DOCSLIB.ORG

Printer Emulator for Testing

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Printer Emulator for Testing ASSESSING RESTORATION SUCCESS FOR A WET MONTANE SIERRA NEVADA MEADOW ____________ A Thesis Presented to the Faculty of California State University, Chico ____________ In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Master of Science in Biological Sciences ____________ by Rachel Schleiger Spring 2018 TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE List of Tables .................................................................................................................... v List of Figures ................................................................................................................... vii Abstract ............................................................................................................................. viii CHAPTER I. Introduction ........................................................................................................... 1 Extent of Damage and Motivation for Restoration ...................................... 1 Restoration Definition and Goals................................................................. 2 Trajectory Models ........................................................................................ 4 Study Objectives and Hypothesis ................................................................ 5 II. Methodology ......................................................................................................... 7 Study System ............................................................................................... 7 Field Sites..................................................................................................... 9 Vegetation Sampling .................................................................................... 12 Vegetation Mapping..................................................................................... 14 Vegetation Characterization......................................................................... 15 Soil Moisture ................................................................................................ 16 Data Analysis and Statistics ......................................................................... 18 III. Results ................................................................................................................... 22 Variation Between Watersheds and Between Sampling Years ................... 22 Vegetation and Soil Moisture ...................................................................... 23 Richness ....................................................................................................... 37 Invasive and Non-Native Species ................................................................ 47 Summation of Important Points ................................................................... 54 IV. Discussion ............................................................................................................. 57 Disturbance in Wet Montane Meadows ....................................................... 57 Comparison Issues with Less-Disturbed Sites ............................................. 58 Summary of Key Findings ........................................................................... 58 Restoration Assessment ............................................................................... 59 iii References ................................................................................................................... 64 Appendices A. Plant List ........................................................................................................ 74 B. USFWS Indicator Categories ........................................................................ 80 C. Patch Classification and Characteristics Across Sites for 2012 Field Season ........................................................................................... 82 D. Number of Patches at Each Site Dominated by Different Plant Types ...................................................................................................... 89 E. Areas (m2) of Plant Type (a) and Plant Wetland Affinities (b) by Soil Moisture Categories for each Site in 2012 Field Season ................ 91 F. Percentage of Site Area in Each Soil Moisture Category and Total Area of Non-vegetated (NV) Ground (m2) and the (Percent Area that Comprises each Moisture Category) for 2012........................................................................................................ 94 iv LIST OF TABLES TABLE PAGE 1. Site Locations within Watersheds (Separated by Different Hydrologic Unit Scales) with Unit Name, Resolution, and Area ................................. 11 2. Total Precipitation Averages (inches), using the Current Water Year System, between Watersheds for Both Sampling Years ........................... 22 3. Total Estimated Meadow Area (m2) and Number of Patches and (Vegetation Patch Types) Surveyed for 2012 ........................................... 24 4. Study Sites Classified by 2012 Patch Soil Moisture Categories.................... 25 5. Richness and (Percent Total Richness) for Native, Invasive, and Non-native Species as well as Total Species Richness and Family Richness Across Both Sampling Seasons ................................................. 38 6. Species Richness for Each Site Between Sampling Years (2011 and 2012) ......................................................................................... 39 7. Percent of Meadow Area in Each Soil Moisture Category and the Accompanying Species Richness in 2012 for Each Site ........................... 40 8. Species Richness and (Average Percent of Total Area) of Plant Types Across Sampling Years ............................................................................. 41 9. The Average Percentage of Total Area in Each Moisture Category Across Occupied by a Particular Plant Type in 2012 for Each Site .................................................................................................... 43 10. Species Richness and (Average Percent of Total Area) Categorized According to the USGS Wetland Classification Categories Across Sampling Years ............................................................................. 44 11. Average Percent of Total Area within Each Site’s 2012 Patch Moisture Categories Occupied by Plant Species Classified by the USGS Wetland Classification System .................................................................. 45 v TABLE PAGE 12. The Average Area of Non-vegetated Ground (m2) and (Average Percentage of Total Area) at Site Scale Between Years ........................... 47 13. Average Area (m2) and (Average Percent of Total Area) Occupied by Invasive, Non-native, and Native Species for Each Sampling Year at Each Site ....................................................................................... 49 14. The Number of Invasive and Non-native species by Plant Type and (Percent of Total Species Richness for Each Plant Type) at Each Site .................................................................................................... 50 15. Invasive and Non-native Species Counts and (Percent of Total Species Richness at Each Site in the USDA Wetland Classification Categories) Across Both Sampling Seasons ............................................. 51 16. Average Area (m2) and (Average Percent of Total Area (%)) Across Both Sampling Seasons Occupied by the Most Prevalent Invasive and Non-native Species for Each Meadow Organized by their Wetness Affinities ..................................................................................... 53 17. Table 17a-b. Relative Area for Each of the Moisture Categories in Each Site, Total Average Area (m2) and The (Average Percent of Total Area for Each Moisture Patch Occupied) by Invasive (a) and Non-native (b) Species Across the 2012 Sampling Season ...................... 55 vi LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE PAGE 1. Example Trajectory Model Illustrating Movement of Degraded State Through Time to Multiple Possible Endpoints Based on Level of Complexity and Function ...................................................................... 4 2. Restored meadow, Calaveras Big Trees State Park ........................................ 10 3. Position of all Field Sites in the San Joaquin River Regional Watershed, as well as its Smaller Bydrologic Units ..................................................... 12 4. Position of Dorrington (DR), Hazel Fisher (HF), and Big Trees (BT) Study Sites in the Upper Calaveras and Upper San Antonio Creek Watersheds ...................................................................................... 13 5. Position of El Capitan (EL) and Half Dome (HD) Study Sites in the Upper Merced as well as Tenaya Creek and Indian Canyon Creek- Merced River Watersheds ......................................................................... 14 6. Total Relative Area of Patches Classified by 2012 Soil Moisture Categories for Each Site ............................................................................ 26 7. Figures 7a-e: Average Soil Moisture Maps Across the Sampling Season, with Inset for June (Wettest Sampling Month) Moisture, for the Delineated Vegetation Patches Based on Field Sampling in June 2012 at Each Site: (a.) DR, (b.) HF, (c.) BT, (d.) EL, (e.) HD .................. 27 8. Figure 8a-e. Dominant Plant Type, or not, Across Both Sample Seasons at (a.) DR, (b.) HF, (c.) BT, (d.) EL, and (e.) HD ..................................... 32 9. Average Percent Non-vegetated Total Area Across Moisture Categories at Each Site for 2012 ................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Ventura County Plant Species of Local Concern
    Checklist of Ventura County Rare Plants (Twenty-second Edition) CNPS, Rare Plant Program David L. Magney Checklist of Ventura County Rare Plants1 By David L. Magney California Native Plant Society, Rare Plant Program, Locally Rare Project Updated 4 January 2017 Ventura County is located in southern California, USA, along the east edge of the Pacific Ocean. The coastal portion occurs along the south and southwestern quarter of the County. Ventura County is bounded by Santa Barbara County on the west, Kern County on the north, Los Angeles County on the east, and the Pacific Ocean generally on the south (Figure 1, General Location Map of Ventura County). Ventura County extends north to 34.9014ºN latitude at the northwest corner of the County. The County extends westward at Rincon Creek to 119.47991ºW longitude, and eastward to 118.63233ºW longitude at the west end of the San Fernando Valley just north of Chatsworth Reservoir. The mainland portion of the County reaches southward to 34.04567ºN latitude between Solromar and Sequit Point west of Malibu. When including Anacapa and San Nicolas Islands, the southernmost extent of the County occurs at 33.21ºN latitude and the westernmost extent at 119.58ºW longitude, on the south side and west sides of San Nicolas Island, respectively. Ventura County occupies 480,996 hectares [ha] (1,188,562 acres [ac]) or 4,810 square kilometers [sq. km] (1,857 sq. miles [mi]), which includes Anacapa and San Nicolas Islands. The mainland portion of the county is 474,852 ha (1,173,380 ac), or 4,748 sq.
    [Show full text]
  • Stony Creek and Montecito Sequoia Resorts Biological Assessment And
    Stony Creek and Montecito Sequoia Resorts Biological Assessment and Biological Evaluation for Sequoia National Forest Hume Lake Ranger District Improvement and Expansion Projects within Giant Sequoia National Monument Tulare County, California December 5, 2019 Prepared for: United States Forest Service Sequoia National Forest Hume Lake District District Ranger: Jeremy Dorsey 35860 East Kings Canyon Road Dunlap, CA 93621 Prepared by: Michelle McKenzie and Prairie Moore Natural Resources Management Corporation 1434 Third Street Eureka, CA 95501 Table of Contents I. Summary of Findings and Conclusions ........................................................................................ 1 II. Introduction, Background, and Project Understanding .............................................................. 2 Project Locations ......................................................................................................................... 3 Project Descriptions .................................................................................................................. 10 Biological Descriptions .............................................................................................................. 16 III. Methods ................................................................................................................................... 17 Pre-Field Review ........................................................................................................................ 17 Field Survey ..............................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Status Species Occurrences
    S U G A R L O A F M OUNTAIN T RAIL Biological Resources Report Prepared for: Bear-Yuba Land Trust (BYLT) ATTN: Bill Haire 12183 South Auburn Road Grass Valley, CA 95949 Ph: (530) 272-5994 and City of Nevada City ATTN: Amy Wolfson 317 Broad Street Nevada City, CA 95959 Ph: (530) 265-2496 Prepared by: Chainey-Davis Biological Consulting ATTN: Carolyn Chainey-Davis 182 Grove Street Nevada City, CA 95959 Ph: (530) 205-6218 August 2018 Sugarloaf Mountain Trail — Biological Inventory C h a i n e y - Davis Biological Consulting SUMMARY This Biological Resources Report (BRR) includes an inventory and analysis of potential impacts to biological resources resulting from the construction and operation of the Sugarloaf Mountain Trail, a proposed 1.5-mile public recreational trail in Nevada City, California, on a 30-acre open space preserve owned by the City of Nevada City (APN 036-020-026). The trail would be constructed, managed, and maintained by the Bear-Yuba Land Trust, a private non-profit organization. The project would expand an existing small, primitive trail and construct a new segment of trail on Sugarloaf Mountain, just north of Nevada City. The trail begins near the intersection of State Route 49 and North Bloomfield Road and terminates on Sugarloaf Mountain. The proposed trail includes a quarter-mile segment on an easement through private land. The project drawings are provided in Appendix A. Trail tread width will vary from 36 to 48 inches, depending on location and physical constraints, and constructed using a mini excavator, chainsaws, and a variety of hand tools.
    [Show full text]
  • A Natural Resource Condition Assessment for Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks Appendix 14 – Plants of Conservation Concern
    National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior Natural Resource Stewardship and Science A Natural Resource Condition Assessment for Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks Appendix 14 – Plants of Conservation Concern Natural Resource Report NPS/SEKI/ NRR—2013/665.14 In Memory of Rebecca Ciresa Wenk, Botaness ON THE COVER Giant Forest, Sequoia National Park Photography by: Brent Paull A Natural Resource Condition Assessment for Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks Appendix 14 – Plants of Conservation Concern Natural Resource Report NPS/SEKI/ NRR—2013/665.14 Ann Huber University of California Berkeley 41043 Grouse Drive Three Rivers, CA 93271 Adrian Das U.S. Geological Survey Western Ecological Research Center, Sequoia-Kings Canyon Field Station 47050 Generals Highway #4 Three Rivers, CA 93271 Rebecca Wenk University of California Berkeley 137 Mulford Hall Berkeley, CA 94720-3114 Sylvia Haultain Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks 47050 Generals Highway Three Rivers, CA 93271 June 2013 U.S. Department of the Interior National Park Service Natural Resource Stewardship and Science Fort Collins, Colorado The National Park Service, Natural Resource Stewardship and Science office in Fort Collins, Colorado, publishes a range of reports that address natural resource topics. These reports are of interest and applicability to a broad audience in the National Park Service and others in natural resource management, including scientists, conservation and environmental constituencies, and the public. The Natural Resource Report Series is used to disseminate high-priority, current natural resource management information with managerial application. The series targets a general, diverse audience, and may contain NPS policy considerations or address sensitive issues of management applicability.
    [Show full text]
  • Vascular Plant Species with Documented Or Recorded Occurrence in Placer County
    A PPENDIX II Vascular Plant Species with Documented or Reported Occurrence in Placer County APPENDIX II. Vascular Plant Species with Documented or Reported Occurrence in Placer County Family Scientific Name Common Name FERN AND FERN ALLIES Azollaceae Mosquito fern family Azolla filiculoides Pacific mosquito fern Dennstaedtiaceae Bracken family Pteridium aquilinum var.pubescens Bracken fern Dryopteridaceae Wood fern family Athyrium alpestre var. americanum Alpine lady fern Athyrium filix-femina var. cyclosorum Lady fern Cystopteris fragilis Fragile fern Polystichum imbricans ssp. curtum Cliff sword fern Polystichum imbricans ssp. imbricans Imbricate sword fern Polystichum kruckebergii Kruckeberg’s hollyfern Polystichum lonchitis Northern hollyfern Polystichum munitum Sword fern Equisetaceae Horsetail family Equisetum arvense Common horsetail Equisetum hyemale ssp. affine Scouring rush Equisetum laevigatum Smooth horsetail Isoetaceae Quillwort family Isoetes bolanderi Bolander’s quillwort Isoetes howellii Howell’s quillwort Isoetes orcuttii Orcutt’s quillwort Lycopodiaceae Club-moss family Lycopodiella inundata Bog club-moss Marsileaceae Marsilea family Marsilea vestita ssp. vestita Water clover Pilularia americana American pillwort Ophioglossaceae Adder’s-tongue family Botrychium multifidum Leathery grapefern Polypodiaceae Polypody family Polypodium hesperium Western polypody Pteridaceae Brake family Adiantum aleuticum Five-finger maidenhair Adiantum jordanii Common maidenhair fern Aspidotis densa Indian’s dream Cheilanthes cooperae Cooper’s
    [Show full text]
  • A Checklist of Vascular Plants Endemic to California
    Humboldt State University Digital Commons @ Humboldt State University Botanical Studies Open Educational Resources and Data 3-2020 A Checklist of Vascular Plants Endemic to California James P. Smith Jr Humboldt State University, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.humboldt.edu/botany_jps Part of the Botany Commons Recommended Citation Smith, James P. Jr, "A Checklist of Vascular Plants Endemic to California" (2020). Botanical Studies. 42. https://digitalcommons.humboldt.edu/botany_jps/42 This Flora of California is brought to you for free and open access by the Open Educational Resources and Data at Digital Commons @ Humboldt State University. It has been accepted for inclusion in Botanical Studies by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons @ Humboldt State University. For more information, please contact [email protected]. A LIST OF THE VASCULAR PLANTS ENDEMIC TO CALIFORNIA Compiled By James P. Smith, Jr. Professor Emeritus of Botany Department of Biological Sciences Humboldt State University Arcata, California 13 February 2020 CONTENTS Willis Jepson (1923-1925) recognized that the assemblage of plants that characterized our flora excludes the desert province of southwest California Introduction. 1 and extends beyond its political boundaries to include An Overview. 2 southwestern Oregon, a small portion of western Endemic Genera . 2 Nevada, and the northern portion of Baja California, Almost Endemic Genera . 3 Mexico. This expanded region became known as the California Floristic Province (CFP). Keep in mind that List of Endemic Plants . 4 not all plants endemic to California lie within the CFP Plants Endemic to a Single County or Island 24 and others that are endemic to the CFP are not County and Channel Island Abbreviations .
    [Show full text]
  • Mission Statements
    MISSION STATEMENTS DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR The Mission of the Department of the Interior is to protect and provide access to our Nation's natural and cultural heritage and honor our trust responsibilities to Indian Tribes and our commitments to island communities. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION The mission of the Bureau of Reclamation is to manage, develop, and protect water and related resources in an environmentally and economically sound manner in the interest of the American public. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF PARKS & RECREATION To provide for the health, inspiration and education of the people of California by helping to preserve the state's extraordinary biological diversity, protecting its most valued natural and cultural resources, and creating opportunities for high-quality outdoor recreation. CONSULTANT: URS CORPORATION 1333 Broadway, Suite 800 Oakland, CA 94612-1924 CONTRACT NUMBER: 01CS20210H MILLERTON LAKE Draft Resource Management Plan / General Plan Environmental Impact Statement / Environmental Impact Report June 2008 Prepared by United States Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation Mid-Pacific Region South-Central California Office MILLERTON LAKE Draft Resource Management Plan / General Plan Environmental Impact Statement / Environmental Impact Report Prepared by United States Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation Mid-Pacific Region Sacramento, California South-Central California Area Office 1243 “N” Street Fresno, California 93721-1813 (559) 487-5116 In cooperation with California Department of Parks & Recreation Central Valley District 22708 Broadway Columbia, CA 95310-9400 (209) 536-5930 June 2008 Executive Summary The Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation), in cooperation with the California Department of Parks and Recreation (State Parks), is developing the Millerton Lake Resource Management Plan (RMP) and General Plan (GP) to establish management objectives, guidelines, and actions for the Millerton Lake State Recreation Area (Plan Area).
    [Show full text]
  • Brunswick Industrial Site and East Bennett Road Right of Way (ROW) Biological Resources Assessment
    Brunswick Industrial Site and East Bennett Rd. ROW Biological Resources Assessment Brunswick Industrial Site and East Bennett Road Right of Way (ROW) Biological Resources Assessment Prepared for: Rise Grass Valley, Inc. PO Box 271 Grass Valley, CA 95945 Prepared by: Greg Matuzak, Principal Biologist Greg Matuzak Environmental Consulting LLC 471 Sutton Way, Suite #210 Grass Valley, CA 95945 Email: [email protected] November 2019 Brunswick Industrial Site and East Bennett Rd. ROW Biological Resources Assessment TABLE OF CONTENTS INFORMATION SUMMARY ........................................................................................................ iv Report Summary ................................................................................................................... v 1 INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................... 1-1 1.1 Project Setting ......................................................................................................... 1-1 1.2 Project Understanding ........................................................................................... 1-2 1.3 Previous Biological Resources Assessments of the Brunswick Site ....................... 1-3 1.4 Biological Resources Assessment Purpose ............................................................ 1-4 2 REGULATORY OVERVIEW ............................................................................................... 2-1 2.1 Federal Regulations ...............................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • 7. BROWN BEAR INITIAL STUDY ATTACHMENT Biological Resource
    Biological Resource Evaluation Brown Bear Hotel and Yosemite Conference Center Mariposa County, California PREPARED FOR: PREPARED BY: MRCC Properties, LLC Colibri Ecological Consulting, LLC PO Box 1886 9493 N Fort Washington Road, Suite 108 Mariposa, CA 95338 Fresno, CA 93730 www.colibri-ecology.com January 2020 Contents Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................... iii Abbreviations ..................................................................................................................................... iv 1.0 Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 1 1.1 Background .......................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Project Description .............................................................................................................. 1 1.3 Project Location ................................................................................................................... 1 1.4 Purpose of Proposed Project ............................................................................................... 4 1.5 Regulatory Framework ........................................................................................................ 4 1.5.1 State Requirements .....................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Special Status Plant Survey Report
    BRUNSWICK MINE SPECIAL STATUS PLANT SURVEY REPORT Prepared: November 2019 Prepared for: Rise Grass Valley, Inc. PO Box 271 Grass Valley, CA 95945 Prepared by: Wendy Boes Botanical Consultant 21802 Purdon Road Nevada City, CA 95959 Email: [email protected] 1 Table of Contents I. INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................... 3 II. STUDY AREA LOCATION ........................................................................................................... 3 III. DESCRIPTION OF THE STUDY AREA ...................................................................................... 5 PLANT COMMUNITIES ................................................................................................................ 5 IV. METHODS ............................................................................................................................. 8 EXISTING RESOURCE REVIEW ..................................................................................................... 8 SPECIAL STATUS PLANTS ............................................................................................................. 9 BOTANICAL SURVEYS ................................................................................................................ 14 V. RESULTS ................................................................................................................................. 14 SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES .........................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • INFORMATION HANDOUT for Hardin Flat Road Bridge
    INFORMATION HANDOUT For Hardin Flat Road Bridge Replacement Project Contract No. 1673 Federal Aid No. BRLO-5932(079) PLACS PLAC Summary PERMITS U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service Temporary Special – Use Permit AGREEMENTS California Department of Fish and Wildlife Notification No. 1600-2016-0114-R4 MATERIALS INFORMATION Final Foundation Report Hardin Flat Road Bridge (Replace) over South Fork Tuolumne River Bridge No. 32C-0053 - February 2017 MISCELLANEOUS INFORMATION Natural Environment Study Hardin Flat Road Bridge (32C0053) over the South Fork Tuolumne River Replacement Project - August 2015 Hardin Flat Road Bridge Replacement Project Contract No. 1673 PLACS PLAC Summary PLAC CONDITION RESPONSIBILTY (PCR) SUMMARY General: This PCR Summary clarifies the various PLAC requirements. Perform all work described in the PLACs on behalf of the County unless otherwise stated below in Table 2. If a discrepancy exists between the PCR Summary and the PLAC, the PCR Summary governs. Definitions: Agency: A board, agency, or other entity that issues a PLAC Activity: A task, event or other project element PLAC Condition: A work activity and/or submittal required by a PLAC Table 1 – Clarification of PLAC Requirements PLAC Name Section of the PLAC PLAC Requirement Submittals: Submit to the Engineer when PLAC conditions require: 1. Communications. The Engineer will contact the agencies. All PLACs Applicable PLAC Sections 2. Records to be maintained, within 5 working days after the activity. 3. Submittals 5 days before the agencies require them. The Engineer will review and submit to the agencies. Table 2 – Work to be performed by the County PLAC Name Section of the PLAC PLAC Requirement Measure 2.3(a), (b), Listed and Other Special The County to provide surveys.
    [Show full text]
  • Water Supply Project Application to the California Water Commission (CWC)
    Nevada Irrigation District Staff Report for the Regular Meeting of the Board of Directors of February 14, 2018 TO: Board of Directors FROM: Remleh Scherzinger MBA, P.E. , General Manager DATE: February 5, 2016 SUBJECT: Foothills Water Network Request MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATION: Direct Staff to not appeal the PBR scores or to remove the Centennial Reservoir Project application from further consideration by the California Water Commission BACKGROUND: See attached Letter BUDGETARY IMPACT: No budgetary impact. Attachment: FWN letter CWC Public Benefit Ratio Review Letter NID Abbreviated Application package - 1 - FOOTHILLS WATER NETWORK Foothills Water Network PO Box 573 Coloma, CA 95613 February 2, 2018 Remleh Scherzinger, General Manager William Morebeck, Division IV, President, Board of Directors Nancy Weber, Division I Board Member John H. Drew, Division II Board Member Dr. Scott Miller, MD, Division III Board Member Nick Wilcox, Division V Board Member Nevada Irrigation District 1036 West Main Street Grass Valley, CA 95945 Re: Placing the Centennial CWC application appeal on the February 14, 2018 Board agenda Dear Mr. Scherzinger, President Morebeck, and Board Members, The Foothills Water Network (the Network) is a coalition of non-governmental organizations concerned with watershed management issues in the American, Bear, and Yuba River watersheds, in this case, specifically, the Nevada Irrigation District’s Centennial Water Supply Project application to the California Water Commission (CWC). The CWC issued the Public Benefit Ratio (PBR) today for the Centennial Water Supply Project, starting a very short timeframe for the Nevada Irrigation District (NID) to appeal the PBR score to the CWC. Independent evaluators have given NID a PBR score of 0.
    [Show full text]