DOCSLIB.ORG

Appendix D BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Appendix D BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION Appendix D BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION I. INTRODUCTION This Biological Evaluation (BE) documents analysis and potential for effects on threatened, endangered, and sensitive (TES) species resulting from making National Forests in Mississippi lands available for federal oil and gas leasing of all federally owned minerals. There are 3 objectives of this BE: 1) to ensure that Forest Service actions do not contribute to loss of viability of any native or desired non-native plant or animal species, 2) to include concerns for sensitive species within the planning process, thereby reducing potential negative effects to these species, and 3) to ensure that activities will not cause a species to move toward federal listing. Such species are those whose viability is most likely to be put at risk from management actions. This BE conforms with legal requirements set forth in Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (19 U.S.C. 1536 ©), and the direction given in Forest Service Manual (FSM) 2672, and to meet the biological evaluation standard in the 1989 ROD for Vegetation Management in the Coastal Plain. As part of the NEPA decision making process, this evaluation provides information in sufficient detail to determine how proposed actions may affect any TES species. Consideration of the information contained within this BE will ensure that no species is placed in jeopardy by management decisions and actions. II. CONSULTATION WITH THE U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE Interagency cooperation between the Forest Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service regarding proposed, endangered, or threatened species is described in Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service personnel reviewed the effects of this project on these species, and a signature indicating U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service concurrence is attached to this BE. The U.S. Forest Service will request further Section 7 consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for all exceptions, modifications, and waivers to leasing stipulations. III. AFFECTED AREAS AND PROPOSED MANAGEMENT ACTIONS The proposed management action includes the entire National Forests in Mississippi as the affected area excluding Wilderness Areas, RARE II Further Study Areas, and those areas of NFS lands with privately-owned mineral rights (outstanding or reserved mineral rights) as long as the mineral rights remain privately-owned. About 10% of the NFsMS have privately-owned mineral rights. The National Forests in Mississippi cover 1.2 million acres of diverse natural resources and valued public lands. The six proclaimed national forests that make up the National Forests in Mississippi are administratively managed as seven ranger districts. Distributed across the State of Mississippi, National Forest System lands include an array of ecological systems ranging from fire-dependent stands of longleaf pines along the Gulf Coastal Plain to the upland oaks and hickories that dominate dry slopes and ridges in the northern portion of the state. 1 The federal oil and gas program has a two stage decision process: 1) authorize a lease, 2) authorize operations on a lease (authorize an Application for Permit to Drill (APD)). Each step requires NEPA analysis, and in the case of NFS lands, each step requires decisions by the FS and BLM. The USDA Forest Service proposes to make all lands on NFsMS, except for designated Wilderness Areas and Sandy Creek RARE II Further Study Area, available for federal oil and gas leasing (first stage of the process). These lands, approximately 1.2 million acres, would be administratively available subject to 1) management direction in the NFsMS Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan), 2) oil and gas lease stipulations, and 3) the wide range of laws and regulations that require environmental protections for oil and gas exploration and development (such as Clean Water Act, Clean Air Act, National Historic Preservation Act, Endangered Species Act, and Federal Onshore Oil and Gas Act of 1987). All lands are proposed to be available except for existing Wilderness. The USDA Forest Service also proposes to authorize the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to offer these specific lands for oil and gas leasing. All lands authorized for lease would include stipulations in addition to the environmental requirements in the standard lease terms. Current oil and gas leases on the NFsMS will be managed under existing leases until the leases expire, terminate, or are relinquished, at which time the area would be available and offered as specific lands subject to the conditions above. All future mineral leases will require environmental analysis as stated in the National Environmental Policy Act prior to any exploration and/or development. The FS and BLM decisions to be made based on this analysis apply to the federal decisions needed to offer NFS lands for oil and gas leasing, that is, the leasing stage or first stage of the two stage process. Before any operations can be conducted under a lease, the FS and BLM are required to review the proposed operations (APD) and conduct additional NEPA prior to authorizing ground disturbing operations. The scope of this analysis also includes connected actions and cumulative actions. The analysis considers the lease operations ( second stage of the process ) that may result from the leasing (first stage of the process ) and estimates the type and amount of post- leasing activity (wells, roads, pipelines) that is reasonably foreseeable for the proposed action. The authorization of a lease grants rights to explore for and develop oil and gas within the terms and stipulations of the lease. However, these rights cannot be exercised until 1) the leaseholder submits an Application for Permit to Drill (APD) to the BLM, 2) the FS and BLM conduct a NEPA analysis, 3) the FS approves the Surface Use Plan of Operations in the APD, and 4) BLM approves the APD. These actions as well as the oil and gas exploration and development conducted under APDs are actions connected with the leasing decision to be made. Depending on the level of oil and gas activity, the reasonable foreseeable development (RFD) for new leases estimates for the 15 year period a range of 421 to 2,297 acres of surface disturbance (an annual average in the range of 28 to 153 acres and 8 to 23 wells per year). The most probable level of activity is estimated to disturb about 1,072 acres (an 2 annual average of 71 acres and 16 wells per year). The acres of surface disturbance projected are less than one-quarter of one percent of the NFS lands on the NFsMS. The proposed action also would include the effects from existing leases. The RFD for existing leases and new leases estimates for the 15 year period the range of 688 to 3,723 acres of surface disturbance (an annual average in the range of 46 to 248 acres and 13 to 38 wells per year). The most probable level of activity is estimated to disturb about 1,737 acres (an annual average of 116 acres and 25 wells per year). The acres of surface disturbance projected are less than one-third of one percent of the NFS lands on the NFsMS. These expected actions are the basis of the environmental analysis from which the lands availability decision will be made. The decision on the lands that will be available for leasing, and the subsequent authorization of specific lands for leasing, are based upon analysis of the environmental effects. Connected actions are being considered in this biological evaluation. In this context, connected actions include the post-leasing approval of APDs, Surface Use Plans of Operation, and issuance of Rights-of-Way authorizations for off-lease activities needed to support oil and gas exploration, development, and production on lease and off lease. These actions may authorize or result in other activities such as drilling, construction of production facilities, roads and pipelines as discussed in Reasonable Foreseeable Development Scenario (RFD) (Appendix C of EA). The process for issuance of these site-specific permits for connected actions requires completion of additional NEPA analyses. Site-specific mitigation measures are prescribed following receipt of Application for Permit to Drill (APD) and during development of the Surface Use Plan of Operation (SUPO). IV. SPECIES EVALUATED On August 7, 2001, the Regional Forester for the Southern Region released a list of 843 “sensitive” species. NFsMS biologists reviewed information from the Mississippi Natural Heritage Program, species experts, scientific literature, and Forest Service records and employee observations to determine which of these 843 species occur or are likely to occur on the National Forests in Mississippi. Through this review process, NFsMS biologist identified a sub-set of the Southern Regional Forester’s sensitive species list for the Forest. The Regional Forester’s list of “sensitive” species for the National Forests in Mississippi (USDA 2001) and National Forests in Mississippi Threatened and Endangered Species List (USFWS 2006) were reviewed to devise a target list of TES species for the National Forests in Mississippi. A review of existing information was conducted to further refine the list of potential sensitive species occurring in the project area. The following information sources were examined: (1) element occurrence records (EORs) from the Mississippi Natural Heritage Program (MSNHP) (2) Ranger District occurrence records and (3) Natureserve’s online 3 database (2009). Project records and Biological Evaluations for other management activities were
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 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]
  • "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]
  • Guide to the Flora of the Carolinas, Virginia, and Georgia, Working Draft of 17 March 2004 -- LILIACEAE
    Guide to the Flora of the Carolinas, Virginia, and Georgia, Working Draft of 17 March 2004 -- LILIACEAE LILIACEAE de Jussieu 1789 (Lily Family) (also see AGAVACEAE, ALLIACEAE, ALSTROEMERIACEAE, AMARYLLIDACEAE, ASPARAGACEAE, COLCHICACEAE, HEMEROCALLIDACEAE, HOSTACEAE, HYACINTHACEAE, HYPOXIDACEAE, MELANTHIACEAE, NARTHECIACEAE, RUSCACEAE, SMILACACEAE, THEMIDACEAE, TOFIELDIACEAE) As here interpreted narrowly, the Liliaceae constitutes about 11 genera and 550 species, of the Northern Hemisphere. There has been much recent investigation and re-interpretation of evidence regarding the upper-level taxonomy of the Liliales, with strong suggestions that the broad Liliaceae recognized by Cronquist (1981) is artificial and polyphyletic. Cronquist (1993) himself concurs, at least to a degree: "we still await a comprehensive reorganization of the lilies into several families more comparable to other recognized families of angiosperms." Dahlgren & Clifford (1982) and Dahlgren, Clifford, & Yeo (1985) synthesized an early phase in the modern revolution of monocot taxonomy. Since then, additional research, especially molecular (Duvall et al. 1993, Chase et al. 1993, Bogler & Simpson 1995, and many others), has strongly validated the general lines (and many details) of Dahlgren's arrangement. The most recent synthesis (Kubitzki 1998a) is followed as the basis for familial and generic taxonomy of the lilies and their relatives (see summary below). References: Angiosperm Phylogeny Group (1998, 2003); Tamura in Kubitzki (1998a). Our “liliaceous” genera (members of orders placed in the Lilianae) are therefore divided as shown below, largely following Kubitzki (1998a) and some more recent molecular analyses. ALISMATALES TOFIELDIACEAE: Pleea, Tofieldia. LILIALES ALSTROEMERIACEAE: Alstroemeria COLCHICACEAE: Colchicum, Uvularia. LILIACEAE: Clintonia, Erythronium, Lilium, Medeola, Prosartes, Streptopus, Tricyrtis, Tulipa. MELANTHIACEAE: Amianthium, Anticlea, Chamaelirium, Helonias, Melanthium, Schoenocaulon, Stenanthium, Veratrum, Toxicoscordion, Trillium, Xerophyllum, Zigadenus.
    [Show full text]
  • Lafayette Creek Property—Phases I and Ii Umbrella
    LAFAYETTE CREEK PROPERTY—PHASES I AND II UMBRELLA REGIONAL MITIGATION PLANS FOR FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS CONCEPTUAL MITIGATION PLAN WALTON COUNTY, FLORIDA June 20, 2011 Prepared for: Mr. David Clayton Northwest Florida Water Management District 81 Water Management Drive Havana, FL 32333 Prepared by: ________________________________ ________________________________ Caitlin E. Elam Richard W. Cantrell Staff Scientist Senior Consultant 4240-034 Y100 Lafayette Creek Phases I and II Restoration Plan 062011_E.doc Lafayette Creek Property—Phases I and II Umbrella Regional Mitigation Plans for Florida Department of Transportation Projects June 20, 2011 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 PROJECT OVERVIEW AND GOALS ............................................................................. 1 2.0 LOCATION AND LANDSCAPE ...................................................................................... 2 3.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS ................................................................................................. 2 4.0 LISTED SPECIES ............................................................................................................ 13 5.0 EXOTIC SPECIES ............................................................................................................ 17 6.0 HISTORIC CONDITIONS ............................................................................................... 17 7.0 SOILS ...............................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Species at Risk on Department of Defense Installations
    Species at Risk on Department of Defense Installations Revised Report and Documentation Prepared for: Department of Defense U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Submitted by: January 2004 Species at Risk on Department of Defense Installations: Revised Report and Documentation CONTENTS 1.0 Executive Summary..........................................................................................iii 2.0 Introduction – Project Description................................................................. 1 3.0 Methods ................................................................................................................ 3 3.1 NatureServe Data................................................................................................ 3 3.2 DOD Installations............................................................................................... 5 3.3 Species at Risk .................................................................................................... 6 4.0 Results................................................................................................................... 8 4.1 Nationwide Assessment of Species at Risk on DOD Installations..................... 8 4.2 Assessment of Species at Risk by Military Service.......................................... 13 4.3 Assessment of Species at Risk on Installations ................................................ 15 5.0 Conclusion and Management Recommendations.................................... 22 6.0 Future Directions.............................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Impacts of Laurel Wilt Disease on Native Persea of the Southeastern United States Timothy M
    Clemson University TigerPrints All Dissertations Dissertations 5-2016 Impacts of Laurel Wilt Disease on Native Persea of the Southeastern United States Timothy M. Shearman Clemson University, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://tigerprints.clemson.edu/all_dissertations Recommended Citation Shearman, Timothy M., "Impacts of Laurel Wilt Disease on Native Persea of the Southeastern United States" (2016). All Dissertations. 1656. https://tigerprints.clemson.edu/all_dissertations/1656 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Dissertations at TigerPrints. It has been accepted for inclusion in All Dissertations by an authorized administrator of TigerPrints. For more information, please contact [email protected]. IMPACTS OF LAUREL WILT DISEASE ON NATIVE PERSEA OF THE SOUTHEASTERN UNITED STATES A Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School of Clemson University In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy Forest Resources by Timothy M. Shearman May 2016 Accepted by: Dr. G. Geoff Wang, Committee Chair Dr. Saara J. DeWalt Dr. Donald L. Hagan Dr. Julia L. Kerrigan Dr. William C. Bridges ABSTRACT Laurel Wilt Disease (LWD) has caused severe mortality in native Persea species of the southeastern United States since it was first detected in 2003. This study was designed to document the range-wide population impacts to LWD, as well as the patterns of mortality and regeneration in Persea ecosystems. I used Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA) data from the U.S. Forest Service to estimate Persea borbonia (red bay) populations from 2003 to 2011 to see if any decline could be observed since the introduction of LWD causal agents.
    [Show full text]
  • Habitat Distribution and Abundance of Crayfishes in Two Florida Spring-Fed Rivers
    University of Central Florida STARS Electronic Theses and Dissertations, 2004-2019 2016 Habitat distribution and abundance of crayfishes in two Florida spring-fed rivers Tiffani Manteuffel University of Central Florida Part of the Biology Commons Find similar works at: https://stars.library.ucf.edu/etd University of Central Florida Libraries http://library.ucf.edu This Masters Thesis (Open Access) is brought to you for free and open access by STARS. It has been accepted for inclusion in Electronic Theses and Dissertations, 2004-2019 by an authorized administrator of STARS. For more information, please contact [email protected]. STARS Citation Manteuffel, Tiffani, "Habitat distribution and abundance of crayfishes in two Florida spring-fed rivers" (2016). Electronic Theses and Dissertations, 2004-2019. 5230. https://stars.library.ucf.edu/etd/5230 HABITAT DISTRIBUTION AND ABUNDANCE OF CRAYFISHES IN TWO FLORIDA SPRING-FED RIVERS by TIFFANI MANTEUFFEL B.S. Florida State University, 2012 A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science in the Department of Biology in the College of Sciences at the University of Central Florida Orlando, Florida Fall Term 2016 Major Professor: C. Ross Hinkle © 2016 Tiffani Manteuffel ii ABSTRACT Crayfish are an economically and ecologically important invertebrate, however, research on crayfish in native habitats is patchy at best, including in Florida, even though the Southeastern U.S. is one of the most speciose areas globally. This study investigated patterns of abundance and habitat distribution of two crayfishes (Procambarus paeninsulanus and P. fallax) in two Florida spring-fed rivers (Wakulla River and Silver River, respectively).
    [Show full text]
  • Louisiana's Animal Species of Greatest Conservation Need (SGCN)
    Louisiana's Animal Species of Greatest Conservation Need (SGCN) ‐ Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Animals ‐ 2020 MOLLUSKS Common Name Scientific Name G‐Rank S‐Rank Federal Status State Status Mucket Actinonaias ligamentina G5 S1 Rayed Creekshell Anodontoides radiatus G3 S2 Western Fanshell Cyprogenia aberti G2G3Q SH Butterfly Ellipsaria lineolata G4G5 S1 Elephant‐ear Elliptio crassidens G5 S3 Spike Elliptio dilatata G5 S2S3 Texas Pigtoe Fusconaia askewi G2G3 S3 Ebonyshell Fusconaia ebena G4G5 S3 Round Pearlshell Glebula rotundata G4G5 S4 Pink Mucket Lampsilis abrupta G2 S1 Endangered Endangered Plain Pocketbook Lampsilis cardium G5 S1 Southern Pocketbook Lampsilis ornata G5 S3 Sandbank Pocketbook Lampsilis satura G2 S2 Fatmucket Lampsilis siliquoidea G5 S2 White Heelsplitter Lasmigona complanata G5 S1 Black Sandshell Ligumia recta G4G5 S1 Louisiana Pearlshell Margaritifera hembeli G1 S1 Threatened Threatened Southern Hickorynut Obovaria jacksoniana G2 S1S2 Hickorynut Obovaria olivaria G4 S1 Alabama Hickorynut Obovaria unicolor G3 S1 Mississippi Pigtoe Pleurobema beadleianum G3 S2 Louisiana Pigtoe Pleurobema riddellii G1G2 S1S2 Pyramid Pigtoe Pleurobema rubrum G2G3 S2 Texas Heelsplitter Potamilus amphichaenus G1G2 SH Fat Pocketbook Potamilus capax G2 S1 Endangered Endangered Inflated Heelsplitter Potamilus inflatus G1G2Q S1 Threatened Threatened Ouachita Kidneyshell Ptychobranchus occidentalis G3G4 S1 Rabbitsfoot Quadrula cylindrica G3G4 S1 Threatened Threatened Monkeyface Quadrula metanevra G4 S1 Southern Creekmussel Strophitus subvexus
    [Show full text]
  • REPORT FOR: Preliminary Analysis for Identification, Distribution, And
    REPORT FOR: Preliminary Analysis for Identification, Distribution, and Conservation Status of Species of Fusconaia and Pleurobema in Arkansas Principle Investigators: Alan D. Christian Department of Biological Sciences, Arkansas State University, P.O. Box 599, State University, Arkansas 72467; [email protected]; Phone: (870)972-3082; Fax: (870)972-2638 John L. Harris Department of Biological Sciences, Arkansas State University, P.O. Box 599, State University, Arkansas 72467 Jeanne Serb Department of Ecology, Evolution, and Organismal Biology, Iowa State University, 251 Bessey Hall, Ames, Iowa 50011 Graduate Research Assistant: David M. Hayes, Department of Environmental Science, P.O. Box 847, State University, Arkansas 72467: [email protected] Kentaro Inoue, Department of Environmental Science, P.O. Box 847, State University, Arkansas 72467: [email protected] Submitted to: William R. Posey Malacologist and Commercial Fisheries Biologist, AGFC P.O. Box 6740 Perrytown, Arkansas 71801 April 2008 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY There are currently 13 species of Fusconaia and 32 species of Pleurobema recognized in the United States and Canada. Twelve species of Pleurobema and two species of Fusconaia are listed as Threatened or Endangered. There are 75 recognized species of Unionidae in Arkansas; however this number may be much higher due to the presence of cryptic species, many which may reside within the Fusconaia /Pleurobema complex. Currently, three species of Fusconaia and three species of Pleurobema are recognized from Arkansas. The true conservation status of species within these genera cannot be determined until the taxonomic identity of populations is confirmed. The purpose of this study was to begin preliminary analysis of the species composition of Fusconaia and Pleurobema in Arkansas and to determine the phylogeographic relationships within these genera through mitochondrial DNA sequencing and conchological analysis.
    [Show full text]
  • Rare Plants of Louisiana
    Rare Plants of Louisiana Agalinis filicaulis - purple false-foxglove Figwort Family (Scrophulariaceae) Rarity Rank: S2/G3G4 Range: AL, FL, LA, MS Recognition: Photo by John Hays • Short annual, 10 to 50 cm tall, with stems finely wiry, spindly • Stems simple to few-branched • Leaves opposite, scale-like, about 1mm long, barely perceptible to the unaided eye • Flowers few in number, mostly born singly or in pairs from the highest node of a branchlet • Pedicels filiform, 5 to 10 mm long, subtending bracts minute • Calyx 2 mm long, lobes short-deltoid, with broad shallow sinuses between lobes • Corolla lavender-pink, without lines or spots within, 10 to 13 mm long, exterior glabrous • Capsule globe-like, nearly half exerted from calyx Flowering Time: September to November Light Requirement: Full sun to partial shade Wetland Indicator Status: FAC – similar likelihood of occurring in both wetlands and non-wetlands Habitat: Wet longleaf pine flatwoods savannahs and hillside seepage bogs. Threats: • Conversion of habitat to pine plantations (bedding, dense tree spacing, etc.) • Residential and commercial development • Fire exclusion, allowing invasion of habitat by woody species • Hydrologic alteration directly (e.g. ditching) and indirectly (fire suppression allowing higher tree density and more large-diameter trees) Beneficial Management Practices: • Thinning (during very dry periods), targeting off-site species such as loblolly and slash pines for removal • Prescribed burning, establishing a regime consisting of mostly growing season (May-June) burns Rare Plants of Louisiana LA River Basins: Pearl, Pontchartrain, Mermentau, Calcasieu, Sabine Side view of flower. Photo by John Hays References: Godfrey, R. K. and J. W. Wooten.
    [Show full text]
  • (Rosaceae), I. Differentiation of Mespilus and Crataegus
    Phytotaxa 257 (3): 201–229 ISSN 1179-3155 (print edition) http://www.mapress.com/j/pt/ PHYTOTAXA Copyright © 2016 Magnolia Press Article ISSN 1179-3163 (online edition) http://dx.doi.org/10.11646/phytotaxa.257.3.1 STUDIES IN MESPILUS, CRATAEGUS, AND ×CRATAEMESPILUS (ROSACEAE), I. DIFFERENTIATION OF MESPILUS AND CRATAEGUS, EXPANSION OF ×CRATAEMESPILUS, WITH SUPPLEMENTARY OBSERVATIONS ON DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE CRATAEGUS AND AMELANCHIER CLADES JAMES B. PHIPPS Department of Biology, The University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario N6A 5B7, Canada; email: [email protected] Abstract The paper argues the position for retaining a monotypic Mespilus, i.e., in the sense of M. germanica, the medlar. Recent cladistic papers lend support for Mespilus being sister to Crataegus, and there is a clear morphological distinction from Cra- taegus, emphasized by adaptation to carnivore frugivory. Mespilus secured, the paper then treats each of the known hybrids between Mespilus and Crataegus, making the new combination Crataemespilus ×canescens (J.B. Phipps) J.B. Phipps. Keywords: Crataemespilus ×canescens (J.B. Phipps) J.B. Phipps comb. nov.; inflorescence position; medlar; Mespilus a folk-genus; Mespilus distinct from Crataegus; Rosaceae; taxonomic history of Mespilus Introduction The author has a long-standing interest in generic delimitation in the Maloid genera of the Rosaceae (Maleae Small, formerly Maloideae C. Weber, Pyrinae Dumort.), as shown particularly in a series of papers with K. Robertson, J. Rohrer, and P.G. Smith (Phipps et al. 1990, 1991; Robertson at al. 1991, 1992; Rohrer at al. 1991, 1994) which treated all 28 genera of Maleae as recognised by us. There is also a revisionary treatment of New World Heteromeles M.J.
    [Show full text]
  • Mississippi Natural Heritage Program Special Plants - Tracking List -2018
    MISSISSIPPI NATURAL HERITAGE PROGRAM SPECIAL PLANTS - TRACKING LIST -2018- Approximately 3300 species of vascular plants (fern, gymnosperms, and angiosperms), and numerous non-vascular plants may be found in Mississippi. Many of these are quite common. Some, however, are known or suspected to occur in low numbers; these are designated as species of special concern, and are listed below. There are 495 special concern plants, which include 4 non- vascular plants, 28 ferns and fern allies, 4 gymnosperms, and 459 angiosperms 244 dicots and 215 monocots. An additional 100 species are designated “watch” status (see “Special Plants - Watch List”) with the potential of becoming species of special concern and include 2 fern and fern allies, 54 dicots and 44 monocots. This list is designated for the primary purposes of : 1) in environmental assessments, “flagging” of sensitive species that may be negatively affected by proposed actions; 2) determination of protection priorities of natural areas that contain such species; and 3) determination of priorities of inventory and protection for these plants, including the proposed listing of species for federal protection. GLOBAL STATE FEDERAL SPECIES NAME COMMON NAME RANK RANK STATUS BRYOPSIDA Callicladium haldanianum Callicladium Moss G5 SNR Leptobryum pyriforme Leptobryum Moss G5 SNR Rhodobryum roseum Rose Moss G5 S1? Trachyxiphium heteroicum Trachyxiphium Moss G2? S1? EQUISETOPSIDA Equisetum arvense Field Horsetail G5 S1S2 FILICOPSIDA Adiantum capillus-veneris Southern Maidenhair-fern G5 S2 Asplenium
    [Show full text]