DOCSLIB.ORG

Kelsey Peak Timber Sale and Fuelbreak Project: Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Kelsey Peak Timber Sale and Fuelbreak Project: Draft Environmental Impact Statement United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service Draft Environmental R5-MB-216 Impact Statement April 2010 Kelsey Peak Timber Sale and Fuelbreak Project Mad River Ranger District, Six Rivers National Forest Trinity County, California The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or part of an individual's income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-9410, or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720- 6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. Kelsey Peak Timber Sale and Fuelbreak Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement Trinity County, California Lead Agency: USDA Forest Service Responsible Official: Tyrone Kelley, Forest Supervisor Six Rivers National Forest 1330 Bayshore Way Eureka, CA 95501-3834 For Information Contact: Keith A. Menasco, Team Leader 3360 S. Carol Drive Flagstaff, AZ 86001 928-774-6594 Abstract: The Six Rivers National Forest is proposing to harvest commercial timber and create fuelbreaks on National Forest System (NFS) lands administered by the Mad River Ranger District. The Kelsey Peak Timber Sale and Fuelbreak Project area is located in the Upper Mad River watershed, near the town of Ruth, California. The proposed action is intended to implement commodity output goals and management direction contained in the Six Rivers National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP). This draft environmental impact statement (DEIS) analyzes four alternatives in detail, including no action (Alternative 1). The “action” alternatives (Alternatives 2A, 3, and 4) represent different project designs intended to address resource issues raised by the public while meeting the purpose and need. Alternative 2A was developed as a modification of the original proposed action after new information concerning northern spotted owls was discovered. Alternative 3 was developed to address issues concerning water quality. Alternative 4 was developed to address the need for providing a sustainable, predictable, long-term timber supply for local economies. Because of the new information, Alternative 2, the original proposed action, was eliminated from detailed study. In addition to displaying alternatives, this statement discusses the estimated effects of implementing each of the alternatives and compares the alternatives in terms of meeting management objectives and estimated impacts to resource values at issue, based on comments received from the public pursuant to the project scoping process. It is important that reviewers provide their comments at such times and in such a way that they are useful to the agency’s preparation of the final EIS. Therefore, comments should be provided prior to the close of the comment period and should clearly articulate the reviewer’s concerns and contentions. The submission of timely and specific comments can affect a reviewer’s ability to participate in subsequent administrative review or judicial review. Comments received in response to this solicitation, including names and addresses of those who comment, will be part of the public record for this proposed action. Comments submitted anonymously will be accepted and considered; however, anonymous comments will not provide the respondent with standing to participate in subsequent administrative or judicial reviews. The opportunity to comment ends 45 days following publication of the notice of availability in the Federal Register. Send Comments to: Jim Gumm, Mad River Ranger District 741 State Highway 36 Bridgeville, CA 95526 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Summary The Six Rivers National Forest proposes to harvest commercial timber from the Kelsey Peak Timber Sale and Fuelbreak Project. The area affected by the proposal includes conifer stands located in the southern portion of the Upper Mad River watershed. This action is needed because Ruth, California is currently at risk to wildfires due to dense forest conditions and there is an opportunity to provide timber commodities that contribute toward a sustainable, predictable, long-term timber supply for local economies. A number of stands in the Kelsey Peak Timber Sale and Fuel Treatment planning area were identified as needing treatment to achieve commodity output goals and to move them towards the desired vegetation condition described in the Six Rivers National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP; USDA Forest Service 1995). Specialists in a wide array of disciplines visited these sites and worked together to develop a timber sale project proposal consistent with all LRMP standards and guidelines. Many of the preliminary treatment units were not included in the final proposal due to various resource and economic concerns. A variety of efforts was made to involve the public. Notices were placed in the Six Rivers National Forest Schedule of Proposed Actions. The United States Fish and Wildlife Service and the North Coast Water Quality Control Board were consulted early in the planning process. A detailed description of the proposal has been submitted to affected and interested citizens, organizations, agencies, and Native American tribes. A notice of intent to prepare an EIS was published in the Federal Register on September 11, 2009. Six individuals, agencies, or organizations responded during the scoping period. Numerous concerns were raised by the public. Examples include concerns about air quality, watershed and soils, sensitive plant and animal species, economics, fire risk, and noxious weeds. Additional alternatives were created to address the following significant issues: • Without regeneration harvest, the purpose and need of providing a sustainable predictable, long-term timber supply for local economies may not be met. • Road construction, reconstruction, and existing road conditions may contribute to increased sediment that would not meet the TMDL1 requirements for sediment and turbidity that is allowed for the Mad River. These significant issues, plus new information acquired concerning the northern spotted owl following scoping, led the agency to modify the original proposed action and develop two new alternatives. The four alternatives considered in detail include: • No action (Alternative 1), which would preclude timber harvesting and connected actions at this time. • A proposal that is a modification of the proposed (Alternative 2A) action that reduces the impact to the northern spotted owl by reducing the treated acres within one territory. 1 Total maximum daily load – a standard established by EPA and the State of California. See p. 204 i Kelsey Peak Timber Sale and Fuelbreak Project • A proposal that is similar to the original proposed action but one that avoids creating new temporary roads (Alternative 3). This reduced the amount of area that could be managed. • A proposal that is similar to the original proposed action but one that includes a limited amount of regeneration cutting with green tree legacy (Alternative 4). Through project design, all regeneration units were situated in areas with limited or no impact to other resources. The planning area lies within the Mad River watershed, which has been listed as water quality impaired under Section 303(d) of the Federal Clean Water Act. Under all action alternatives, there is a low likelihood of impacting soil productivity and water quality, given the design of the project, use of best management practices and avoidance of ground-disturbing activities or vegetation manipulation in the lower half of the riparian reserves. The primary sources of sediment are being produced by the current road conditions. Under all action alternatives, in addition to closing all temporary roads, approximately 4.2 miles of roads that were identified as the primary sources of sediment would be rehabilitated and closed. The planning area lies outside of managed northern spotted owl conservation areas. Existing older and more structurally complex multi-layered conifer forest within the matrix between the conservation areas would be maintained under all action alternatives. Long-term beneficial effects to vegetation would offset any short-term adverse effects. Well- stocked, vigorous stands would be established for the long term. The action alternatives would provide timber products to benefit consumers in the short term. There would be an increase in stand vigor, a reduction in fuel hazard within the stands, and a corresponding decrease in the risk of stand-replacing fire occurring within the harvest units. Short-term negative effects include a 1- to 2-year increase in fuel hazard in the harvested stands prior to fuel treatment, and a reduction in visibility and smoke during the short periods when prescribed burning occurs. There may be limited noise and smoke disturbance to northern spotted owls due to burning. There would also be some minor effects to wildlife species. The cumulative effects of implementing
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Carolyn's Crown/Shafer Creek Research
    United States Department of Carolyn’s Crown/Shafer Creek Agriculture Forest Service Research Natural Area Pacific Northwest Research Station General Technical Guidebook Supplement 28 Report PNW-GTR-600 December 2003 Reid Schuller Author Reid Schuller is a plant ecologist and executive director of the Natural Areas Association, P.O. Box 1504, Bend, OR 97709. The PNW Research Station is publishing this guidebook as part of a continuing series of guidebooks on federal research natural areas begun in 1972. Abstract Schuller, Reid. 2003. Carolyn’s Crown/Shafer Creek Research Natural Area: guidebook supplement 28. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-600. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 22 p. This guidebook describes the Carolyn’s Crown/Shafer Creek Research Natural Area, a 323-ha (798-ac) tract of coniferous forest containing stands of 600- to 900-year-old old- growth Douglas-fir along the transition between the western hemlock zone and the silver fir zone in the Cascade Range in western Oregon. Keywords: Research natural area, old-growth forest, west-side Cascade Range of Oregon. Preface The research natural area (RNA) described in this supplement1 is administered by the Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Department of the Interior. Bureau of Land Management RNAs are located within districts, which are administrative subdivisions of state offices. Normal management and protective activities are the responsibility of district managers. Scientists and educators wishing to use one of the tracts for scientific or educational purposes should contact the appropriate district office field manager and provide information about research or educational objectives, sampling procedures, and other prospective activities.
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix K. Survey and Manage Species Persistence Evaluation
    Appendix K. Survey and Manage Species Persistence Evaluation Establishment of the 95-foot wide construction corridor and TEWAs would likely remove individuals of H. caeruleus and modify microclimate conditions around individuals that are not removed. The removal of forests and host trees and disturbance to soil could negatively affect H. caeruleus in adjacent areas by removing its habitat, disturbing the roots of host trees, and affecting its mycorrhizal association with the trees, potentially affecting site persistence. Restored portions of the corridor and TEWAs would be dominated by early seral vegetation for approximately 30 years, which would result in long-term changes to habitat conditions. A 30-foot wide portion of the corridor would be maintained in low-growing vegetation for pipeline maintenance and would not provide habitat for the species during the life of the project. Hygrophorus caeruleus is not likely to persist at one of the sites in the project area because of the extent of impacts and the proximity of the recorded observation to the corridor. Hygrophorus caeruleus is likely to persist at the remaining three sites in the project area (MP 168.8 and MP 172.4 (north), and MP 172.5-172.7) because the majority of observations within the sites are more than 90 feet from the corridor, where direct effects are not anticipated and indirect effects are unlikely. The site at MP 168.8 is in a forested area on an east-facing slope, and a paved road occurs through the southeast part of the site. Four out of five observations are more than 90 feet southwest of the corridor and are not likely to be directly or indirectly affected by the PCGP Project based on the distance from the corridor, extent of forests surrounding the observations, and proximity to an existing open corridor (the road), indicating the species is likely resilient to edge- related effects at the site.
    [Show full text]
  • Bryophyte Surveys 2009
    Interagency Special Status Species Program Survey of Large Meadow Complexes for Sensitive Bryophyte and Fungal Species in the Northern Willamette National Forest Chris Wagner Willamette National Forest Detroit Ranger District District Botanist October 2011 1 Table of contents Introduction / Project Description……………………………………………………………..3 Sites Surveyed and Survey Results……………………………………………………………..4 Meadows, Information, Results…………………………………………………………………..9 Potential Future Survey Work………………………………………………………………………………14 References……………………………………………………………………………………….….…...15 ATTACHMENT 1: Regional Forester’s Special Status Species List for the Willamette National Forest (Revised 2008)……....................…………..16 2 Introduction Surveys were completed in 2010 and 2011 for large meadow complexes in the northern districts of the Willamette National Forest to determine whether any sensitive species of bryophytes or fungi are present. The type of habitat was also determined to clarify whether the habitat is a wet or dry meadow, bog or fen. Bryophyte identification was begun in 2010 with the first specimens collected and continued on through 2011 when most priority bryophytes were identified. The meadows selected represent the highest probability habitat for wetland bryophytes and fungi on Detroit and Sweet Home Ranger Districts. Some of these meadows may have been surveyed for vascular plant species in the past, but there are many new non-vascular sensitive species on the Willamette NF 2008 sensitive species list (see attachment 1) and additional species being being added to the proposed 2012 Regional Forester’s sensitive species list (unpublished). Meadows surveyed on the Detroit Ranger District included: Tule Lake meadow complex, Twin Meadows, Marion Lake meadow complex, Jo Jo Lake site, Wild Cheat Meadows, Bruno Meadows, Pigeon Prairie Meadow complex and Big Meadows. On the Sweet Home Ranger District Gordon Lake Meadows Complex was surveyed.
    [Show full text]
  • Attachment a ‐ Forest Service Wildfire, NEPA, and Salvage Summary
    Attachment A ‐ Forest Service Wildfire, NEPA, and Salvage Summary Fiscal Year 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2007‐2016 Number of Fires 1 63 64 53 33 66 79 56 56 127 110 707 Total fire acres on NFS 2 1,751,118 1,326,893 549,108 211,327 1,489,029 2,411,413 1,141,353 741,465 1,587,843 1,038,686 12,248,235 High severity acres on NFS 3 842,658 368,595 268,944 76,192 619,020 809,720 513,957 265,045 489,668 397,654 4,651,453 Number of NEPA decisions identified 4 129 Acres of salvage planned in NEPA 5 218 17,255 2,134 14,010 22,761 28,937 13,809 13,264 112,388 Number of NEPA decisions litigated 6 125110332422 Litigation cases won by USFS 7 013110131112 Litigation cases lost by USFS 8 1120001011 7 Litigation cases pending 9 0000001002 3 Acres of salvage reported accomplished 10 328 2,665 8,125 3,464 8,774 6,916 11,672 19,792 16,926 21,234 99,896 1 Fires burning more than 1,000 acres on NFS land 10 Salvage harvest activity records identified as awarded in Forest Service Activity 2 Total acres inside fire perimeter on NFS land Tracking System (FACTS) by GIS analysis of fire perimeters. 3 Classified as greater than 75% mortality using Rapid Assessment of Vegetation Condition after Wildfire (RAVG) 4 Identified by fire salvage keyword search in PALS (Planning Appeals and Disclaimer: Only the litigation data is believed to be 100% complete and Litigation System) or reported with sale activity records in Forest Service systems accurate.
    [Show full text]
  • 1999 Field Manual
    DEMO Post-harvest Vegetation Sampling Field Manual Page 1 FIELD MANUAL FOR POST-HARVEST VEGETATION SAMPLING: 1999 DEMONSTRATION OF ECOSYSTEM MANAGEMENT OPTIONS (DEMO) STUDY Data Form Which Plots? Variables Sampled Page All All General Notes 2 Form U-A All General Plot Characteristics 3 Form U-B1 All (Wash. only) Bryophytes and Lichens in Harvested and Uncut Plots 5 Form U-B2 Harvested Herb Layer in Harvested Plots: Presence/Absence and 7 Numbers of Tree Seedlings Form U-B3 Uncut Herb Layer In Uncut Plots: Plant Cover, Height, and 9 Numbers of Tree Seedlings Form U-C Uncut Ground Surface Conditions in Uncut Plots 11 Form U-D All Tall Shrubs and Understory Trees: Cover and Height 12 Form U-E All Coarse Woody Debris 14 Form U-F All Natural Regeneration (trees 10 cm tall and 5 cm dbh) 16 Form U-G Harvested Planted Trees 17 Form U-G2 Harvested Planted Trees 18 Form U-H All Percent Overstory Canopy Cover—“Truck Mirrors” 19 Form U-I All Disturbance Assessment 20 Form O-A All Overstory Trees 22 Form O-B All Snags 24 Form O-C Variable Tree Heights 25 Form O-D All (Blks 5, 7, 8) Tree Mortality 26 Table 1 Forest/District Codes, Block Nos., and Declination Values 28 Table 2 Grid System Bearings 28 Table 3 Transect Bearings 29 Table 4 Slope Corrected Distances 30 Table 5 Vascular Plant Species Codes & Growth Form Assignments 31 Table 6 Cryptogam Species Codes 38 Figure 1 Vegetation Sampling Design 42 Figure 2 Coarse Woody Debris Rules 43 Figure 3 Line Intercept Methodology 44 Figure 4 Standards for Measuring Diameters of Trees 45 Figure 5 Log and Snag Decay Classes 46 DEMO Post-harvest Vegetation Sampling Field Manual Page 2 GENERAL NOTES "HEADER" INFORMATION ON ALL DATA FORMS The following "header" information⎯ present on all field sheets⎯ should be completed, prior to taking any measurements within a plot.
    [Show full text]
  • City Forest Lands
    City Forest Lands Restoration Project Phase III Winburn Parcel Photo from the collection of Terry Skibby Prepared for: The City of Ashland City Council April, 2009 Prepared by: Frank Betlejewski Ashland Richard Brock Craig Gorson Forest Lands Christopher Iverson Commission Jim Lewis Anthony Kerwin Dan Maymar Melody Noraas Ben Rice Joseph Vaile Diane White John Williams Zach Williams Technical Marty Main Assistance Nancy Slocum Staff Keith Woodley TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE Executive Summary....................................................................................... 3 PART I - GENERAL PROPOSAL Introduction.................................................................................................... 4 Ashland Forest Plan .................................................................................. 4 The Winburn Parcel .................................................................................. 5 Purpose........................................................................................................... 6 Goals .............................................................................................................. 7 Guiding Principles ......................................................................................... 8 General Description of Project Area.............................................................. 8 Ecological Conditions.................................................................................... 9 Soils and Hydrologic Function ................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Idaho's Special Status Vascular and Nonvascular Plants Conservation Rankings
    Idaho's Special Status Vascular and Nonvascular Plants Conservation Rankings 1 IDNHP Tracked Species Conservation Rankings Date USFS_ USFS_ USFS_ 2 Scientific Name Synonyms Common Name G-Rank S-Rank USFWS BLM Ranked R1 R4 R6 Abronia elliptica dwarf sand-verbena G5 S1 Feb-14 Abronia mellifera white sand-verbena G4 S1S2 Feb-16 Acorus americanus Acorus calamus var. americanus sweetflag G5 S2 Feb-16 Agastache cusickii Agastache cusickii var. parva Cusick's giant-hyssop G3G4 S2 Feb-14 Agoseris aurantiaca var. aurantiaca, Agoseris lackschewitzii pink agoseris G4 S1S2 4 S Feb-16 A. aurantiaca var. carnea Agrimonia striata roadside agrimonia G5 S1 Feb-16 Aliciella triodon Gilia triodon; G. leptomeria (in part) Coyote gilia G5 S1 Feb-20 Allenrolfea occidentalis Halostachys occidentalis iodinebush G4 S1 Feb-16 Allium aaseae Aase's Onion G2G3+ S2S3 2 Oct-11 Allium anceps Kellogg's Onion G4 S2S3 4 Feb-20 Allium columbianum Allium douglasii var. columbianum Columbia onion G3 S3 Feb-16 Allium madidum swamp onion G3 S3 S Allium tolmiei var. persimile Sevendevils Onion G4G5T3+ S3 4 S Allium validum tall swamp onion G4 S3 Allotropa virgata sugarstick G4 S3 S Amphidium californicum California amphidium moss G4 S1 Feb-16 Anacolia menziesii var. baueri Bauer's anacolia moss G4 TNR S2 Feb-20 Andreaea heinemannii Heinemann's andreaea moss G3G5 S1 Feb-14 Andromeda polifolia bog rosemary G5 S1 S Andromeda polifolia var. polifolia bog rosemary G5T5 S1 Feb-20 Anemone cylindrica long-fruit anemone G5 S1 Feb-20 Angelica kingii Great Basin angelica G4 S1 3 Mar-18 Antennaria arcuata meadow pussytoes G2 S1 Mar-18 Argemone munita ssp.
    [Show full text]
  • Sensitive Species That Are Not Listed Or Proposed Under the ESA Sorted By: Major Group, Subgroup, NS Sci
    Forest Service Sensitive Species that are not listed or proposed under the ESA Sorted by: Major Group, Subgroup, NS Sci. Name; Legend: Page 94 REGION 10 REGION 1 REGION 2 REGION 3 REGION 4 REGION 5 REGION 6 REGION 8 REGION 9 ALTERNATE NATURESERVE PRIMARY MAJOR SUB- U.S. N U.S. 2005 NATURESERVE SCIENTIFIC NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME(S) COMMON NAME GROUP GROUP G RANK RANK ESA C 9 Anahita punctulata Southeastern Wandering Spider Invertebrate Arachnid G4 NNR 9 Apochthonius indianensis A Pseudoscorpion Invertebrate Arachnid G1G2 N1N2 9 Apochthonius paucispinosus Dry Fork Valley Cave Invertebrate Arachnid G1 N1 Pseudoscorpion 9 Erebomaster flavescens A Cave Obligate Harvestman Invertebrate Arachnid G3G4 N3N4 9 Hesperochernes mirabilis Cave Psuedoscorpion Invertebrate Arachnid G5 N5 8 Hypochilus coylei A Cave Spider Invertebrate Arachnid G3? NNR 8 Hypochilus sheari A Lampshade Spider Invertebrate Arachnid G2G3 NNR 9 Kleptochthonius griseomanus An Indiana Cave Pseudoscorpion Invertebrate Arachnid G1 N1 8 Kleptochthonius orpheus Orpheus Cave Pseudoscorpion Invertebrate Arachnid G1 N1 9 Kleptochthonius packardi A Cave Obligate Pseudoscorpion Invertebrate Arachnid G2G3 N2N3 9 Nesticus carteri A Cave Spider Invertebrate Arachnid GNR NNR 8 Nesticus cooperi Lost Nantahala Cave Spider Invertebrate Arachnid G1 N1 8 Nesticus crosbyi A Cave Spider Invertebrate Arachnid G1? NNR 8 Nesticus mimus A Cave Spider Invertebrate Arachnid G2 NNR 8 Nesticus sheari A Cave Spider Invertebrate Arachnid G2? NNR 8 Nesticus silvanus A Cave Spider Invertebrate Arachnid G2? NNR
    [Show full text]
  • Exhibit E: Botanical and Wildlife Resources
    E5.0 BOTANICAL AND WILDLIFE RESOURCES This section on the terrestrial resources (plants and wildlife) associated with the Klamath Hydroelectric Project (Project) contains the following elements: • A description of the existing botanical and wildlife resources in the study area (see Figure E5.1-1) • A discussion of agency consultation related to terrestrial resources • Summaries of the studies conducted by PacifiCorp on wildlife and vegetation • A summary of proposed enhancement measures • A discussion of continuing impacts E5.1 HISTORICAL TERRESTRIAL RESOURCES The terrestrial resources in the Project vicinity historically have been affected by humans for a long period of time. Much of the information on Native American use of the Klamath River Canyon comes from the archaeological investigations conducted by Gleason (2001). Native Americans have been part of the Klamath River ecosystem for at least the last 7,500 years (Gleason, 2001). The Upland Takelma, Shasta, Klamath, and Modoc tribes all used various portions of the study area; the Yurok Tribe historically used the lands along the Lower Klamath River. Before settlement by Europeans, Native Americans affected terrestrial resources through clearing vegetation for villages; harvesting plants and animals for food, medicine, and other uses; and using fire to manage vegetation. The most intensive uses occurred close to the river. Apparently, many of the flat terraces in the canyon were used at one time or another as village- sized settlements. The existing Topsy Grade Road is near the site of a Native American trail. Beginning in about 1870, homesteaders established ranches in the Klamath River Canyon. Apparently, the canyon was mostly unoccupied by any Native American tribes after this time.
    [Show full text]
  • Survey and Manage Species Analysis
    Survey and Manage Species Analysis Lower Trinity and Mad River Motorized Travel Management FEIS Alternative 3 Completed by: _______/s/ Karen Kenfield ___________________ __4/19/2010_________ Karen Kenfield Date Fisheries Biologist Six Rivers National Forest Completed by: _____/s/ Kary Schlick________________________ __4/19/2010_________ Kary Schlick Date Wildlife Biologist Six Rivers National Forest Completed by: _____/s/ John McRae_______________________ __4/19/2010_________ John McRae Date Botanist Six Rivers National Forest Page 1 Page 2 Introduction: This analysis assesses the potential for significant negative impacts to the habitat of current Survey and Manage species (including plant, lichen, fungi, terrestrial mollusk, aquatic mollusk and vertebrates) of Alternative 3 of the Lower Trinity and Mad River Motorized Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS). This project proposes the following actions: (1) Prohibit cross-country motor vehicle travel off designated National Forest Transportation System (NFTS) roads, motorized trails, and areas by the public except as allowed by permit or other authorization; (2) Add approximately 62 miles of unauthorized routes (trails) to the current NFTS for public motor vehicle use, with seasonal and vehicle class restrictions assigned to some routes; (3) Changes to the Existing NFTS. In general Survey and Mange species requirements associated with this project, per the 2001 ROD standards and guidelines as amended by 2001-2003 Annual Species Reviews, are as follows: 1. Manage for known sites based on the known sites database 2. Complete pre-disturbance surveys for Category A and C species if activity is potentially habitat disturbing such that it is likely to have a significant negative impact on the species’ habitat, life cycles, microclimate, or life support requirements (Standards and Guidelines p.
    [Show full text]
  • Lichen Report
    Bryophyte and Lichen Species Richness in the Cedar River Municipal Watershed Sampling and Analysis by Katherine Glew (Lichens) and Martin Hutten (Bryophytes) Report Compiled by Melissa Borsting and David Chapin May 2013 page 0 TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction, Background and Project Objectives ...................................................................................... 2 Methods ........................................................................................................................................................................ 3 Sampling Protocol ............................................................................................................................................... 3 Field Data Collection ........................................................................................................................................... 6 Results and Discussion ........................................................................................................................................... 7 Species Richness: Bryophytes and Lichens ............................................................................................... 7 Bryophyte Diversity ............................................................................................................................................ 9 Effects of Stand Age ........................................................................................................................................ 9 Effects of Thinning ......................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Bakalin V.A. 2019. Liverworts of the Russian Far East: the Taxa With
    Botanica Pacifica. A journal of plant science and conservation. 2019. 8(1): 85–103 DOI: 10.17581/bp.2019.08109 Liverworts of the Russian Far East: the taxa with ciliate leaves Vadim­A.­Bakalin Vadim­A.­Bakalin ABSTRACT e­mail:­[email protected] The liverwort taxa with ciliate leaves occurring in the Russian Far East are reviewed. In total, 9 taxa belonging to four families (Jubulaceae, Ptilidiaceae, Neotrichocolea­ Botanical Garden­Institute FEB RAS ceae and Trichocoleaceae) are recorded, 6 species occur in Russia in the Far East Vladivostok,­Russia on­ly. ­The­identification­keys,­morphological­descriptions­and­figures­based­on­ma­ te rials from the Russian Far East are provided. Keywords: Jubulaceae, Ptilidiaceae, Neotrichocoleaceae, Trichocoleaceae, Hepaticae, the Russian Far East, East Asia * corresponding author РЕЗЮМЕ Manuscript­received:­23.10.2018 Бакалин В.А. Печеночники российского Дальнего Востока: таксоны с Review­completed:­28.02.2019 рес нитчатыми листьями. Ревизованы­таксоны­печеночников­с­реснитча­ Accepted­for­publication:­03.03.2019 ты­ми ­листьями,­встречающиеся­на­российском­Дальнем­Востоке:­9­видов­ Published­online:­05.03.2019 из ­4­семейств­(Jubulaceae,­Ptilidiaceae,­Neotrichocoleaceae­and­Trichocoleaceae).­ Шесть­видов­встречаются­в­России­только­на­Дальнем­Востоке.­Приводятся­ ключи­для­определения,­морфологические­описания­и­иллюстрации,­со­ став­ленные­на­основе­изучения­материала­с­российского­Дальнего­Востока. Ключевые слова: Jubulaceae,­Ptilidiaceae,­Neotrichocoleaceae,­Trichocoleaceae,­пе­че­ ноч­ники,­российский­Дальний­Восток,­Восточная­Азия The liverworts with ciliate leaves occurring in the Rus­ 2. ­Leaves­conduplicate­or­ventral­lobe­pyxidate,­without­wa­ si an Far East do not form the monophyletic group; these ter sac in the ventral base of the leaf ....................................
    [Show full text]