Thurston County Critical Areas Ordinance Update July 24, 2012
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
W a S H in G T O N N a T U R a L H E R It
PROGRAM HERITAGE NATURAL Status of Federally Listed Plant Taxa in Washington State Prepared for WASHINGTON U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 1 Prepared by Walter Fertig 28 June 2021 Natural Heritage Report 2021-01 1 Status of Federally Listed Plant Taxa in Washington State Award Number F18AF01216 Report Date: June 28, 2021 Prepared for U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Western Washington Fish and Wildlife Office Region 1 Section 6 funding by Walter Fertig Botanist Washington Natural Heritage Program Washington Department of Natural Resources PO Box 47014 Olympia, WA 98504-7014 ii Cover: Ute ladies’ tresses (Spiranthes diluvialis). Photo by Walter Fertig, WNHP, 22 August 2018. Acknowledgements: Thanks to the following individuals for sharing data, providing reviews, or otherwise helping with this project: Jane Abel, Keith Abel, Jon Bakker, Susan Ballinger, Molly Boyter, Paula Brooks, Tom Brumbelow, Keyna Bugner, Tara Callaway, Jeff Chan, Alex Chmielewski, Karen Colson, Kelly Cordell, Ernie Crediford, Vicki Demetre, Nate Dietrich, Peter Dunwiddie, Ethan Coggins, Matt Fairbarns, Kim Frymire, John Gamon, Wendy Gibble, Rod Gilbert, Bridgette Glass, Sarah Hammon, Jamie Hanson, Anthony Hatcher, John Hill, Jasa Holt, Molly Jennings, Regina Johnson, Tom Kaye, Stacy Kinsell, Jake Kleinknecht, Hailee Leimbach-Maus, Joe LeMoine, Peter Lesica, Laurie Malmquist, Adam Martin, Heidi Newsome, Robert Pelant, Jenifer Penny, Von Pope, Tynan Ramm-Granberg, James Rebholz, Nathan Reynolds, Randi Riggs, Joe Rocchio, Jenny Roman, Mike Rule, Melissa Scholten, Sarah Shank, Mark Sheehan, Jacques Sirois, Karen Stefanyk, Mike Stefanyk, George Thornton, Sheri Whitfield, David Wilderman, and David Woodall. My apologies (and thanks!) to anyone I may have omitted. i Table of Contents Contents Introduction........................................................................................................................... -
2013 Draft Mazama Pocket Gopher Status Update and Recovery Plan
DRAFT Mazama Pocket Gopher Status Update and Recovery Plan Derek W. Stinson Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Wildlife Program 600 Capitol Way N Olympia, Washington January 2013 In 1990, the Washington Wildlife Commission adopted procedures for listing and de-listing species as endangered, threatened, or sensitive and for writing recovery and management plans for listed species (WAC 232-12-297, Appendix A). The procedures, developed by a group of citizens, interest groups, and state and federal agencies, require preparation of recovery plans for species listed as threatened or endangered. Recovery, as defined by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, is the process by which the decline of an endangered or threatened species is arrested or reversed, and threats to its survival are neutralized, so that its long-term survival in nature can be ensured. This is the Draft Washington State Status Update and Recovery Plan for the Mazama Pocket Gopher. It summarizes what is known of the historical and current distribution and abundance of the Mazama pocket gopher in Washington and describes factors affecting known populations and its habitat. It prescribes strategies to recover the species, such as protecting populations and existing habitat, evaluating and restoring habitat, and initiating research and cooperative programs. Target population objectives and other criteria for down-listing to state Sensitive are identified. As part of the State’s listing and recovery procedures, the draft recovery plan is available for a 90-day public comment period. Please submit written comments on this report by 19 April 2013 via e-mail to: [email protected], or by mail to: Endangered Species Section Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife 600 Capitol Way North Olympia, WA 98501-1091 This report should be cited as: Stinson, D. -
Malde, 1964). in the Present Status of North Texas 10,000 Years Ago (Kupsch, 1960)
Ritchie, 1953; Malde, 1964). In the Present Status of North Texas 10,000 years ago (Kupsch, 1960). The Central Valley of California, along the Origin Theories retreat was followed by a warming base of the Sierra Nevada Mountains, trend which lasted from about 8,000 Although a myriad of hypotheses the Hydrostatic Pressure Theory is B.C.to the beginning of the Christian have been projected concerning mima popular (Nikiforoff, 1941; Retzer, era (Dix, 1964) and is recognized as mounds in north Texas, no specific 1945). A recent study of landscape the Hypsithermal period (Deevy and theory of mima mound formation is features of the Texas Gulf Coast by Flint, 1957). During the Hypsithermal commonly accepted.’ Theories of Aronow (1968) resulted in a theory of period, the deciduous forest retreated erosion and accumulation are “Landscape Deterioration.” eastward and grasslands occupied the currently the most widely accepted. The Patterned Ground Theory is vacated area. Some members of the The erosional theory suggests that the based on the concept that a network forest flora, especially grasses, removal of the intermound area by of polygonal-fissured ice could have withstood the climatic change. These running water and wind has left the developed on the landscape early in species survived, reproduced, and mounds as essentially residual forms the last ice recession. As the landscape integrated with the grassland flora (Featherman, 1872; Holland et al., began to thaw, the meltwater removed (Dix, 1964). Gleason (1923) noted 1952; Goebel, 1971). Goebel (1971) the glacial till from around the still that the three most important grass postulated that mima mounds in north frozen hemispheroidal cores of each genera Texas primarily result from a low (Andropogon, Sorghas trum, polygon. -
Oregon Spotted Frog (Rana Pretiosa) Response to Enhancement of Oviposition Habitat Degraded by Invasive Reed Canary Grass (Phalaris Arundinacea)
Herpetological Conservation and Biology 7(3):358-366. Submitted: 22 November 2011; Accepted: 26 September 2012 OREGON SPOTTED FROG (RANA PRETIOSA) RESPONSE TO ENHANCEMENT OF OVIPOSITION HABITAT DEGRADED BY INVASIVE REED CANARY GRASS (PHALARIS ARUNDINACEA) 1 2 3,4 HEATHER Q. W. KAPUST , KELLY R. MCALLISTER , AND MARC P. HAYES 1Washington Department of Natural Resources, Asset and Property Management Division, Conservation Lands Acquisition Program, 1111 Washington Street SE, PO Box 47014, Olympia,Washington 98504-7014, USA 2Washington Department of Transportation, 310 Maple Park Avenue SE, Olympia, Washington 98504-7331, USA 3Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Habitat Program, Science Division, 600 Capitol Way North, Mailstop 43143, Olympia, Washington 98501-1091, USA 4Corresponding author: [email protected] Abstract.—Invasive Reed Canarygrass (Phalaris arundinacea) is widespread in the Pacific Northwest, USA and develops dense, tall stands in shallow wetland habitats. Oregon Spotted Frogs (Rana pretiosa) are a species of conservation concern, and lay eggs in clusters in seasonally flooded margins of emergent wetlands. We hypothesized that reducing Reed Canarygrass might favor Oregon Spotted Frog oviposition in invaded shallows. In a Reed Canarygrass-dominated marsh, we examined probability of oviposition and thermal attributes in 32 pairs of mowed and unmowed plots. Oregon Spotted Frogs laid one cluster of egg masses in each of two mowed plots but no egg masses in unmowed plots, an unlikely result based on a binomial function (P = 0.006). We also recorded three separate Oregon Spotted Frog egg mass clusters outside of study plots, but exclusively in habitat that appeared structurally similar to mowed plots. We conclude that mowing may enhance oviposition habitat for Oregon Spotted Frogs in Reed Canarygrass-dominated wetlands. -
Wildlife Management Activities and Practices
WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES AND PRACTICES COMPREHENSIVE WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT PLANNING GUIDELINES for the Post Oak Savannah And Blackland Prairie Ecological Regions Revised April 2010 The following Texas Parks & Wildlife Department staff have contributed to this document: Kirby Brown, Private Lands and Habitat Program Director (Retired) David Rideout, Technical Guidance Biologist (Retired) Matt Wagner, Technical Guidance Biologist – College Station Jim Dillard, Technical Guidance Biologist – Mineral Wells Linda Campbell, Program Director, Private Lands & Public Hunting Program—Austin Linda McMurry, Private Lands and Public Hunting Program Assistant -- Austin With Additional Contributions From: Terry Turney, Rare Species Biologist, San Marcos Trey Carpenter, Manager -- Granger Wildlife Management Area Dale Prochaska, Private Lands Biologist – Kerr Wildlife Management Area Nathan Rains, Private Lands Biologist – Cleburne TABLE OF CONTENTS Comprehensive Wildlife Management Planning Guidelines Post Oak Savannah and Blackland Prairie Ecological Regions INTRODUCTION Specific Habitat Management Practices, by Activities HABITAT CONTROL EROSION CONTROL PREDATOR CONTROL PROVIDING SUPPLEMENTAL WATER PROVIDING SUPPLEMENTAL FOOD PROVIDING SUPPLEMENTAL SHELTER CENSUS APPENDICES APPENDIX A: General Habitat Management Considerations, Recommendations, and Intensity Levels APPENDIX B: Determining Qualification for Wildlife Management Use APPENDIX C: Wildlife Management Plan Overview APPENDIX D: Livestock Management Recommendations APPENDIX E: Vegetation -
Soil Morphological Characteristics of Prairie Mounds in the Forested Region of South-Central United States
Soil morphological characteristics of prairie mounds in the forested region of south-central United States Brad Lee A and Brian Carter B APlant and Soil Sciences Department, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY 40546, Email [email protected] BPlant and Soil Sciences Department, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, OK 74078, Email [email protected] Abstract Prairie mounds are common in the prairie islands of the forested regions of the south-central United States, however their origin is not well understood. A topographic survey and pedon investigation of a mound and intermound area was conducted in a grassed field of prairie mounds 15 – 25 m in diameter and ~ 1 m. Both soils contain three parent materials: loess over an alluvial silty clay paleosol underlain by weathered shale. The mounded soil loess thickness is ~1.5 m while the loess in the intermound area is ~0.5 m thick. Fragic soil properties (dense, brittle, silt coats above dense horizon) are present in the loess immediately above the paleosol contact. Crayfish ( Cambarus spp .) chimneys in the intermound and abundant gopher burrows (Geomys spp .) above the fragic horizon in the mound mound and loess of the intermound soil indicate the soils across the field are actively bioturbated. Depletions near the surface of the intermound soil indicate a seasonally high water table. Relict crayfish krotavinas in the paleosol under the mound and active crayfish burrows in intermound areas suggest the entire plain was previously bioturbated by crayfish. Bioturbation by gophers appears to be more recent and associated with the loess deposit. Key Words Prairie pimples, pimpled plains, mima mounds, Arkansas River valley. -
Thomomys Mazama (Ssp
U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE SPECIES ASSESSMENT AND LISTING PRIORITY ASSIGNMENT FORM SCIENTIFIC NAME: Thomomys mazama (ssp. couchi, douglasii, glacialis, louiei, melanops, pugetensis, tacomensis, tumuli, yelmensis) COMMON NAME: Mazama pocket gopher (Although the common name “western pocket gopher” was once applied to pocket gophers in Washington, “Mazama pocket gopher” is now used to distinguish this complex of subspecies from the “western pocket gopher” subspecies in Oregon and California), including: Shelton pocket gopher (T. m. couchi) Brush Prairie pocket gopher (T. m. douglasii) Roy Prairie pocket gopher (T. m. glacialis)1 Cathlamet (or Louie’s) pocket gopher (T. m. louiei)2 Olympic pocket gopher (T. m. melanops) Olympia pocket gopher (T. m. pugetensis)1 Tacoma pocket gopher (T. m. tacomensis)1, 2 Tenino pocket gopher (T. m. tumuli)1 Yelm pocket gopher (T. m. yelmensis)1 1 Five subspecies may eventually be renamed as one or two subspecies. 2 Two subspecies may be extinct. See discussion of taxonomy below. LEAD REGION: Region 1 INFORMATION CURRENT AS OF: March 2007 STATUS/ACTION: Species assessment - determined species did not meet the definition of endangered or threatened under the Act and, therefore, was not elevated to Candidate status ___ New candidate X Continuing candidate _ Non-petitioned _X Petitioned - Date petition received: December 11, 2002 90-day positive - FR date: 12-month warranted but precluded - FR date: Did the petition request a reclassification of a listed species? FOR PETITIONED CANDIDATE SPECIES: a. Is listing warranted (if yes, see summary of threats below)? yes b. To date, has publication of a proposal to list been precluded by other higher priority listing actions? yes c. -
DEPARTMENT of FISH and WILDLIFE Mailing Address: P.O
State of Washington DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE Mailing Address: P.O. Box 43200, Olympia, WA 98504-3200 • (360) 902-2200 • TDD (360) 902-2207 Main Office Location: Natural Resources Building, 1111 Washington Street SE, Olympia, WA DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE (DNS) Name of Proposal: DNS 20-023: SCATTER CREEK WILDLIFE AREA MANAGEMENT PLAN Description of Proposal: This is a new management plan for the Scatter Creek Wildlife Area. Over the next 10 years the plan will direct management activities on the following wildlife area units: 1. Black River (109 acres) 2. Davis Creek (542 acres) 3. Glacial Heritage (80 acres) 4. Scatter Creek (1087 acres) 5. Skookumchuck (966 acres) 6. West Rocky Prairie (809 acres) Proposed uses include fish and wildlife conservation; protecting and restoring South Puget Sound prairie, oak woodlands, forests, wetlands, and riparian habitats. Examples of management activities under this plan include: weed management; utilizing timber harvest to restore prairie and oak woodland habitat; seek funding to acquire available high quality oak-prairie habitat; restore/maintain habitat for the Taylor’s checkerspot; maintain and restore Mazama pocket gopher habitat; protect, restore, maintain, and create habitat for Oregon spotted frog; protect and restore habitat for priority butterflies during the life of the plan. Enhance habitat for either band- tailed pigeon and morning dove, restore native wetland plant communities that benefit waterfowl. Recreational projects include: Develop and maintain recreational facilities at the wildlife area; conduct a trails assessment/inventory for the purpose of designating, maintaining, and adding trails on the wildlife area; develop a strategy to improve management of field trial opportunities on the wildlife area; continue the release of pheasants at the two existing pheasant release sites, and evaluate alternatives or additional replacement sites as new lands are acquired. -
Chehalis Basin Fisheries Task Force 25 Years of Action
CHEHALIS BASIN FISHERIES TASK FORCE 25 YEARS OF ACTION CHEHALIS BASIN FISHERIES TASK FORCE 25 YEARS OF ACTION Chehalis Basin Fisheries Task Force 115 S Wooding Street Aberdeen, WA 98520 Phone/Fax: (360) 533-1766 E-mail: [email protected] Website: http://www.cbftf.com Prepared by: Ellie McMillan Project Data Provided by: CBFTF Technical Staff CBFTF Board Members ©2004 Chehalis Basin Fisheries Task Force Our Mission: Producing salmon for sport and commercial fisheries; Enhancing steelhead and cutthroat trout resources; and Restoring, enhancing and protecting stream habitat critical to these anadromous species. Who are we? The CBFTF is a non-profit organization dedicated to increasing populations of salmon, steelhead, and searun cutthroat trout by and for the citizens and the communities in the Chehalis River Basin. Who is involved? Operations are governed by twenty member (maximum) Board of Directors. These community leaders represent a broad range of Chinook Salmon fisheries interests including commercial and sport fishing enterprises, Tribes, government agencies, private and public organizations and community members. The Board of Directors oversees the operations of the Task Force, determines direction and policy, evaluates projects for funding, seeks out future funding sources and conducts the business of the corporation. The Task Force does not discuss fisheries allocations or other user specific differences. At our table differences are laid aside in favor of enhancing and protecting the Chum Salmon resource for the benefit of all. What do we do? We believe the best way to restore fish runs for the long term is through a balanced approach that includes: · Basin-wide habitat restoration and protection efforts with emphasis on both fisheries restoration and water quality; · Native/wild stock restoration · Enhancement programs that are cost effective and efficient; and, · Community outreach and education that is Coho Salmon focused toward the grassroots citizenry. -
Small-Stone Content of Mima Mounds of the Columbia Plateau and Rocky Mountain Regions: Implications for Mound Origin
Great Basin Naturalist Volume 47 Number 4 Article 10 10-31-1987 Small-stone content of Mima mounds of the Columbia Plateau and Rocky Mountain regions: implications for mound origin George W. Cox San Diego State University Christopher G. Gakahu Moi University, Eldoret, Kenya Douglas W. Allen San Diego State University Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/gbn Recommended Citation Cox, George W.; Gakahu, Christopher G.; and Allen, Douglas W. (1987) "Small-stone content of Mima mounds of the Columbia Plateau and Rocky Mountain regions: implications for mound origin," Great Basin Naturalist: Vol. 47 : No. 4 , Article 10. Available at: https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/gbn/vol47/iss4/10 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Western North American Naturalist Publications at BYU ScholarsArchive. It has been accepted for inclusion in Great Basin Naturalist by an authorized editor of BYU ScholarsArchive. For more information, please contact [email protected], [email protected]. SMALL-STONE CONTENT OF MIMA MOUNDS OF THE COLUMBIA PLATEAU AND ROCKY MOUNTAIN REGIONS: IMPLICATIONS FOR MOUND ORIGIN George W. Cox', Christopher G. Gakalui", and Douglas W. Allen' Abstr.\ct —Mima moundfields were investigated at the Lawrence Memorial Grassland Preserve, located on the Columbia Plateau in southern Wasco County, Oregon, and at three locations in the San Luis Valley and Sangre de Cristo Mountains, southern Colorado, to test the alternative hypotheses of mound origin by erosion, frost action, and soil translocation by geomyid pocket gophers. The concentrations of two size classes of small stones, gravel (8-15 mm diameter) and pebbles (15-50 mm diameter), were sampled along mound-to-intermound transects and at different depths within the mounds. -
Texas Wildlife Identification Guide: a Guide to Game Animals, Game
texas parks and wildlife TEXAS WILDLIFE IDENTIFICATION GUIDE A guide to game animals, game birds, furbearers and other wildlife of Texas. INTRODUCTION TEXAS game animals, game birds, furbearers and other wildlife are important for many reasons. They provide countless hours of viewing and recreational opportunities.They benefit the Texas economy through hunting and “nature tourism” such as birdwatching. Commercial businesses that provide birdseed, dry corn and native landscaping may be devoted solely to attracting many of the animals found in this book. Local hunting and trapping economies, guiding operations and hunting leases have prospered because of the abun- dance of these animals in Texas.The Texas Parks and Wildlife Department benefits because of hunting license sales, but it uses these funds to research, manage and pro- tect all wildlife populations – not just game animals. Game animals provide humans with cultural, social, aesthetic and spiritual pleasures found in wildlife art, taxi- dermy and historical artifacts. Conservation organizations dedicated to individual species such as quail, turkey and deer, have funded thousands of wildlife projects throughout North America, demonstrating the mystique game animals have on people. Animals referenced in this pocket guide exist because their habitat exists in Texas. Habitat is food, cover, water and space, all suitably arranged.They are part of a vast food chain or web that includes thousands more species of wildlife such as the insects, non-game animals, fish and i rare/endangered species. Active management of wild landscapes is the primary means to continue having abundant populations of wildlife in Texas. Preservation of rare and endangered habitat is one way of saving some species of wildlife such as the migratory whooping crane that makes Texas its home in the winter. -
Range Managem Ent
September, 1960 Journal of Volume 13, Number 5 RANGE MANAGEM ENT site, an opening in the ponderosa Effect of Mima-Type Microrelief on pine forest, was dominated by big sagebrush (Artemisia triden- Herbage Production of Five Seeded tutu) before seeding. Soil parent material is sandstone. Grasses in Western Colorado1 The sagebrush was removed WILLIAM J. McGINNIES with a brushland plow in 1949. One-tenth-acre p 1 o t s w e r e Range Conservationist, Crops Research Division, Agri- seeded by the Rocky Mountain cultural Research Service, U. S. Department of Agri- Forest and Range Experiment . culture, Fort Collins, Colorado Station, U. S. Forest Service, in 1949, 1950, 1952, and 1953 to in- Mima-type microrelief h a s the mounds vary in height from termediate wheatgrass (Agro- been commonly observed in the less than a foot to several feet pyron intermedium), c r e s t e d treeless areas of the western and in diameter from 15 to 25 United States. This microrelief feet; the diameter is approxi- wheatgrass (A. desertorum), is characterized by low mounds mately equal to the territory of smooth brome (Bromus iner- or soil pimples, commonly called a pocket gopher. The mounds mis), Russian wildrye (E Zymus “Mima mounds” after the Mima may be closely or widely spaced. junceus), and big bluegrass (Pea Prairie in western Washington, The presence of Mima-type umplu). Some light grazing by where they were described by microrelief in Colorado has been cattle and horses had been per- Dalquest and Scheffer, (1942). reported by Scheffer, (1958). mitted in recent years, but the Some contend that the Mima Dalquest and Scheffer (1942) re- area was protected during the ported that in Washington her- mounds are a result of physical first few years following plant- actions of ice wedges and erosion bage production on top of Mima ing of the grasses.