DOCSLIB.ORG

Habitat Management Plan Howard Buford Recreation Area February 7, 2018

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Habitat Management Plan Howard Buford Recreation Area February 7, 2018 View of Mt Pisgah’s western Slope, April 1972 Proposed Habitat Management Plan Howard Buford Recreation Area February 7, 2018 View of Mt Pisgah’s western Slope, April 2017 Prepared by Lane County Parks Division, Public Works Department In partnership with Friends of Buford Park & Mt. Pisgah and Mount Pisgah Arboretum Habitat Management Plan Prepared by: Lane County Parks Division 3040 Delta Highway North Eugene, Oregon 97408 Friends of Buford Park & Mt. Pisgah P.O. Box 5266 Eugene, Oregon 97405 Mount Pisgah Arboretum 34901 Frank Parrish Rd. Eugene, Oregon 97405 February 7, 2018 Cover photo: Western Slope of Mount Pisgah as viewed in April of 1972 and 2017. Photo by Lane County Parks Divison staff. Acknowledgements Board of County Commissioners Lane County Parks Advisory Committee Buford Park Habitat Management Plan Technical Advisory Group Ed Alverson, The Nature Conservancy Paul Hoobyar, Watersheds Inc. (TAG Facilitator) Sandra Koike, Project intern Tom LoCascio, Mount Pisgah Arboretum Glenn Miller, Oregon Department of Agriculture Bruce Newhouse, Friends of Buford Park & Mt. Pisgah Roberta Swift and Garrett Dorsey, US Army Corps of Engineers Ben Tilley, Bonneville Power Administration Greg Wagenblast, Oregon Dept. of Forestry Jeff Ziller, Kelly Reis, Erik Moberly, Brian Wolfer, and Chris Yee, Oregon Dept. of Fish & Wildlife Lane County Public Works and Parks Division Ed Alverson Charlie Conrad Chad Hoffman Dan Hurley Fraser MacDonald John Moriarty Mike Russell Friends of Buford Park & Mt. Pisgah Jason Blazar Jeff Krueger Chris Orsinger Mount Pisgah Arboretum Brad van Appel Rich Kelly Photos provided by: Ed Alverson, Jason Blazar, Kate Blazar, Jeff Krueger, Chris Orsinger, Jim Reed. Table of Contents Chapter 1: Executive Summary ............................................................................................................. 1 1.1 Conservation Vision ............................................................................................................................ 2 1.2 Management Goals ............................................................................................................................ 2 1.3 Moving Forward ................................................................................................................................. 3 1.4 Stakeholder Groups ............................................................................................................................ 3 1.5 The Planning Process .......................................................................................................................... 4 1.6 Methodology ...................................................................................................................................... 4 1.7 Public Input ........................................................................................................................................ 6 1.8 Chapter 1 References ..................................................................................................................... 6 Chapter 2: Purpose & Need .................................................................................................................. 7 2.1 Purpose .............................................................................................................................................. 7 2.2 Regional Context: Mount Pisgah’s Importance .................................................................................. 7 2.3 Rare Habitats at HBRA ........................................................................................................................ 7 2.4 Managing Conservation Targets & Fire Risk in a Changing Climate ................................................... 9 2.5 Relationship to Previous Plans ........................................................................................................... 9 2.5.1 HBRA Master Plan (1994) ............................................................................................................ 9 2.5.2 Confluence of Coast and Middle Forks Willamette River Project Area – Alternatives Team Recommendation (1997) .................................................................................................................... 10 2.5.3 South Meadow Management Plan (2002) ................................................................................ 10 2.5.4 Rivers to Ridges Open Space Study (2003) ................................................................................ 11 2.5.5 Oregon Conservation Strategy (2006, updated in 2016) ........................................................... 11 2.5.6 Willamette River Open Space Vision (2010) .............................................................................. 12 2.5.7 Lane County Parks and Open Space Master Plan (1981) and Lane County Parks Master Plan (revision in development) .................................................................................................................. 13 2.5.8 Other Plans and Assessments ................................................................................................... 13 2.6 Chapter 2 References ................................................................................................................... 14 Chapter 3: Methodology ..................................................................................................................... 15 3.1 The Conservation Action Planning Process ...................................................................................... 15 3.1.1 Why This Tool Was Selected ..................................................................................................... 15 3.1.2 Other Conservation Action Plans developed in Western Oregon ............................................. 15 3.2 Planning Process Overview .............................................................................................................. 16 3.2.1 Technical Advisory Group .......................................................................................................... 16 3.2.2 The Role of Friends of Buford Park & Mt. Pisgah ...................................................................... 17 3.3 Public Involvement ........................................................................................................................... 18 3.3.1 Lane County Technical Review .................................................................................................. 18 3.3.2 Habitat Management Plan, Version 2 ....................................................................................... 18 3.3.3 The Planning Process Ahead ...................................................................................................... 19 3.4 Chapter 3 References ................................................................................................................... 19 Chapter 4: Conservation Vision, Conservation Targets, and Other Habitats ........................................ 21 4.1 Conservation Vision Statement ........................................................................................................ 21 4.2 Conservation targets ........................................................................................................................ 21 4.2.1 Upland prairie and savanna ....................................................................................................... 22 4.2.2 Oregon Vesper Sparrow ............................................................................................................ 23 4.2.3 Oak Woodland ........................................................................................................................... 24 4.2.4 Wetland Prairie ......................................................................................................................... 25 4.2.5 Bradshaw’s lomatium ................................................................................................................ 25 4.2.6 Buckbrush chaparral .................................................................................................................. 26 4.2.7 Willamette riparian systems and associated floodplain ............................................................ 27 4.2.8 Creeks and Streams ................................................................................................................... 28 ............................................................................................................................................................ 28 ............................................................................................................................................................ 28 4.2.9 Visitor Experience ...................................................................................................................... 29 4.2.10 Other Habitats ......................................................................................................................... 29 4.3 Projected Increase in Extent of Focal Conservation Target Habitats and Resources ................... 31 4.4 Chapter 4 References ................................................................................................................... 32 Chapter 5: Viability and Threats to the Conservation Targets ............................................................. 35 5.1 Assessing the Viability of Each Conservation Target .......................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Anchusa L. and Allied Genera (Boraginaceae) in Italy
    Plant Biosystems - An International Journal Dealing with all Aspects of Plant Biology Official Journal of the Societa Botanica Italiana ISSN: 1126-3504 (Print) 1724-5575 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tplb20 Anchusa L. and allied genera (Boraginaceae) in Italy F. SELVI & M. BIGAZZI To cite this article: F. SELVI & M. BIGAZZI (1998) Anchusa L. and allied genera (Boraginaceae) in Italy, Plant Biosystems - An International Journal Dealing with all Aspects of Plant Biology, 132:2, 113-142, DOI: 10.1080/11263504.1998.10654198 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/11263504.1998.10654198 Published online: 18 Mar 2013. Submit your article to this journal Article views: 29 View related articles Citing articles: 20 View citing articles Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tplb20 Download by: [Università di Pisa] Date: 05 November 2015, At: 02:31 PLANT BIOSYSTEMS, 132 (2) 113-142, 1998 Anchusa L. and allied genera (Boraginaceae) in Italy F. SEL VI and M. BIGAZZI received 18 May 1998; revised version accepted 30 July 1998 ABSTRACT - A revision of the Italian entities of Anchusa and of the rdated genera Anchusella, Lycopsis, Cynoglottis, Hormuzakia and Pentaglottis was carried out in view of the poor systematic knowledge of some entities of the national flora. The taxonomic treatment relies on a wide comparative basis, including macro- and micromorphological, karyological, chorological and ecological data. After a general description of some poorly known microCharacters of vegetative and reproductive structures, analytical keys, nomenclatural types, synonymies, descriptions, distribution maps and iconographies are provided for each entity.
    [Show full text]
  • F a C T S H E E T Blackberries
    JEFFERSON COUNTY NOXIOUS WEED CONTROL BOARD F A C T S H E E T BLACKBERRIES Himalayan blackberry (Rubus armeniacus) and evergreen blackberry (Rubus laciniatus) Himalayan blackberry stems (canes) can grow to 9 feet in height but often trail along the ground, growing 20-40 feet long. Thorns grow along the stems as well as on the leaves and leaf stalks. Himalayan blackberries have five distinct leaflets; each leaflet has a toothed margin and is generally oval in shape. Canes start producing berries in their second year. Himalayan blackberry can be evergreen, depending on the site. Rose family. Himalayan blackberry Himalayan blackberry Evergreen blackberry The leaflets of evergreen blackberry are deeply lobed, making it easy to distinguish from WHY BE CONCERNED? Himalayan blackberry. Both Himalayan and evergreen DISTRIBUTION: blackberries form impenetrable Himalayan blackberry is extremely visible in thickets, consisting of both dead and most of Jefferson County, growing along live canes. These thickets out-compete roadsides, over fences and other vegetation, and native vegetation and are a good invading many open areas. Evergreen source of food and shelter for rats. blackberry is more common in the West end of the county, where it has been seen to invade Both Himalayan and evergreen riparian areas. blackberries are Class C Weeds 380 Jefferson Street, Port Townsend WA 98368 (360) 379-5610 Ext. 205 [email protected] http://www.co.jefferson.wa.us/WeedBoard ECOLOGY: . Seeds can be spread by birds, humans and other mammals. The canes often cascade outwards, forming mounds, and can root at the tip when they hit the ground, expanding the infestation .
    [Show full text]
  • Adlumia Fungosa (Aiton) Greene Ex Britton
    Adlumia fungosa (Aiton) Greene ex Britton Common Names: Allegheny vine, Climbing Fumitory, Mountain-fringe (1, 3) Etymology: Adlumia for John Adlum, amateur botanist of the late 18th century and early 19th century; fungosa: from the Greek ‘fung’, meaning spongy or mushroom-like (5, 7). Botanical synonyms: Fumaria fungosa (Aiton), Bicuculla fungosa (Aiton) Kuntze, Adlumia cirrhosa (Raf.), Fumaria recta (Michx.), Bicuculla fungosa (Aiton), Bicuculla fumarioides (Borkh.), Corydalis fungosa (Aiton) (3, 11, 14). FAMILY: Papaveraceae (the poppy family) Quick Notable Features: ¬ Spongy, tube-like flowers, each individual flower lasting all summer ¬ Prehensile, climbing leaves ¬ Short, often un-noticeable petiole Plant Height: A. fungosa can climb to 4m, but averages 3m (4, 8). Subspecies/varieties: none found (3) Most Likely Confused with: Rosa setigera and Rubus laciniatus, as well as other Fumarioideae species, some trifoliate Fabaceae (most notably Amphicarpaea bracteata and Lespedeza procumbens), and Ranunculaceae climbers like Clematis virginiana and C. occidentalis. Habitat Preference: A. fungosa prefers full sun, although it can tolerate shade. It is often found in moist or freshly burned woods, as well on rocky slopes and slightly acidic soils. It prefers sites protected from wind (8, 12). It was reported in 1999 in Great Smoky Mountains National Park growing on Betula lenta along streams at 2670m elevation (21). Geographic Distribution in Michigan: Allegheny-vine is found sporadically in Michigan 1 (in a geographic sense; habitat analysis may provide some explanation as to why). It is found in the following counties: Berrien, Charlevoix, Chippewa, Delta, Hillsdale, Ingham, Ishpeming, Kent, Luce, Mackinack, Menominee, Muskegon, Ottawa, Presque Isle, St. Clair, Van Buren, Washtenaw, and Wayne (2).
    [Show full text]
  • Willamette Valley Oak and Prairie Cooperative Strategic Action Plan
    Willamette Valley Oak and Prairie Cooperative Strategic Action Plan March 2020 Willamette Valley Oak and Prairie Cooperative Strategic Action Plan, March 2020 Page i Acknowledgements Steering Committee: Clinton Begley Long Tom Watershed Council Sara Evans-Peters Pacific Birds Habitat Joint Venture Claire Fiegener Greenbelt Land Trust Tom Kaye Institute for Applied Ecology Nicole Maness Willamette Partnership Shelly Miller City of Eugene Will Neuhauser Yamhill Partners for Land and Water Michael Pope Greenbelt Land Trust Lawrence Schwabe Confederated Tribes Grand Ronde Bruce Taylor Pacific Birds Habitat Joint Venture Stan van de Wetering Confederated Tribes Siletz Kelly Warren Ducks Unlimited INC Contractors: Jeff Krueger JK Environments Carolyn Menke Institute for Applied Ecology Working Group: Bob Altman American Bird Conservancy Ed Alverson Lane County Parks Marc Bell Polk Soil and Water Conservation District Andrea Berkley Oregon Parks and Recreation Department Matt Blakeley-Smith Greenbelt Land Trust Jason Blazar Friends of Buford Park & Mt. Pisgah Lynda Boyer Heritage Seedlings Joe Buttafuoco The Nature Conservancy Mikki Collins U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Sarah Deumling Zena Forest Daniel Dietz McKenzie River Trust Sarah Dyrdhal Middle Fork Willamette Watershed Council Matt Gibbons The Nature Conservancy Lauren Grand Oregon State University Extension Service Jarod Jebousek U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Bart Johnson University of Oregon Pat Johnston U.S Bureau of Land Management Molly Juillerat U.S. National Forest Service (MFWRD) Cameron King U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service John Klock U.S Bureau of Land Management Ann Kreager Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife Amie Loop-Frison Yamhill Soil and Water Conservation District Katie MacKendrick Long Tom Watershed Council Anne Mary Meyers Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife Willamette Valley Oak and Prairie Cooperative Strategic Action Plan, March 2020 Page ii Mark Miller Trout Mountain Forestry Kevin O'Hara U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Oregon City Nuisance Plant List
    Nuisance Plant List City of Oregon City 320 Warner Milne Road , P.O. Box 3040, Oregon City, OR 97045 Phone: (503) 657-0891, Fax: (503) 657-7892 Scientific Name Common Name Acer platanoides Norway Maple Acroptilon repens Russian knapweed Aegopodium podagraria and variegated varieties Goutweed Agropyron repens Quack grass Ailanthus altissima Tree-of-heaven Alliaria officinalis Garlic Mustard Alopecuris pratensis Meadow foxtail Anthoxanthum odoratum Sweet vernalgrass Arctium minus Common burdock Arrhenatherum elatius Tall oatgrass Bambusa sp. Bamboo Betula pendula lacinata Cutleaf birch Brachypodium sylvaticum False brome Bromus diandrus Ripgut Bromus hordeaceus Soft brome Bromus inermis Smooth brome-grasses Bromus japonicus Japanese brome-grass Bromus sterilis Poverty grass Bromus tectorum Cheatgrass Buddleia davidii (except cultivars and varieties) Butterfly bush Callitriche stagnalis Pond water starwort Cardaria draba Hoary cress Carduus acanthoides Plumeless thistle Carduus nutans Musk thistle Carduus pycnocephalus Italian thistle Carduus tenufolius Slender flowered thistle Centaurea biebersteinii Spotted knapweed Centaurea diffusa Diffuse knapweed Centaurea jacea Brown knapweed Centaurea pratensis Meadow knapweed Chelidonium majou Lesser Celandine Chicorum intybus Chicory Chondrilla juncea Rush skeletonweed Cirsium arvense Canada Thistle Cirsium vulgare Common Thistle Clematis ligusticifolia Western Clematis Clematis vitalba Traveler’s Joy Conium maculatum Poison-hemlock Convolvulus arvensis Field Morning-glory 1 Nuisance Plant List
    [Show full text]
  • ISTA List of Stabilized Plant Names 7Th Edition
    ISTA List of Stabilized Plant Names th 7 Edition ISTA Nomenclature Committee Chair: Dr. M. Schori Published by All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be The Internation Seed Testing Association (ISTA) reproduced, stored in any retrieval system or transmitted Zürichstr. 50, CH-8303 Bassersdorf, Switzerland in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior ©2020 International Seed Testing Association (ISTA) permission in writing from ISTA. ISBN 978-3-906549-77-4 ISTA List of Stabilized Plant Names 1st Edition 1966 ISTA Nomenclature Committee Chair: Prof P. A. Linehan 2nd Edition 1983 ISTA Nomenclature Committee Chair: Dr. H. Pirson 3rd Edition 1988 ISTA Nomenclature Committee Chair: Dr. W. A. Brandenburg 4th Edition 2001 ISTA Nomenclature Committee Chair: Dr. J. H. Wiersema 5th Edition 2007 ISTA Nomenclature Committee Chair: Dr. J. H. Wiersema 6th Edition 2013 ISTA Nomenclature Committee Chair: Dr. J. H. Wiersema 7th Edition 2019 ISTA Nomenclature Committee Chair: Dr. M. Schori 2 7th Edition ISTA List of Stabilized Plant Names Content Preface .......................................................................................................................................................... 4 Acknowledgements ....................................................................................................................................... 6 Symbols and Abbreviations ..........................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Rubus Laciniatus Willd. (Rosaceae), an Introduced Species New in the Flora of Serbia and the Balkans
    42 (2): (2018) 255-258 Short Communication Rubus laciniatus Willd. (Rosaceae), an introduced species new in the flora of Serbia and the Balkans Zoran Krivošej1✳, Danijela Prodanović2, Nusret Preljević3 and Bojana Veljković3 1 University of Priština, Faculty of Natural Science, Lole Ribara 29, 38220 Kosovska Mitrovica, Serbia 2 University of Priština, Faculty of Agriculture Lešak, Kopaonička bb, 38219 Lešak, Serbia 3 State University of Novi Pazar, Department of Biomedical Sciences, Vuka Karadžića bb, 36300 Novi Pazar, Serbia ABSTRACT: Rubus laciniatus has been found as a species new for the flora of Serbia during floristic investigation in the Ibar river valley. It was found on serpentine terrains near the town of Raška (SW Serbia). This is the single known locality of the given species on the Balkan Peninsula. Data on morphology, distribution, and habitat preferences of the species are provided, and the possible pathways of its introduction in Serbia are assessed. Keywords: Rubus laciniatus, blackberry, new record, Ibar river valley Received: 20 March 2018 Revision accepted: 11 July 2018 UDC: 634.71:581.95(497.11) (292.464) DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.1468362 One of the largest of plant genera, Rubus L. (Rosaceae) be in Southwest China (Lu 1983), since it is geologically has worldwide distribution and is variously classified archaic and was not seriously covered by glaciers dur- into 12 or 15 subgenera (Jennings 1988). According to ing the Quaternary (Gu et al. 1993). In Europe, the ge- The Plant List (2013), 1568 species are accepted on the nus Rubus has its centre of diversity in the Atlantic and global level and there are also 5162 unresolved names.
    [Show full text]
  • Oak Savanna Exhibit by August Jackson, Interpretive Coordinator
    Summer 2019 Volume XLIX, Issue 3 THE MOUNT PISGAH ARBORETUM QUARTERLY NEWSLETTER Oak Savanna Exhibit by August Jackson, Interpretive Coordinator The first European explorers and Euro-American colonizers described the Willamette Valley as a vast expanse of open prairie, dotted here and there with mature trees—mostly oaks—which impressed upon them the feeling of a “park” or “garden.” The only real forests to be found were on the foothills and knolls, and densely cloaking the braided and ponderous Willamette River. On his journey through the Willamette Valley in September of 1826, the botanist and explorer David Douglas discovered the cause of this park-like setting, noting that nearly the entire valley floor had been recently burned. Douglas remarked that some of the native Kalapuya people explained to him that they conducted the burns for the purpose of procuring food. Since the cessation of native burning practices, Oregon white oak savanna has become one of the most critically endangered ecosystems in North Photo by Kimberly Cullen America, with as little as 1% of the original extent remaining. Mount Pisgah Arboretum’s new Oak Savanna Exhibit aims to honor the cultural heritage of this quintessential Willamette Valley landscape and celebrates the biodiverse ecosystem that was supported by considerate and considerable Kalupyan management practices. The exhibit consists of two meditative paths with scattered vignettes that share some of the cultural and ecological outcomes of regular burning. These paths converge in the center around a planter showcasing a number of native plants that were important traditional food sources, and which benefited from regular burning.
    [Show full text]
  • West Pisgah Community Vision Report FINAL
    West Pisgah Community Vision and Strategies Summary Report March 2019 West Pisgah Community Vision Report – March 14, 2019 Page i Acknowledgments Round Table Participants A special thank you to the following individuals who volunteered to serve on the West Pisgah Community Round Table and dedicated time, ideas, insight into this visioning effort. The content of this summary report is based on a compilation of Round Table and community input and does not represent the opinion or endorsement by any one individual. Round Table members included: • Amanda Gilbert (Coast Fork Willamette Watershed Council) * • Derek Hansen (resident, farmer) • Charlotte Helmer (resident, historic restoration professional) * • John F. Helmer (resident) * • Leda Hermecz (owner of 100 Mile Bakery) • Gayle Landt (land owner, equestrian) • Charles Little (resident, farmer) • Robin Meacher (McKenzie River Trust) * • Glen Miller (resident, farmer) • Mary Moore (resident, farmer) • Greg Nieckarz (resident) • Chris Orsinger (Friends of Buford Park & Mount Pisgah) * • Jared Pruch (Rogue Farm Corps) * • Jim Straub (land owner) * Indicates those Round Table members who also volunteered to serve on the project Steering Committee. The Steering Committee was responsible for providing regular input on the effort, recruiting Round Table members, reviewing draft materials, and helping set agendas for the Round Table meetings. Project Team • Jeff Krueger (JK Environments, facilitation and report production) • Laurie Krei (Friends of Buford Park & Mount Pisgah, project support) • Catia Juliana (Friends of Buford Park & Mount Pisgah, project support) Thanks to Meyer Memorial Trust This effort would not have been possible without funding assistance from Meyer Memorial Trust (MMT) as part of its Willamette River Initiative. MMT is currently supporting numerous efforts to improve the quality of the Willamette River as one way they hope to make a significant difference in improving the lives of Oregonians.
    [Show full text]
  • Blackberry (Rubus Armeniacus/Discolor/Procerus)
    Best Practices for Invasive Species Management in Garry Oak and Associated Ecosystems: Evergreen Blackberry (Rubus laciniatus) and Himalayan Blackberry (Rubus armeniacus/discolor/procerus) Assess the site characteristics and your available resources to help you decide where to take management action, what action to take, and when. These decisions should be made within the context of the overall restoration objectives (and restoration plan, if one exists). Before proceeding, be aware that it is very important to not confuse Evergreen blackberry (R. laciniatis) with the native Rubus ursinus. Evergreen blackberry is often found in association with Himalayan blackberry. If Evergreen blackberry is found alone and you are uncertain you have identified it correctly, leave it alone. Also leave it alone if it is in trailing form (rather than upright); you may damage understory vegetation by trying to remove it. a) Deciding where to take action Factor 1: Blackberry density Survey the areas in the GOE where blackberry occurs. Sketch-out and label these areas “zone 1”, “zone 2” or “zone 3” on your sketch map. Use the following descriptions: Zone 1 satellite patches (from a few canes, to a 5 foot by 5 foot patch) Zone 2 edges around larger patches Zone 3 larger patches (larger than 5’ by 5’) Where to focus your effort? Follow the Priority Principle: contain the invasive species first, then reduce its amount! The highest priority is to prevent further spread of blackberry. Only take action to reduce the “footprint” of the blackberry invasion after it is contained. Therefore Zones 1 and 2 should be your first priority, and you should only move into Zones 3 areas when blackberry has been successfully removed from Zones 1 and 2.
    [Show full text]
  • Bruce Newhouse Is the Owner-Operator of Salix Associates
    Salix Associates 2525 Potter, Eugene, OR 97405 ◦ tele 541.343.2364 Salix Associates salixassociates.com …offers services in ecologically-based natural resources planning, including botanical/biodiversity surveying, wildlife habitat inventory and analysis, restoration and management planning, and related environmental planning tasks and issues. The Salix Associates work philosophy emphasizes honesty, accuracy, creativity, thoroughness and scientific credibility with a strong interest in continuing education and advancing field and office skills. Work should be enjoyable, and I strive to make it so. Bruce Newhouse is the owner-operator of Salix Associates. He is a field ecologist, botanist and environmental planner specializing in ecology, botany, ornithology, lepidoptery and mycology. His work includes habitat inventory, analysis, planning, restoration and management. He has a B.S. from Oregon State University in environmental science, and worked for 10 years as a county and city land use planner specializing in natural resources before becoming a private consultant in 1989. As a consultant, he has contracted with federal, state and local public and private agencies and landowners for rare and invasive plant surveys and mapping, comprehensive and integrated natural resource inventories, restoration and management planning, environmental planning and special natural resource projects such as butterfly host plant analysis. He also is an experienced science field and classroom instructor (University of Oregon, Oregon State University, Portland State University, Lane Community College, et al.) specializing in the identification of sedges, rushes, grasses, and more generally, rare, native and invasive plant species, butterflies and fungi, and is a volunteer ecological advisor to several nonprofit groups and committees in the greater Eugene area.
    [Show full text]
  • Plant Species Table
    Appendix D Plant Species Table Plant Species Table Listing Status Scientific Name Federal/ Blooming Common Name State/CRPR Habitat and Elevation Period Potential On-Site Occurrence Survey Results Astragalus umbraticus 2B.3 Cismontane woodland, lower montane May-August Unlikely. Few of the habitat components meeting Not Present Bald Mountain Milk-vetch coniferous forest. Dry open oak and the species requirements are present, and/or the pine woodlands; sometimes on majority of habitat on and adjacent to the site is roadsides. 150-1250 m. unsuitable or of very poor quality. Bensoniella oregona SR/1B.1 Bogs and fens, lower montane May-July Absent. Suitable habitat is not present in the study Not Present Bensoniella coniferous forest, meadows and seeps. area. Wet meadows and openings in forest. 915-1400 m. Botrypus virginianus 2B.2 Bogs and fens, lower montane June- Absent. Suitable habitat is not present in the study Not Present Rattlesnake fern coniferous forest, meadows and seeps, September area. riparian forest. 715-1355 m. Carex arcta 2B.2 Bogs and fens, north coast coniferous June- Absent. Suitable habitat is not present in the study Not Present Northern clustered sedge forest. Mesic sites. 60-1400 m. September area. Carex praticola 2B.2 Meadows. Moist to wet meadows. 0- May-July Absent. Suitable habitat is not present in the study Not Present Northern meadow sedge 3200m. area. Cornus canadensis 2B.2 North coast coniferous forest, bogs and May-July Absent. Suitable habitat is not present in the study Not Present Bunchberry fens, meadows and seeps. 60-1920 m. area. Epilobium oreganum 1B.2 Bogs and fens, lower montane June- Unlikely.
    [Show full text]