This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
The proposed highway would divide Fort Lewis Army Base and McChord Air Force Base, which share a common border. It also would bisect “some of the largest contiguous underdeveloped tracts of prairie, oak woodland, conifer and wetland complexes remaining in the Puget Sound region.” FEIS at 4-93. According to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, this area is possibly the rarest habitat in North America. In addition, the military bases (which are located along the heavily developed I-5 corridor) have become a wildlife sanctuary for at least 29 species of federal and/or state threatened, endangered, candidate, and sensitive plan and animal species of concern. Eighteen of these species are in the immediate vicinity of the proposed Cross-Base Highway. See July 13, 1998 letter from U.S. EPA to FHWA. (emphasis added)
If you have a better source indicating that the USFWS really said "Washington" instead of "North America" -- meaning that the attorneys for the opposition groups misquoted them -- please post it. Travisl 15:36, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
If the US Fish and Wildlife Service actually called it the rarest habitat in North America, I would like to see a reference from them stating so, not from the Cross base coalition, which contradicts itself by stating both the rarest habitat in Washington on one site (tahomaaudubon.org) and the rarest habitat in North America on the other (conservationnw.org). Since you are an attorney, you should know about backing up your facts correctly. Use the original reference from Fish and Wildlife and then I won't have a problem with whatever you put. Having me blocked to prevent me from accurately backing up a quote is paramount to censorship and you should be ashamed of such. PROVE YOUR QUOTES! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Luftmann (talk • contribs) 18:38, March 23, 2007 (UTC)
Citing a reference is "proving your quotes". It's not the best references out there, but I don't see you citing a reference for your wording. If you want to contradict a cited reference, you need to provide a reference of your own. -- NORTHtalk 18:44, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Tahomaaudubon.org also says North America: "The US Fish and Wildlife Service believes that the remaining South Puget Sound prairies may be possibly the rarest habitat in North America, home to at least 29 species of federal and/or state threatened, endangered, candidate and sensitive plant and animal species of concern, 18 of which are in the immediate vicinity of the proposed highway." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Northenglish (talk • contribs) 18:46, 23 March 2007 (UTC).
I was citing your reference from tahomaaudubon.org to change North America to Washington. Here is the reference as found on that site:
Loss of rare oak woodland prairie habitat in Washington State
The rarest form of habitat in Washington, the Puget Sound lowland prairies once covered more than 150,000 acres in pre-settlement times. Due to the combination of agriculture, development and the encroachment of invasive species, plants and animals that depend on native prairie habitat now cover just 3 percent of their original area. The Cross Base Highway is a direct threat to this critical prairie habitat in Pierce County.
Since your organization contradicts itself, I suggest you place a footnote to the USFWS. That way, there will be no further dispute. (If you are having trouble finding it, it is the talking point down by the picture of Mt. Rainier). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Luftmann (talk • contribs)
It doesn't necessarily contradict itself. It can easily be the rarest habitat in Washington, and the rarest habitat in North America. The line you keep changing is a direct quote from the letter of intent. I'll edit the text to make both references clear. -- NORTHtalk 21:30, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Is there an online link to the EIS that was added. It would be great if we could reference it properly as we do the others. -- NORTHtalk 23:25, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, I had just found it myself as well actually. -- NORTHtalk 23:40, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
The only letter in the fed/state agency EIS comments talking about the FWS quote comes from the EPA. Is there an original source attributing the habitat comment to the FWS or it is all second-hand sourced? There should be either a direct (v. indirect or third party) reference to FWS or the quote should be deleted or attributed solely as a claim made by the group opposing the highway or the EPA. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Run26.2 (talk • contribs) 00:50, March 24, 2007 (UTC)
The article has already been edited to attribute it solely to the group. -- NORTHtalk 01:15, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
The wikipedia article on Cytisus scoparius lists Scotch Broom as a common name and this gloss is how I hear it. However as a child here I thought it was called Scotch Bloom because of it's spray of yellow flowers! K Krum (talk) 03:34, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
I've not found that the lawsuit was dismissed or settled, but the link to the complaint is broken, and the annual report (.pdf) of the Tahoma Audubon Society mentions the successful protection of 800 acres achieve through a deal with the government. Google's failed me in finding out what happened. I suspect the case settled out of court, though. Can anyone verify? Travisl (talk) 17:47, 18 August 2008 (UTC)