DOCSLIB.ORG

White Mountain National F Orest

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
White Mountain National F Orest Appendix G Biological Evaluation White Mountain National Forest Biological Evaluation of the White Mountain National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan Revision on Federal Endangered, Threatened, and Proposed Species and Regional Forester Sensitive Species Grafton, Carroll, and Coos Counties, New Hampshire; and Oxford County, Maine USDA Forest Service White Mountain National Forest 719 North Main Street Laconia, New Hampshire 03246 (603) 528-8721 Prepared by: /s/ Leighlan Prout_______________________ Date: September 12, 2005 Leighlan Prout Forest Wildlife Biologist White Mountain National Forest — Final Environmental Impact Statement Contents Chapter 1 – Introduction .......................................................................... 7 Proposed Management Action ........................................................... 7 Consultation History ......................................................................... 17 Species Evaluated .............................................................................. 18 Summary of Species Determinations of Effects .............................. 20 Chapter 2 – Federally Listed Species ..................................................... 22 Small whorled pogonia (Isotria medeoloides) — Federal Threatened ................................................................... 22 Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) — Federal threatened ......... 30 Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis) — Federal endangered ...................... 35 Gray wolf (Canis lupus) — Federal endangered ............................ 47 Eastern cougar (Puma concolor couguar) — Federal endangered .................................................................. 58 Canada lynx (Lynx canadensis) — Federal threatened ................... 61 Chapter 3 — Regional Forester Sensitive Species (Plants) ................... 85 Arnica (Arnica lanceolata) ................................................................. 85 Dwarf white birch (Betula minor) .................................................... 89 Pond reed bent-grass (Calamagrostis lacustris)............................... 91 Alpine bitter cress (Cardamine bellidifolia) ...................................... 95 Bailey’s sedge (Carex baileyi) ............................................................ 97 Piled-up sedge (Carex cumulata) ...................................................... 99 Wiegand’s sedge (Carex wiegandii) ................................................ 104 Squirrel corn (Dicentra canadensis) ................................................ 110 Goldie’s woodfern (Dryopteris goldiana) ........................................ 116 Oakes’ eyebright (Euphrasia oakesii) ............................................. 120 Proliferous red fescue (Festuca rubra ssp arctica = var. prolifera) .. 123 Northern comandra (Geocaulon lividum)...................................... 125 Mountain avens (Geum peckii) ....................................................... 129 Butternut (Juglans cinerea) .............................................................. 131 Auricled twayblade (Listera auriculata)......................................... 134 Broad-leaved twayblade (Listera convallarioides) ......................... 139 Heart-leaved twayblade (Listera cordata) ...................................... 145 Alpine cudweed (Omalotheca supina) ............................................ 147 G–4 Appendix G — Biological Evaluation Canada mountain ricegrass (Oryzopsis canadensis)...................... 149 Mountain sweet-cicely (Osmorhiza berteroi) .................................. 153 American ginseng (Panax quinquefolius) ...................................... 156 Silverling (Paronychia argyrocoma)................................................. 161 Sweet coltsfoot (Petasites frigidus var. palmatus) .......................... 165 Wavy bluegrass (Poa fernaldiana) .................................................. 168 Robbins’ (dwarf) cinquefoil (Potentilla robbinsiana)..................... 170 Boott’s rattlesnake-root (Prenanthes (Nabalus) boottii) ................. 174 Pink wintergreen (Pyrola asarifolia)............................................... 178 Livelong saxifrage (Saxifraga paniculata) ...................................... 183 Moss campion (Silene acaulis) ........................................................ 185 Nodding pogonia (Triphora trianthophora) ................................... 187 Boreal blueberry (Vaccinium boreale) ............................................. 192 Chapter 4 — Regional Forester Sensitive Species (Animals) .............. 196 White Mountain fritillary (Boloria montinus montina) ................ 196 White Mountain butterfly (Oeneis melissa semidea) ..................... 199 Wood turtle (Clemmys insculpta) ................................................... 202 Timber rattlesnake (Crotalus horridus) .......................................... 209 Bicknell’s thrush (Catharus bicknelli) ............................................. 214 American peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus) ............................... 220 Common loon (Gavia immer) ......................................................... 223 Eastern small-footed bat (Myotis leibii)......................................... 227 Northern bog lemming (Synaptomys borealis sphagnicola).......... 235 Chapter 5 – New England Cottontail ............................................ 239 Literature Cited ..................................................................................... 244 G–5 White Mountain National Forest — Final Environmental Impact Statement G–6 Appendix G — Biological Evaluation Chapter 1 – Introduction This Biological Assessment is prepared in accordance with direction provided in the United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service (USFS) Manual 2672.42 and Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA). It addresses potential effects of the revised White Mountain National Forest (WMNF) Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan) on federally endangered, threatened, and proposed species and Regional Forester Sensitive Species (RFSS) that may occur within the Forest. Federally endangered and threatened species are those determined for eligibility based on guidelines listed by the United States Department of Interior Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) under Section 4 of the Endangered Species Act. The USFS cooperated with the USFWS to determine which federally listed species to evaluate in this Biological Assessment (USFWS 2003a). Species included on the Regional Forester Sensitive Species list must occur on Forest Service land or within the proclamation boundary of the Forest and meet at least one of the following criteria: 1) are a candidate for federal listing under ESA; 2) have been delisted under ESA within the last five years; 3) have a global (G), national (N), or trinomial (T) rank of 1, 2, or 3 from the Association of Biodiversity Information; or 4) are otherwise considered “at risk” on the Forest, with rationale documented in a Risk Evaluation. Development of the most recent RFSS list for the White Mountain National Forest (USFS 2000) incorporated comments from state Natural Heritage programs, state wildlife agencies, local interest groups, and other cooperators. Proposed Management Action The proposed management action is the revision of the WMNF Forest Plan, as amended. The Forest Plan does not identify site-specific actions, but provides a framework in which future activities may be implemented. Goals and objectives form the basis for project implementation to make progress towards the desired future condition, while standards and guidelines provide more detailed direction on how project activities may be conducted. The Forest is “zoned” into a number of Management Areas, each with a different resource emphasis, although much overlap can exist. The Forest Plan was originally approved in 1986, following a lengthy public involvement and analysis process. A total of eight amendments have since been incorporated into the Forest Plan. The National Forest Management Act requires National Forests to revise their plans every fifteen years. The current analysis to revise the Forest Plan includes four alternatives, based on public and specialist input. Three main issues were identified and can be summarized as: 1) the amount and types of timber harvest to occur; 2) the amount and types of recreation opportunities to be provided; and 3) where different management actions may occur on the Forest. The issues may be reviewed in detail in Chapter 1 of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement. G–7 White Mountain National Forest — Final Environmental Impact Statement From these issues, four alternatives were crafted and are described in detail in Chapter 2 of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement. They may be summarized as follows: Alternative 1 This is the current Forest Plan, as amended, with some updates to standards and guidelines. These updates are unrelated to the issues and were added to make this alternative more consistent with the other alternatives. Examples of updated standards and guidelines that may relate to threatened, endangered, and sensitive (TES) species (and are common to all alternatives) include direction on: • Invasive species prevention and eradication • Focused attention on rock climbing activities • Mitigation for construction of cell towers, wind turbines, and other tall structures • Limits on new construction in the alpine zone • Protection of vernal pools and other watershed and riparian features Alternative
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Two New Chrysomyxa Rust Species on the Endemic Plant, Picea Asperata in Western China, and Expanded Description of C
    Phytotaxa 292 (3): 218–230 ISSN 1179-3155 (print edition) http://www.mapress.com/j/pt/ PHYTOTAXA Copyright © 2017 Magnolia Press Article ISSN 1179-3163 (online edition) https://doi.org/10.11646/phytotaxa.292.3.2 Two new Chrysomyxa rust species on the endemic plant, Picea asperata in western China, and expanded description of C. succinea JING CAO1, CHENG-MING TIAN1, YING-MEI LIANG2 & CHONG-JUAN YOU1* 1The Key Laboratory for Silviculture and Conservation of Ministry of Education, Beijing Forestry University, Beijing 100083, China 2Museum of Beijing Forestry University, Beijing 100083, China *Corresponding author: [email protected] Abstract Two new rust species, Chrysomyxa diebuensis and C. zhuoniensis, on Picea asperata are recognized by morphological characters and DNA sequence data. A detailed description, illustrations, and discussion concerning morphologically similar and phylogenetically closely related species are provided for each species. From light and scanning electron microscopy observations C. diebuensis is characterized by the nailhead to peltate aeciospores, with separated stilt-like base. C. zhuoni- ensis differs from other known Chrysomyxa species in the annulate aeciospores with distinct longitudinal smooth cap at ends of spores, as well as with a broken, fissured edge. Analysis based on internal transcribed spacer region (ITS) partial gene sequences reveals that the two species cluster as a highly supported group in the phylogenetic trees. Correlations between the morphological and phylogenetic features are discussed. Illustrations and a detailed description are also provided for the aecia of C. succinea in China for the first time. Keywords: aeciospores, molecular phylogeny, spruce needle rust, taxonomy Introduction Picea asperata Mast.is native to western China, widely distributed in Qinghai, Gansu, Shaanxi and western Sichuan.
    [Show full text]
  • Natural Heritage Program List of Rare Plant Species of North Carolina 2016
    Natural Heritage Program List of Rare Plant Species of North Carolina 2016 Revised February 24, 2017 Compiled by Laura Gadd Robinson, Botanist John T. Finnegan, Information Systems Manager North Carolina Natural Heritage Program N.C. Department of Natural and Cultural Resources Raleigh, NC 27699-1651 www.ncnhp.org C ur Alleghany rit Ashe Northampton Gates C uc Surry am k Stokes P d Rockingham Caswell Person Vance Warren a e P s n Hertford e qu Chowan r Granville q ot ui a Mountains Watauga Halifax m nk an Wilkes Yadkin s Mitchell Avery Forsyth Orange Guilford Franklin Bertie Alamance Durham Nash Yancey Alexander Madison Caldwell Davie Edgecombe Washington Tyrrell Iredell Martin Dare Burke Davidson Wake McDowell Randolph Chatham Wilson Buncombe Catawba Rowan Beaufort Haywood Pitt Swain Hyde Lee Lincoln Greene Rutherford Johnston Graham Henderson Jackson Cabarrus Montgomery Harnett Cleveland Wayne Polk Gaston Stanly Cherokee Macon Transylvania Lenoir Mecklenburg Moore Clay Pamlico Hoke Union d Cumberland Jones Anson on Sampson hm Duplin ic Craven Piedmont R nd tla Onslow Carteret co S Robeson Bladen Pender Sandhills Columbus New Hanover Tidewater Coastal Plain Brunswick THE COUNTIES AND PHYSIOGRAPHIC PROVINCES OF NORTH CAROLINA Natural Heritage Program List of Rare Plant Species of North Carolina 2016 Compiled by Laura Gadd Robinson, Botanist John T. Finnegan, Information Systems Manager North Carolina Natural Heritage Program N.C. Department of Natural and Cultural Resources Raleigh, NC 27699-1651 www.ncnhp.org This list is dynamic and is revised frequently as new data become available. New species are added to the list, and others are dropped from the list as appropriate.
    [Show full text]
  • Clarification of the Life-Cycle of Chrysomyxa Woroninii on Ledum
    Mycol. Res. 104 (5): 581–586 (May 2000). Printed in the United Kingdom. 581 Clarification of the life-cycle of Chrysomyxa woroninii on Ledum and Picea Patricia E. CRANE1, 2, Yasuyuki HIRATSUKA2 and Randolph S. CURRAH1 " Department of Biological Sciences, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB T6G 2E9, Canada # Northern Forestry Centre, Canadian Forest Service, 5320-122 Street, Edmonton, AB T6H 3S5, Canada. Accepted 5 August 1999. The rust fungus Chrysomyxa woroninii causes perennial witches’ brooms on several species of Ledum in northern and subalpine regions of Europe, North America and Asia. Spruce bud rust has been assumed to be the aecial state of C. woroninii because of the close proximity of infected Ledum plants and systemically infected buds on Picea. The lack of experimental evidence for this connection, however, and the presence of other species of Chrysomyxa on the same hosts has led to confusion about the life-cycle of C. woroninii. In this study, infections on both spruce and Ledum were studied in the field and in a greenhouse. The link between the two states was proven by inoculating spruce with basidiospores from Ledum groenlandicum. After infection of spruce in spring, probably through the needles, the fungus overwinters in the unopened buds until the next spring, when the infected shoots are distinguished by stunting and yellow or red discolouration. Microscopic examination of dormant Ledum shoots showed that C. woroninii overwinters in this host in the bracts and outer leaves of the vegetative buds, and in the pith and cortex of the stem. The telia of C. woroninii, on systemically infected Ledum leaves of the current season, are easily distinguished from the telia of other Chrysomyxa species on the same hosts.
    [Show full text]
  • "National List of Vascular Plant Species That Occur in Wetlands: 1996 National Summary."
    Intro 1996 National List of Vascular Plant Species That Occur in Wetlands The Fish and Wildlife Service has prepared a National List of Vascular Plant Species That Occur in Wetlands: 1996 National Summary (1996 National List). The 1996 National List is a draft revision of the National List of Plant Species That Occur in Wetlands: 1988 National Summary (Reed 1988) (1988 National List). The 1996 National List is provided to encourage additional public review and comments on the draft regional wetland indicator assignments. The 1996 National List reflects a significant amount of new information that has become available since 1988 on the wetland affinity of vascular plants. This new information has resulted from the extensive use of the 1988 National List in the field by individuals involved in wetland and other resource inventories, wetland identification and delineation, and wetland research. Interim Regional Interagency Review Panel (Regional Panel) changes in indicator status as well as additions and deletions to the 1988 National List were documented in Regional supplements. The National List was originally developed as an appendix to the Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States (Cowardin et al.1979) to aid in the consistent application of this classification system for wetlands in the field.. The 1996 National List also was developed to aid in determining the presence of hydrophytic vegetation in the Clean Water Act Section 404 wetland regulatory program and in the implementation of the swampbuster provisions of the Food Security Act. While not required by law or regulation, the Fish and Wildlife Service is making the 1996 National List available for review and comment.
    [Show full text]
  • Caryophyllales 2018 Instituto De Biología, UNAM September 17-23
    Caryophyllales 2018 Instituto de Biología, UNAM September 17-23 LOCAL ORGANIZERS Hilda Flores-Olvera, Salvador Arias and Helga Ochoterena, IBUNAM ORGANIZING COMMITTEE Walter G. Berendsohn and Sabine von Mering, BGBM, Berlin, Germany Patricia Hernández-Ledesma, INECOL-Unidad Pátzcuaro, México Gilberto Ocampo, Universidad Autónoma de Aguascalientes, México Ivonne Sánchez del Pino, CICY, Centro de Investigación Científica de Yucatán, Mérida, Yucatán, México SCIENTIFIC COMMITTEE Thomas Borsch, BGBM, Germany Fernando O. Zuloaga, Instituto de Botánica Darwinion, Argentina Victor Sánchez Cordero, IBUNAM, México Cornelia Klak, Bolus Herbarium, Department of Biological Sciences, University of Cape Town, South Africa Hossein Akhani, Department of Plant Sciences, School of Biology, College of Science, University of Tehran, Iran Alexander P. Sukhorukov, Moscow State University, Russia Michael J. Moore, Oberlin College, USA Compilation: Helga Ochoterena / Graphic Design: Julio C. Montero, Diana Martínez GENERAL PROGRAM . 4 MONDAY Monday’s Program . 7 Monday’s Abstracts . 9 TUESDAY Tuesday ‘s Program . 16 Tuesday’s Abstracts . 19 WEDNESDAY Wednesday’s Program . 32 Wednesday’s Abstracs . 35 POSTERS Posters’ Abstracts . 47 WORKSHOPS Workshop 1 . 61 Workshop 2 . 62 PARTICIPANTS . 63 GENERAL INFORMATION . 66 4 Caryophyllales 2018 Caryophyllales General program Monday 17 Tuesday 18 Wednesday 19 Thursday 20 Friday 21 Saturday 22 Sunday 23 Workshop 1 Workshop 2 9:00-10:00 Key note talks Walter G. Michael J. Moore, Berendsohn, Sabine Ya Yang, Diego F. Registration
    [Show full text]
  • Checklist of the Vascular Flora of Lyon and Sioux Counties, Iowa
    Proceedings of the Iowa Academy of Science Volume 91 Number Article 5 1984 Checklist of the Vascular Flora of Lyon and Sioux Counties, Iowa James H. Peck University of Arkansas - Little Rock Burton W. Haglan Drake University Lawrence J. Eilers University of Iowa Dean M. Roosa Iowa Conservation Commission Delmar Vander Zee Dordt College Let us know how access to this document benefits ouy Copyright ©1984 Iowa Academy of Science, Inc. Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.uni.edu/pias Recommended Citation Peck, James H.; Haglan, Burton W.; Eilers, Lawrence J.; Roosa, Dean M.; and Zee, Delmar Vander (1984) "Checklist of the Vascular Flora of Lyon and Sioux Counties, Iowa," Proceedings of the Iowa Academy of Science, 91(3), 92-97. Available at: https://scholarworks.uni.edu/pias/vol91/iss3/5 This Research is brought to you for free and open access by the Iowa Academy of Science at UNI ScholarWorks. It has been accepted for inclusion in Proceedings of the Iowa Academy of Science by an authorized editor of UNI ScholarWorks. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Peck et al.: Checklist of the Vascular Flora of Lyon and Sioux Counties, Iowa Proc. Iowa Acad. Sci. 91(3): 92-97, 1984 Checklist of the Vascular Flora of Lyon and Sioux Counties, Iowa JAMES H. PECK, BURTON W. HAGLAN, LAWRENCE]. EILERS, DEAN M. ROOSA and DELMAR VANDER ZEE Department of Biology, University of Arkansas-Little Rock, Little Rock, Arkansas 72204 Department of Biology Drake University, Des Moines, Iowa 50311 Department of Biology, University of Northern Iowa, Cedar Falls, Iowa 50613 State Preserves Advisory Board, Iowa Conservation Commission, Des Moines, Iowa 50319 Department of Biology, Dordt College, Sioux Center, Iowa 51250 The combined vascular flora of qon and Sioux counties, Iowa, based upon field and herbariurn study, is composed of 612 species, of which 454 species (74%) occur in both counties.
    [Show full text]
  • State of New York City's Plants 2018
    STATE OF NEW YORK CITY’S PLANTS 2018 Daniel Atha & Brian Boom © 2018 The New York Botanical Garden All rights reserved ISBN 978-0-89327-955-4 Center for Conservation Strategy The New York Botanical Garden 2900 Southern Boulevard Bronx, NY 10458 All photos NYBG staff Citation: Atha, D. and B. Boom. 2018. State of New York City’s Plants 2018. Center for Conservation Strategy. The New York Botanical Garden, Bronx, NY. 132 pp. STATE OF NEW YORK CITY’S PLANTS 2018 4 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 6 INTRODUCTION 10 DOCUMENTING THE CITY’S PLANTS 10 The Flora of New York City 11 Rare Species 14 Focus on Specific Area 16 Botanical Spectacle: Summer Snow 18 CITIZEN SCIENCE 20 THREATS TO THE CITY’S PLANTS 24 NEW YORK STATE PROHIBITED AND REGULATED INVASIVE SPECIES FOUND IN NEW YORK CITY 26 LOOKING AHEAD 27 CONTRIBUTORS AND ACKNOWLEGMENTS 30 LITERATURE CITED 31 APPENDIX Checklist of the Spontaneous Vascular Plants of New York City 32 Ferns and Fern Allies 35 Gymnosperms 36 Nymphaeales and Magnoliids 37 Monocots 67 Dicots 3 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This report, State of New York City’s Plants 2018, is the first rankings of rare, threatened, endangered, and extinct species of what is envisioned by the Center for Conservation Strategy known from New York City, and based on this compilation of The New York Botanical Garden as annual updates thirteen percent of the City’s flora is imperiled or extinct in New summarizing the status of the spontaneous plant species of the York City. five boroughs of New York City. This year’s report deals with the City’s vascular plants (ferns and fern allies, gymnosperms, We have begun the process of assessing conservation status and flowering plants), but in the future it is planned to phase in at the local level for all species.
    [Show full text]
  • Conserving Europe's Threatened Plants
    Conserving Europe’s threatened plants Progress towards Target 8 of the Global Strategy for Plant Conservation Conserving Europe’s threatened plants Progress towards Target 8 of the Global Strategy for Plant Conservation By Suzanne Sharrock and Meirion Jones May 2009 Recommended citation: Sharrock, S. and Jones, M., 2009. Conserving Europe’s threatened plants: Progress towards Target 8 of the Global Strategy for Plant Conservation Botanic Gardens Conservation International, Richmond, UK ISBN 978-1-905164-30-1 Published by Botanic Gardens Conservation International Descanso House, 199 Kew Road, Richmond, Surrey, TW9 3BW, UK Design: John Morgan, [email protected] Acknowledgements The work of establishing a consolidated list of threatened Photo credits European plants was first initiated by Hugh Synge who developed the original database on which this report is based. All images are credited to BGCI with the exceptions of: We are most grateful to Hugh for providing this database to page 5, Nikos Krigas; page 8. Christophe Libert; page 10, BGCI and advising on further development of the list. The Pawel Kos; page 12 (upper), Nikos Krigas; page 14: James exacting task of inputting data from national Red Lists was Hitchmough; page 16 (lower), Jože Bavcon; page 17 (upper), carried out by Chris Cockel and without his dedicated work, the Nkos Krigas; page 20 (upper), Anca Sarbu; page 21, Nikos list would not have been completed. Thank you for your efforts Krigas; page 22 (upper) Simon Williams; page 22 (lower), RBG Chris. We are grateful to all the members of the European Kew; page 23 (upper), Jo Packet; page 23 (lower), Sandrine Botanic Gardens Consortium and other colleagues from Europe Godefroid; page 24 (upper) Jože Bavcon; page 24 (lower), Frank who provided essential advice, guidance and supplementary Scumacher; page 25 (upper) Michael Burkart; page 25, (lower) information on the species included in the database.
    [Show full text]
  • National Wetlands Inventory Map Report for Quinault Indian Nation
    National Wetlands Inventory Map Report for Quinault Indian Nation Project ID(s): R01Y19P01: Quinault Indian Nation, fiscal year 2019 Project area The project area (Figure 1) is restricted to the Quinault Indian Nation, bounded by Grays Harbor Co. Jefferson Co. and the Olympic National Park. Appendix A: USGS 7.5-minute Quadrangles: Queets, Salmon River West, Salmon River East, Matheny Ridge, Tunnel Island, O’Took Prairie, Thimble Mountain, Lake Quinault West, Lake Quinault East, Taholah, Shale Slough, Macafee Hill, Stevens Creek, Moclips, Carlisle. • < 0. Figure 1. QIN NWI+ 2019 project area (red outline). Source Imagery: Citation: For all quads listed above: See Appendix A Citation Information: Originator: USDA-FSA-APFO Aerial Photography Field Office Publication Date: 2017 Publication place: Salt Lake City, Utah Title: Digital Orthoimagery Series of Washington Geospatial_Data_Presentation_Form: raster digital data Other_Citation_Details: 1-meter and 1-foot, Natural Color and NIR-False Color Collateral Data: . USGS 1:24,000 topographic quadrangles . USGS – NHD – National Hydrography Dataset . USGS Topographic maps, 2013 . QIN LiDAR DEM (3 meter) and synthetic stream layer, 2015 . Previous National Wetlands Inventories for the project area . Soil Surveys, All Hydric Soils: Weyerhaeuser soil survey 1976, NRCS soil survey 2013 . QIN WET tables, field photos, and site descriptions, 2016 to 2019, Janice Martin, and Greg Eide Inventory Method: Wetland identification and interpretation was done “heads-up” using ArcMap versions 10.6.1. US Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS) National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) mapping contractors in Portland, Oregon completed the original aerial photo interpretation and wetland mapping. Primary authors: Nicholas Jones of SWCA Environmental Consulting. 100% Quality Control (QC) during the NWI mapping was provided by Michael Holscher of SWCA Environmental Consulting.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 5: Vegetation of Sphagnum-Dominated Peatlands
    CHAPTER 5: VEGETATION OF SPHAGNUM-DOMINATED PEATLANDS As discussed in the previous chapters, peatland ecosystems have unique chemical, physical, and biological properties that have given rise to equally unique plant communities. As indicated in Chapter 1, extensive literature exists on the classification, description, and ecology of peatland ecosystems in Europe, the northeastern United States, Canada, and the Rocky Mountains. In addition to the references cited in Chapter 1, there is some other relatively recent literature on peatlands (Verhoeven 1992; Heinselman 1963, 1970; Chadde et al., 1998). Except for efforts on the classification and ecology of peatlands in British Columbia by the National Wetlands Working Group (1988), the Burns Bog Ecosystem Review (Hebda et al. 2000), and the preliminary classification of native, low elevation, freshwater vegetation in western Washington (Kunze 1994), scant information exists on peatlands within the more temperate lowland or maritime climates of the Pacific Northwest (Oregon, Washington, and British Columbia). 5.1 Introduction There are a number of classification schemes and many different peatland types, but most use vegetation in addition to hydrology, chemistry and topological characteristics to differentiate among peatlands. The subject of this report are acidic peatlands that support acidophilic (acid-loving) and xerophytic vegetation, such as Sphagnum mosses and ericaceous shrubs. Ecosystems in Washington state appear to represent a mosaic of vegetation communities at various stages of succession and are herein referred to collectively as Sphagnum-dominated peatlands. Although there has been some recognition of the unique ecological and societal values of peatlands in Washington, a statewide classification scheme has not been formally adopted or widely recognized in the scientific community.
    [Show full text]
  • The Italian & French Alps
    The Italian & French Alps Naturetrek Tour Report 26 June - 3 July 2018 Report compiled by Philip Thompson Naturetrek Mingledown Barn Wolf's Lane Chawton Alton Hampshire GU34 3HJ UK T: +44 (0)1962 733051 E: [email protected] W: www.naturetrek.co.uk Tour Report The Italian & French Alps Tour participants: Philip Thompson (leader) and eight Naturetrek clients Day 1 Tuesday 26th June Our flight from Gatwick arrived into Turin in the late afternoon necessitating a direct transfer to Cogne our first base of the trip. We headed north from Turin through flat agricultural fields with the distant mountains on the horizon. We were soon heading west up the Aosta valley with the mountains rising steadily on either side. Leaving the motorway, we turned off south to head along the winding mountain road towards Cogne On arrival we had just enough time to check into our rooms and a quick freshen up before heading into dinner to relax and unwind after the journey. Day 2 Wednesday 27th June Our first excursion was just outside the Gran Paradiso National Park, with a short initial drive to the village of Gimillan and then a walk up the Torrent Grausson valley. This had the added attraction of a wonderful panoramic view across towards the high peaks of the NP with Gran Paradiso the highest glacier-clad summit. The initial section led up through a steep lush meadow full of colour and butterflies. Several plants present would become familiar throughout the trip such as Campanula rhomboidalis, Tragopogon pratensis subsp. orientalis and Knautia dipsacifolia, among which our first Almond-eyed Ringlets were notable.
    [Show full text]
  • NJ Native Plants - USDA
    NJ Native Plants - USDA Scientific Name Common Name N/I Family Category National Wetland Indicator Status Thermopsis villosa Aaron's rod N Fabaceae Dicot Rubus depavitus Aberdeen dewberry N Rosaceae Dicot Artemisia absinthium absinthium I Asteraceae Dicot Aplectrum hyemale Adam and Eve N Orchidaceae Monocot FAC-, FACW Yucca filamentosa Adam's needle N Agavaceae Monocot Gentianella quinquefolia agueweed N Gentianaceae Dicot FAC, FACW- Rhamnus alnifolia alderleaf buckthorn N Rhamnaceae Dicot FACU, OBL Medicago sativa alfalfa I Fabaceae Dicot Ranunculus cymbalaria alkali buttercup N Ranunculaceae Dicot OBL Rubus allegheniensis Allegheny blackberry N Rosaceae Dicot UPL, FACW Hieracium paniculatum Allegheny hawkweed N Asteraceae Dicot Mimulus ringens Allegheny monkeyflower N Scrophulariaceae Dicot OBL Ranunculus allegheniensis Allegheny Mountain buttercup N Ranunculaceae Dicot FACU, FAC Prunus alleghaniensis Allegheny plum N Rosaceae Dicot UPL, NI Amelanchier laevis Allegheny serviceberry N Rosaceae Dicot Hylotelephium telephioides Allegheny stonecrop N Crassulaceae Dicot Adlumia fungosa allegheny vine N Fumariaceae Dicot Centaurea transalpina alpine knapweed N Asteraceae Dicot Potamogeton alpinus alpine pondweed N Potamogetonaceae Monocot OBL Viola labradorica alpine violet N Violaceae Dicot FAC Trifolium hybridum alsike clover I Fabaceae Dicot FACU-, FAC Cornus alternifolia alternateleaf dogwood N Cornaceae Dicot Strophostyles helvola amberique-bean N Fabaceae Dicot Puccinellia americana American alkaligrass N Poaceae Monocot Heuchera americana
    [Show full text]