Nov
    Learning Objectives (LO) Lecture 21: Glaciers and Paleoclimate Read: Chapter 15 Homework due Thursday Nov. 12 What we’ll learn today:! 1. 1. Glaciers and where they occur! 2. 2. Compare depositional and erosional features of glaciers! 3. 3. Earth-Sun orbital parameters, relevance to interglacial periods ! A glacier is a river of ice. Glaciers can range in size from: 100s of m (mountain glaciers) to 100s of km (continental ice sheets) Most glaciers are 1000s to 100,000s of years old! The Snowline is the lowest elevation of a perennial (2 yrs) snow field. Glaciers can only form above the snowline, where snow does not completely melt in the summer. Requirements: Cold temperatures Polar latitudes or high elevations Sufficient snow Flat area for snow to accumulate Permafrost is permanently frozen soil beneath a seasonal active layer that supports plant life Glaciers are made of compressed, recrystallized snow. Snow buildup in the zone of accumulation flows downhill into the zone of wastage. Glacier-Covered Areas Glacier Coverage (km2) No glaciers in Australia! 160,000 glaciers total 47 countries have glaciers 94% of Earth’s ice is in Greenland and Antarctica Mountain Glaciers are Retreating Worldwide The Antarctic Ice Sheet The Greenland Ice Sheet Glaciers flow downhill through ductile (plastic) deformation & by basal sliding. Brittle deformation near the surface makes cracks, or crevasses. Antarctic ice sheet: ductile flow extends into the ocean to form an ice shelf. Wilkins Ice shelf Breakup http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XUltAHerfpk The Greenland Ice Sheet has fewer and smaller ice shelves. Erosional Features Unique erosional landforms remain after glaciers melt.
    [Show full text]
  • Types of American Grasses
    z LIBRARY OF Si AS-HITCHCOCK AND AGNES'CHASE 4: SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION UNITED STATES NATIONAL MUSEUM oL TiiC. CONTRIBUTIONS FROM THE United States National Herbarium Volume XII, Part 3 TXE&3 OF AMERICAN GRASSES . / A STUDY OF THE AMERICAN SPECIES OF GRASSES DESCRIBED BY LINNAEUS, GRONOVIUS, SLOANE, SWARTZ, AND MICHAUX By A. S. HITCHCOCK z rit erV ^-C?^ 1 " WASHINGTON GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 1908 BULLETIN OF THE UNITED STATES NATIONAL MUSEUM Issued June 18, 1908 ii PREFACE The accompanying paper, by Prof. A. S. Hitchcock, Systematic Agrostologist of the United States Department of Agriculture, u entitled Types of American grasses: a study of the American species of grasses described by Linnaeus, Gronovius, Sloane, Swartz, and Michaux," is an important contribution to our knowledge of American grasses. It is regarded as of fundamental importance in the critical sys- tematic investigation of any group of plants that the identity of the species described by earlier authors be determined with certainty. Often this identification can be made only by examining the type specimen, the original description being inconclusive. Under the American code of botanical nomenclature, which has been followed by the author of this paper, "the nomenclatorial t}rpe of a species or subspecies is the specimen to which the describer originally applied the name in publication." The procedure indicated by the American code, namely, to appeal to the type specimen when the original description is insufficient to identify the species, has been much misunderstood by European botanists. It has been taken to mean, in the case of the Linnsean herbarium, for example, that a specimen in that herbarium bearing the same name as a species described by Linnaeus in his Species Plantarum must be taken as the type of that species regardless of all other considerations.
    [Show full text]
  • Periodically Spaced Anticlines of the Columbia Plateau
    Geological Society of America Special Paper 239 1989 Periodically spaced anticlines of the Columbia Plateau Thomas R. Watters Center for Earth and Planetary Studies, National Air and Space Museum, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D. C. 20560 ABSTRACT Deformation of the continental flood-basalt in the westernmost portion of the Columbia Plateau has resulted in regularly spaced anticlinal ridges. The periodic nature of the anticlines is characterized by dividing the Yakima fold belt into three domains on the basis of spacings and orientations: (1) the northern domain, made up of the eastern segments of Umtanum Ridge, the Saddle Mountains, and the Frenchman Hills; (2) the central domain, made up of segments of Rattlesnake Ridge, the eastern segments of Horse Heaven Hills, Yakima Ridge, the western segments of Umtanum Ridge, Cleman Mountain, Bethel Ridge, and Manastash Ridge; and (3) the southern domain, made up of Gordon Ridge, the Columbia Hills, the western segment of Horse Heaven Hills, Toppenish Ridge, and Ahtanum Ridge. The northern, central, and southern domains have mean spacings of 19.6,11.6, and 27.6 km, respectively, with a total range of 4 to 36 km and a mean of 20.4 km (n = 203). The basalts are modeled as a multilayer of thin linear elastic plates with frictionless contacts, resting on a mechanically weak elastic substrate of finite thickness, that has buckled at a critical wavelength of folding. Free slip between layers is assumed, based on the presence of thin sedimentary interbeds in the Grande Ronde Basalt separating groups of flows with an average thickness of roughly 280 m.
    [Show full text]
  • Geologic Map of the Simcoe Mountains Volcanic Field, Main Central Segment, Yakama Nation, Washington by Wes Hildreth and Judy Fierstein
    Prepared in Cooperation with the Water Resources Program of the Yakama Nation Geologic Map of the Simcoe Mountains Volcanic Field, Main Central Segment, Yakama Nation, Washington By Wes Hildreth and Judy Fierstein Pamphlet to accompany Scientific Investigations Map 3315 Photograph showing Mount Adams andesitic stratovolcano and Signal Peak mafic shield volcano viewed westward from near Mill Creek Guard Station. Low-relief rocky meadows and modest forested ridges marked by scattered cinder cones and shields are common landforms in Simcoe Mountains volcanic field. Mount Adams (elevation: 12,276 ft; 3,742 m) is centered 50 km west and 2.8 km higher than foreground meadow (elevation: 2,950 ft.; 900 m); its eruptions began ~520 ka, its upper cone was built in late Pleistocene, and several eruptions have taken place in the Holocene. Signal Peak (elevation: 5,100 ft; 1,555 m), 20 km west of camera, is one of largest and highest eruptive centers in Simcoe Mountains volcanic field; short-lived shield, built around 3.7 Ma, is seven times older than Mount Adams. 2015 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey Contents Introductory Overview for Non-Geologists ...............................................................................................1 Introduction.....................................................................................................................................................2 Physiography, Environment, Boundary Surveys, and Access ......................................................6 Previous Geologic
    [Show full text]
  • Educator's Guide
    Educator’s Guide the jill and lewis bernard family Hall of north american mammals inside: • Suggestions to Help You come prepared • essential questions for Student Inquiry • Strategies for teaching in the exhibition • map of the Exhibition • online resources for the Classroom • Correlations to science framework • glossary amnh.org/namammals Essential QUESTIONS Who are — and who were — the North as tundra, winters are cold, long, and dark, the growing season American Mammals? is extremely short, and precipitation is low. In contrast, the abundant precipitation and year-round warmth of tropical All mammals on Earth share a common ancestor and and subtropical forests provide optimal growing conditions represent many millions of years of evolution. Most of those that support the greatest diversity of species worldwide. in this hall arose as distinct species in the relatively recent Florida and Mexico contain some subtropical forest. In the past. Their ancestors reached North America at different boreal forest that covers a huge expanse of the continent’s times. Some entered from the north along the Bering land northern latitudes, winters are dry and severe, summers moist bridge, which was intermittently exposed by low sea levels and short, and temperatures between the two range widely. during the Pleistocene (2,588,000 to 11,700 years ago). Desert and scrublands are dry and generally warm through- These migrants included relatives of New World cats (e.g. out the year, with temperatures that may exceed 100°F and dip sabertooth, jaguar), certain rodents, musk ox, at least two by 30 degrees at night. kinds of elephants (e.g.
    [Show full text]
  • Amaranthaceae Pollens: Review of an Emerging Allergy in the Mediterranean Area M Villalba,1 R Barderas,1 S Mas,1 C Colás,2 E Batanero,1 R Rodríguez1
    REVIEWS Amaranthaceae Pollens: Review of an Emerging Allergy in the Mediterranean Area M Villalba,1 R Barderas,1 S Mas,1 C Colás,2 E Batanero,1 R Rodríguez1 1Departamento de Bioquímica y Biología Molecular I, Facultad de Ciencias Químicas, Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Madrid, Spain 2Hospital Clínico Universitario "Lozano Blesa", Zaragoza, Spain Abstract The Amaranthaceae family is composed of about 180 genera and 2500 species. These common weeds have become increasingly relevant as triggers of allergy in the last few years, as they are able to rapidly colonize salty and arid soils in extensive desert areas. The genera Chenopodium, Salsola, and Amaranthus are the major sources of pollinosis from the Amaranthaceae family in southern Europe, western United States, and semidesert areas of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Iran. In Spain, Salsola kali is one of the most relevant causes of pollinosis, together with olive and grasses. To date, 9 Amaranthaceae pollen allergens from Chenopodium album, Salsola kali, and Amaranthus retroflexus have been described and are listed in the International Union of Immunological Societies allergen nomenclature database. The major allergens of Amaranthaceae pollen belong to the pectin methylesterase, Ole e 1–like, and profilin panallergen families, whereas the minor allergens belong to the cobalamin- independent methionine synthase and polcalcin panallergen families. These relevant allergens have been characterized physicochemically, and immunologically at different levels. Recombinant forms, allergenic fusion recombinant proteins, and hypoallergenic derivatives of these allergens have been expressed in bacteria and yeast and compared with their natural proteins from pollen. In this review, we provide an extensive overview of Amaranthaceae pollen allergens, focusing on their physicochemical, and immunological properties and on their clinical significance in allergic patients.
    [Show full text]
  • Pbmr-400 Benchmark Solution of Exercise 1 and 2 Using the Moose Based Applications: Mammoth, Pronghorn
    EPJ Web of Conferences 247, 06020 (2021) https://doi.org/10.1051/epjconf/202124706020 PHYSOR2020 PBMR-400 BENCHMARK SOLUTION OF EXERCISE 1 AND 2 USING THE MOOSE BASED APPLICATIONS: MAMMOTH, PRONGHORN Paolo Balestra1, Sebastian Schunert1, Robert W Carlsen1, April J Novak2 Mark D DeHart1, Richard C Martineau1 1Idaho National Laboratory 955 MK Simpson Blvd, Idaho Falls, ID 83401, USA 2University of California, Berkeley 2000 Carleton Street, Berkeley, CA 94720, USA [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected] ABSTRACT High temperature gas cooled reactors (HTGR) are a candidate for timely Gen-IV reac- tor technology deployment because of high technology readiness and walk-away safety. Among HTGRs, pebble bed reactors (PBRs) have attractive features such as low excess reactivity and online refueling. Pebble bed reactors pose unique challenges to analysts and reactor designers such as continuous burnup distribution depending on pebble mo- tion and recirculation, radiative heat transfer across a variety of gas-filled gaps, and long design basis transients such as pressurized and depressurized loss of forced circulation. Modeling and simulation is essential for both the PBR’s safety case and design process. In order to verify and validate the new generation codes the Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA) Data bank provide a set of benchmarks data together with solutions calculated by the participants using the state of the art codes of that time. An important milestone to test the new PBR simulation codes is the OECD NEA PBMR-400 benchmark which includes thermal hydraulic and neutron kinetic standalone exercises as well as coupled exercises and transients scenarios.
    [Show full text]
  • Canyon Formation Constraints on the Discharge of Catastrophic Outburst
    PUBLICATIONS Journal of Geophysical Research: Planets RESEARCH ARTICLE Canyon formation constraints on the discharge of catastrophic 10.1002/2016JE005061 outburst floods of Earth and Mars Key Points: Mathieu G. A. Lapotre1, Michael P. Lamb1, and Rebecca M. E. Williams2 • A new model for canyon formation through waterfall retreat combines 1Division of Geological and Planetary Sciences, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, California, USA, 2Planetary flood hydraulics and erosional mechanics Science Institute, Tucson, Arizona, USA • The model is used as a paleohydraulic tool to estimate the discharge of megafloods on Earth and Mars Abstract Catastrophic outburst floods carved amphitheater-headed canyons on Earth and Mars, and the • Compared with previous estimates, steep headwalls of these canyons suggest that some formed by upstream headwall propagation through predicted discharges are lower, fl durations higher, and water waterfall erosion processes. Because topography evolves in concert with water ow during canyon erosion, volumes are similar we suggest that bedrock canyon morphology preserves hydraulic information about canyon-forming floods. In particular, we propose that for a canyon to form with a roughly uniform width by upstream headwall retreat, erosion must occur around the canyon head, but not along the sidewalls, such that canyon width is fl fl Correspondence to: related to ood discharge. We develop a new theory for bedrock canyon formation by mega oods based M. G. A. Lapotre, on flow convergence of large outburst floods toward a horseshoe-shaped waterfall. The model is developed [email protected] for waterfall erosion by rock toppling, a candidate erosion mechanism in well fractured rock, like columnar basalt. We apply the model to 14 terrestrial (Channeled Scablands, Washington; Snake River Plain, Idaho; Citation: and Ásbyrgi canyon, Iceland) and nine Martian (near Ares Vallis and Echus Chasma) bedrock canyons and Lapotre, M.
    [Show full text]
  • Washington's Channeled Scabland
    t\D l'llrl,. \·· ~. r~rn1 ,uR\fEY Ut,l\n . .. ,Y:ltate" tit1Washington ALBEIT D. ROSEWNI, Governor Department of Conservation EARL COE, Dlnctor DIVISION OF MINES AND GEOLOGY MARSHALL T. HUNTTING, Supervisor Bulletin No. 45 WASHINGTON'S CHANNELED SCABLAND By J HARLEN BRETZ 9TAT• PIUHTIHO PLANT ~ OLYMPIA, WASH., 1"511 State of Washington ALBERT D. ROSELLINI, Governor Department of Conservation EARL COE, Director DIVISION OF MINES AND GEOLOGY MARSHALL T. HUNTTING, Supervisor Bulletin No. 45 WASHINGTON'S CHANNELED SCABLAND By .T HARLEN BRETZ l•or sate by Department or Conservation, Olympia, Washington. Price, 50 cents. FOREWORD Most travelers who have driven through eastern Washington have seen a geologic and scenic feature that is unique-nothing like it is to be found anywhere else in the world. This is the Channeled Scab­ land, a gigantic series of deeply cut channels in the erosion-resistant Columbia River basalt, the rock that covers most of the east-central and southeastern part of the state. Grand Coulee, with its spectac­ ular Dry Falls, is one of the most widely known features of this ex­ tensive set of dry channels. Many thousands of travelers must have wondered how this Chan­ neled Scabland came into being, and many geologists also have speculated as to its origin. Several geologists have published papers outlining their theories of the scabland's origin, but the geologist who has made the most thorough study of the problem and has ex­ amined the whole area and all the evidence having a bearing on the problem is Dr. J Harlen Bretz. Dr.
    [Show full text]
  • Top 26 Trails in Grant County 2020
    and 12 Watchable Wildlife Units For more information, please contact: Grant County Tourism Commission P.O. Box 37, Ephrata, WA 98823 509.765.7888 • 800.992.6234 In Grant County, Washington TourGrantCounty.com TOP TRAILS Grant County has some of the most scenic and pristine vistas, hiking trails and outdoor 26 recreational opportunities in Washington State. and 12 Watchable Wildlife Units Grant County is known for its varied landscapes on a high desert plateau with coulees, lakes, in Grant County Washington reservoirs, sand dunes, canals, rivers, creeks, and other waterways. These diverse ecosystems Grant County Tourism Commission For Additional copies please contact: support a remarkable variety of fish and PO Box 37 Jerry T. Gingrich wildlife species that contribute to the economic, Ephrata, Washington 98837 Grant County Tourism Commission recreational and cultural life of the County. www.tourgrantcounty.com Grant County Courthouse PO Box 37 Ephrata, WA 98837 No part of this book may be reproduced in (509) 754-2011, Ext. 2931 any form, or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, without permission in For more information on writing from the Grant County Tourism Grant County accommodations Commission. www.tourgrantcounty.com © 2019, Grant County Tourism Commission Second printing, 10m Trails copy and photographs Book, map and cover design by: provided by: Denise Adam Graphic Design Cameron Smith, Lisa Laughlin, J. Kemble, Veradale, WA 99037 Shawn Cardwell, Mark Amara, (509) 891-0873 Emry Dinman, Harley Price, [email protected] Sebastian Moraga and Madison White Printed by: Rewriting and editing by: Mark Amara Pressworks 2717 N. Perry Street Watchable Wildlife copy and Spokane, Washington 99207 photographs provided by: (509) 462-7627 Washington Department of [email protected] Fish and Wildlife Photograph by Lisa Laughlin CONTENTS CONTENTS Grant County Trails and Hiking Grant County Watchable Wildlife Viewing Upper Grand Coulee Area 1.
    [Show full text]