DOCSLIB.ORG

Appendix 6 Biological Report (PDF)

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Biological Constraints Analysis Tahoe Donner 5-Year Trail Implementation Plan Truckee, Nevada County, CA Nevada County File Number ___ Prepared for: Tahoe Donner Association Forrest Huisman, Director of Capital Projects 11509 Northwoods Boulevard Truckee, California 96161 530-587-9487 Prepared by: Micki Kelly Kelly Biological Consulting PO Box 1625 Truckee, CA 96160 530-582-9713 June 2015, Revised December 2015 Biological Constraints Report, Tahoe Donner Trails 5-Year Implementation Plan December 2015 Table of Contents 1.0 INFORMATION SUMMARY ..................................................................................................................................... 1 2.0 PROJECT AND PROPERTY DESCRIPTION ................................................................................................................. 4 2.1 SITE OVERVIEW ............................................................................................................................................................ 4 2.2 REGULATORY FRAMEWORK ............................................................................................................................................. 4 2.2.1 Special-Status Species ...................................................................................................................................... 5 2.2.2 Wetlands and Waters of the U.S. ..................................................................................................................... 6 2.2.3 Waters of the State .......................................................................................................................................... 6 2.2.4 California Department of Fish and Wildlife ...................................................................................................... 6 3.0 METHODS .............................................................................................................................................................. 7 3.1 BACKGROUND REVIEW ................................................................................................................................................... 7 3.2 FIELD ASSESSMENTS ...................................................................................................................................................... 8 4.0 RESULTS ................................................................................................................................................................. 8 4.1 BOTANICAL RESOURCES................................................................................................................................................ 10 4.1.1 Plant Community Characterization ................................................................................................................ 10 4.1.2 Sensitive Plant Species ................................................................................................................................... 11 4.1.3 Sensitive Plant Communities .......................................................................................................................... 12 4.1.4 Noxious or Invasive Plant Species .................................................................................................................. 12 4.2 WATERS OF THE US (INCLUDING WETLANDS) AND WATERS OF THE STATE ............................................................................ 13 4.3 CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE ............................................................................................................. 14 4.4 FISH AND WILDLIFE RESOURCES ..................................................................................................................................... 15 4.4.1 Fish and Wildlife Overview ............................................................................................................................. 15 4.4.2 Special-Status Fish and Wildlife ..................................................................................................................... 17 5.0 PROTECTION MEASURES FOR BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ....................................................................................... 18 6.0 CONCLUSION ....................................................................................................................................................... 24 FIGURES AND TABLES ................................................................................................................................................ 25 FIGURE 1. OVERVIEW MAP OF TRAILS SHOWING STUDY AREA BOUNDARY (SAME AS TAHOE DONNER BOUNDARY) ............................ 26 FIGURE 2. SOILS OCCURRING IN THE VICINITY OF THE STUDY AREA ............................................................................................. 27 TABLE 1. SOILS OCCURRING IN THE VICINITY OF THE STUDY AREA .............................................................................................. 28 FIGURE 3. SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES OCCURRING WITHIN THE VICINITY OF THE STUDY AREA ............................................................ 29 TABLE 2. BIO RESOURCES POTENTIALLY PRESENT IN THE VICINITY OF INDIVIDUAL TRAILS ................................................................ 30 TABLE 3. PRELIMINARY ESTIMATE OF POTENTIAL WETLANDS AND “OTHER WATERS” IMPACTS ........................................................ 31 TABLE 4. SPECIAL STATUS PLANT SPECIES POTENTIALLY OCCURRING IN OR NEAR THE STUDY AREA .................................................. 35 TABLE 5. SPECIAL-STATUS ANIMAL SPECIES POTENTIALLY OCCURRING IN OR NEAR THE STUDY AREA ................................................ 40 REFERENCES .............................................................................................................................................................. 46 APPENDIX A. PLANT TAXA OBSERVED DURING FIELD ASSESSMENTS ......................................................................... 48 APPENDIX B. WILDLIFE TAXA OBSERVED DURING FIELD ASSESSMENTS .................................................................... 53 APPENDIX C. REPRESENTATIVE PHOTOS .................................................................................................................... 54 ATTACHMENT. CNDDB OCCURRENCE REPORT ........................................................................................................... 58 Biological Constraints Report, Tahoe Donner Trails 5-Year Implementation Plan December 2015 1.0 Information Summary The purpose of this report is to provide a summary of biological resource issues to guide the trail planning and implementation as discussed in the Tahoe Donner Trails Five-Year Implementation Plan (5YIPlan) (Ball 2015) and the 22 individual projects it contains. As part of that effort, Biological Resource Protection Measures have been developed and included in Section 5 of this report to avoid potential impacts to biological resources on each of the proposed projects, where-ever possible. If avoidance is not possible, then to minimize and mitigate. To facilitate the 5YIPlan review process, this report has been prepared in a format similar to the Nevada County Biological Inventory Guidelines. It also utilizes the Nevada County Resource Standards and Management Plan criteria to guide the report format and content. Project Site Location: The site is located in the northwest part of the Town of Truckee and within the eastern most portion of Nevada County, CA. It is on the Norden, Truckee, Independence Lake, and Hobart Mills, California USGS Quads. It is at roughly 39.21.10N latitude and 120.14.37W longitude, though it extends in in all directions beyond that point. Assessor's Parcel Number(s) (APN): Various Owner/Applicant: Tahoe Donner Association 11509 Northwoods Blvd., Truckee, CA 96161 Contact: Forrest Huisman [email protected] Principal Investigator: Kelly Biological Consulting P.O. Box 1625, Truckee, CA 96160 Contact: Micki Kelly, PWS (530) 582-9713 [email protected] Name of Person Preparing Report: Micki Kelly, PWS Report Summary The Study Area consists of the Tahoe Donner Association lands including portions of the Euer Valley (Figure 1). The proposed trail improvements include activities related to new trail installation, decommissioning and realignment of existing trails, and the repair and improvement of existing trails and dirt roadways. Botanical Resources The Study Area contains a mosaic of upland and wetland habitats. Upland habitats include Ruderal Disturbed/Developed areas that are comprised of gravel/bare places, dirt roads, and other areas 1 Biological Constraints Report, Tahoe Donner Trails 5-Year Implementation Plan December 2015 that have been heavily disturbed and Sierran Mixed Conifer, which is similar to the Jeffery Pine Forest (Pinus jeffreyi Forest Alliance) discussed in the Manual of California Vegetation (Sawyer, et. al. 2009) with some Red Fir-White Fir Forest (Abies magnifica-Abies concolor Forest Alliance) patches. The major tree species found in this habitat are Jeffrey pine, red fir (Abies magnifica), white fir (Abies concolor), and lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta). Red fir dominated areas can be found at the higher elevations of the property, predominately on the north-facing slopes. Montane Chaparral, similar to Tobacco Brush or Snow Bush Chaparral (Ceanothus velutinus Shrubland Alliance) occurs in areas burned by the Donner Ridge Fire and in other in small sunny patches generally on east, west,
Recommended publications
  • Program & Faculty Guide

    Program & Faculty Guide

    Program & Faculty Guide UNLV School of Life Sciences UNIVERSITY OF NEVADA, LAS VEGAS Contents From the Director ..................... 3 About UNLV .............................. 4 Programs .................................. 5 Facilities ................................... 7 Graduate Students ..................11 Postdoctoral Scholars ............13 Faculty Researchers .............. 15 UNLV School of Life Sciences From the Director The School of Life Sciences (SoLS) is one of the largest academic units on the University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV) campus. It has 30 full-time faculty members, 10 adjunct and research faculty, more than 1,900 undergraduate majors, and approximately 55 graduate students. The school’s offices and laborato- ries are located in four buildings: Juanita Greer White Hall (WHI), the Science and Engineering Building (SEB), the White Hall Annex (WHA2), the Campus Lab Building (CLB). Research facilities on campus include centers for bioinformatics/biostatics with access to supercomputer facilities, confocal and biological imaging core with a new a high-speed laser-scanning microscope, genomics center, greenhouses, tissue culture facilities, environmental chambers and mod- ern animal care facilities. The faculty research and graduate programs are or- ganized into Bioinformatics, Cell & Molecular Biology, Ecology & Evolutionary Biology, Integrative Physiology, School of Life Sciences Director Frank van Breukelen and Microbiology. SoLS faculty are recruited from some of the best research institutions and currently collaborate with the Nevada Institute of Personalized Medicine (NIPM), Lou Ruvo Center, Desert Research Institute (DRI), BLM, USGS, US National Park Service, and with faculty and researchers at many universities and government agencies throughout the nation and international institutions, providing ex- panded opportunities for our students. The faculty compete successfully for funding from BLM, DOE, DOI, FWS, NASA, NIH, NSF, USDA, USGS and other agencies.
  • 45Th Anniversary Year

    45Th Anniversary Year

    VOLUME 45, NO. 1 Spring 2021 Journal of the Douglasia WASHINGTON NATIVE PLANT SOCIETY th To promote the appreciation and 45 conservation of Washington’s native plants Anniversary and their habitats through study, education, Year and advocacy. Spring 2021 • DOUGLASIA Douglasia VOLUME 45, NO. 1 SPRING 2021 journal of the washington native plant society WNPS Arthur R. Kruckberg Fellows* Clay Antieau Lou Messmer** President’s Message: William Barker** Joe Miller** Nelsa Buckingham** Margaret Miller** The View from Here Pamela Camp Mae Morey** Tom Corrigan** Brian O. Mulligan** by Keyna Bugner Melinda Denton** Ruth Peck Ownbey** Lee Ellis Sarah Reichard** Dear WNPS Members, Betty Jo Fitzgerald** Jim Riley** Mary Fries** Gary Smith For those that don’t Amy Jean Gilmartin** Ron Taylor** know me I would like Al Hanners** Richard Tinsley Lynn Hendrix** Ann Weinmann to introduce myself. I Karen Hinman** Fred Weinmann grew up in a small town Marie Hitchman * The WNPS Arthur R. Kruckeberg Fellow Catherine Hovanic in eastern Kansas where is the highest honor given to a member most of my time was Art Kermoade** by our society. This title is given to Don Knoke** those who have made outstanding spent outside explor- Terri Knoke** contributions to the understanding and/ ing tall grass prairie and Arthur R. Kruckeberg** or preservation of Washington’s flora, or woodlands. While I Mike Marsh to the success of WNPS. Joy Mastrogiuseppe ** Deceased love the Midwest, I was ready to venture west Douglasia Staff WNPS Staff for college. I earned Business Manager a Bachelor of Science Acting Editor Walter Fertig Denise Mahnke degree in Wildlife Biol- [email protected] 206-527-3319 [email protected] ogy from Colorado State Layout Editor University, where I really Mark Turner Office and Volunteer Coordinator [email protected] Elizabeth Gage got interested in native [email protected] plants.
  • Botany Biological Evaluation

    Botany Biological Evaluation

    APPENDIX I Botany Biological Evaluation Biological Evaluation for Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive Plants and Fungi Page 1 of 35 for the Upper Truckee River Sunset Stables Restoration Project November 2009 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE – FOREST SERVICE LAKE TAHOE BASIN MANAGEMENT UNIT Upper Truckee River Sunset Stables Restoration Project El Dorado County, CA Biological Evaluation for Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive Plants and Fungi PREPARED BY: ENTRIX, Inc. DATE: November 2009 APPROVED BY: DATE: _____________ Name, Forest Botanist, Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit SUMMARY OF EFFECTS DETERMINATION AND MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS AND/OR REQUIREMENTS One population of a special-status bryophyte, three-ranked hump-moss (Meesia triquetra), was observed in the survey area during surveys on June 30, 2008 and August 28, 2008. The proposed action will not affect the moss because the population is located outside the project area where no action is planned. The following species of invasive or noxious weeds were identified during surveys of the Project area: cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum); bullthistle (Cirsium vulgare); Klamathweed (Hypericum perforatum); oxe-eye daisy (Leucanthemum vulgare); and common mullein (Verbascum Thapsus). The threat posed by these weed populations would not increase if the proposed action is implemented. An inventory and assessment of invasive and noxious weeds in the survey area is presented in the Noxious Weed Risk Assessment for the Upper Truckee River Sunset Stables Restoration Project (ENTRIX 2009). Based on the description of the proposed action and the evaluation contained herein, we have determined the following: There would be no significant effect to plant species listed as threatened, endangered, proposed for listing, or candidates under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA), administered by the U.S.
  • BOTANICAL FIELD RECONNAISSANCE REPORT Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit

    BOTANICAL FIELD RECONNAISSANCE REPORT Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit

    BOTANICAL FIELD RECONNAISSANCE REPORT Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit Project: Burke Creek Highway 50 Crossing and Realignment Project FACTS ID: Location: portions of SEC 22 and SEC 23 T13 N R18 E UTM: Survey Dates:5/13/, 6/25, 8/12/2015 Surveyor/s: Jacquelyn Picciani for Wood Rodgers Directions to Site: Access to the west portion of Burke Creek is gained by turning west on Kahle Drive, and parking in the defined parking lot. Access to the east portion of Burke Creek is gained by turning east on Kahle Drive and parking to the north in the adjacent commercial development parking area. USGS Quad Name: South Lake Tahoe Survey type: General and Intuitive Controlled Describe survey route taken: Survey area includes all road shoulders and right –of –way within the proposed project boundaries, a commercial development on east side of US Highway 50 just north of Kahle Drive, and portions of the Burke Creek/Rabe Meadows complex (Figure 1). Project description: The project area includes open space administered by Nevada Tahoe Conservation District and the USFS, and commercial development, with the majority of the project area sloping west to Lake Tahoe. The Nevada Tahoe Conservation District is partnering with USFS, Nevada Department of Transportation (NDOT), Douglas County and the Nevada Division of State Lands to implement the Burke Creek Highway 50 Crossing and Realignment Project (Project). The project area spans from Jennings Pond in Rabe Meadow to the eastern boundary of the Sierra Colina Development in Lake Village. Burke Creek flows through five property ownerships in the project area including the USFS, private (Sierra Colina and 801 Apartments LLC), Douglas County and NDOT.
  • December 1977 MIKES Umarr

    December 1977 MIKES Umarr

    n 30 X University of Nevada Reno Correlation of Selected Nevada Lignite Deposits by Pollen Analysis A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Serenes ty David A. Orsen Ul December 1977 MIKES UMARr " T h e s i s m 9 7 @ 1978 DAVID ALAN ORSEN ALL RIGHTS RESERVED The thesis of David A. Orsen is approved: University of Nevada Reno D ec|inber 1977 XI ABSTRACT Crystal Peak, Coal Valley and Coaldale lignites were deposited in penecontemporaneous environments containing similar floral assemblages indicating a uniform climatic regime may have existed over west-central Nevada during late Barstovian-early Clarendoni&n time. Palynological evidence indicates a late Duchesnean to early Chadronian age for the lignites at Elko. At Tick Canyon no definitive age was ascertained. At all locations, excepting Tick Canyon, field and palynologic evidence indicates low energy, shallow, fresh-water environments existed during the deposition of the lignite sequences. Pollen grains indicated that woodland communities dominated the landscape while mixed forests existed locally. Aquatic and marsh-like vegetation inhabited, and was primarily responsible for the in situ organic deposits in the shallower regions of the lakes. At each location, particularly at Tick Canyon, transported organic material noticeably contributed to the deposits. Past production is recorded from Coal Valley and Coaldale, however no future development seems feasible. PLEASE NOTE: This dissertation contains color photographs which will not reproduce
  • Mammal Species Native to the USA and Canada for Which the MIL Has an Image (296) 31 July 2021

    Mammal Species Native to the USA and Canada for Which the MIL Has an Image (296) 31 July 2021

    Mammal species native to the USA and Canada for which the MIL has an image (296) 31 July 2021 ARTIODACTYLA (includes CETACEA) (38) ANTILOCAPRIDAE - pronghorns Antilocapra americana - Pronghorn BALAENIDAE - bowheads and right whales 1. Balaena mysticetus – Bowhead Whale BALAENOPTERIDAE -rorqual whales 1. Balaenoptera acutorostrata – Common Minke Whale 2. Balaenoptera borealis - Sei Whale 3. Balaenoptera brydei - Bryde’s Whale 4. Balaenoptera musculus - Blue Whale 5. Balaenoptera physalus - Fin Whale 6. Eschrichtius robustus - Gray Whale 7. Megaptera novaeangliae - Humpback Whale BOVIDAE - cattle, sheep, goats, and antelopes 1. Bos bison - American Bison 2. Oreamnos americanus - Mountain Goat 3. Ovibos moschatus - Muskox 4. Ovis canadensis - Bighorn Sheep 5. Ovis dalli - Thinhorn Sheep CERVIDAE - deer 1. Alces alces - Moose 2. Cervus canadensis - Wapiti (Elk) 3. Odocoileus hemionus - Mule Deer 4. Odocoileus virginianus - White-tailed Deer 5. Rangifer tarandus -Caribou DELPHINIDAE - ocean dolphins 1. Delphinus delphis - Common Dolphin 2. Globicephala macrorhynchus - Short-finned Pilot Whale 3. Grampus griseus - Risso's Dolphin 4. Lagenorhynchus albirostris - White-beaked Dolphin 5. Lissodelphis borealis - Northern Right-whale Dolphin 6. Orcinus orca - Killer Whale 7. Peponocephala electra - Melon-headed Whale 8. Pseudorca crassidens - False Killer Whale 9. Sagmatias obliquidens - Pacific White-sided Dolphin 10. Stenella coeruleoalba - Striped Dolphin 11. Stenella frontalis – Atlantic Spotted Dolphin 12. Steno bredanensis - Rough-toothed Dolphin 13. Tursiops truncatus - Common Bottlenose Dolphin MONODONTIDAE - narwhals, belugas 1. Delphinapterus leucas - Beluga 2. Monodon monoceros - Narwhal PHOCOENIDAE - porpoises 1. Phocoena phocoena - Harbor Porpoise 2. Phocoenoides dalli - Dall’s Porpoise PHYSETERIDAE - sperm whales Physeter macrocephalus – Sperm Whale TAYASSUIDAE - peccaries Dicotyles tajacu - Collared Peccary CARNIVORA (48) CANIDAE - dogs 1. Canis latrans - Coyote 2.
  • Evolution of Portulacineae Marked by Gene Tree Conflict and Gene Family Expansion Associated with Adaptation to Harsh Environments

    Evolution of Portulacineae Marked by Gene Tree Conflict and Gene Family Expansion Associated with Adaptation to Harsh Environments

    Supplementary Figures Evolution of Portulacineae marked by gene tree conflict and gene family expansion associated with adaptation to harsh environments Ning Wang, Email: [email protected] Stephen A. Smith, E-mail: [email protected] Dendroscope view Limeaceae_Limeum aethiopicum Montiaceae_Phemeranthus parviflorus Basellaceae_Anredera cordifolia Anacampserotaceae_Anacampseros kurtzii Portulacaceae_Portulaca amilis Cactaceae_Leuenbergeria lychnidiflora Cactaceae_Stenocereus yunckeri Cactaceae_Maihuenia poeppigii Cactaceae_Opuntia bravoana Cactaceae_Pereskia grandifolia Talinaceae_Talinum paniculatum A Didiereaceae_Portulacaria afra PhyloPlot view Limeaceae_Limeum aethiopicum Montiaceae_Phemeranthus parviflorus Basellaceae_Anredera cordifolia Anacampserotaceae_Anacampseros kurtzii 0.008 Portulacaceae_Portulaca amilis 0.992 0.118 Cactaceae_Leuenbergeria lychnidiflora Cactaceae_Stenocereus yunckeri 0.24 0.146 0.76 Cactaceae_Maihuenia poeppigii 0.854 0.882 0.364 Cactaceae_Opuntia bravoana 0.636 Cactaceae_Pereskia grandifolia B Talinaceae_Talinum paniculatum Didiereaceae_Portulacaria afra FIG. S1. The phylogenetic network inferred using MPL method in PhyloNet. Taxa were selected from each plant family based on their gene occupancy statistics. A: network visualized in Dendroscope, and B: the same network with inheritance probabilities between hybridization lineages visualized by PhyloPlot that implemented in PhyloNetworks (Solís-Lemus et al. 2017). Anacampserotaceae Basellaceae Anacampseros A. kurtzii Talinopsis frutescens Anredera cordifolia Basella alba filamentosa Bese 400 4000 4000 3000 3000 200 2000 2000 0 0 0 0 0 0.01 1.0 2.0 3.0 0.01 1.0 2.0 3.0 0.01 1.0 2.0 3.0 0.01 1.0 2.0 3.0 0.01 1.0 2.0 3.0 Portulacaceae Portulaca amilis P. cryptopetala P. grandiflora P. molokiniensis P. oleracea P. pilosa 300 500 800 800 200 200 300 150 400 400 100 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.01 1.0 2.0 3.0 0.01 1.0 2.0 3.0 0.01 1.0 2.0 3.0 0.01 1.0 2.0 3.0 0.01 1.0 2.0 3.0 0.01 1.0 2.0 3.0 Talinaceae P.
  • Washington Plant List Douglas County by Scientific Name

    Washington Plant List Douglas County by Scientific Name

    The NatureMapping Program Washington Plant List Revised: 9/15/2011 Douglas County by Scientific Name (1) Non- native, (2) ID Scientific Name Common Name Plant Family Invasive √ 763 Acer glabrum Douglas maple Aceraceae 800 Alisma graminium Narrowleaf waterplantain Alismataceae 19 Alisma plantago-aquatica American waterplantain Alismataceae 1087 Rhus glabra Sumac Anacardiaceae 650 Rhus radicans Poison ivy Anacardiaceae 29 Angelica arguta Sharp-tooth angelica Apiaceae 809 Angelica canbyi Canby's angelica Apiaceae 915 Cymopteris terebinthinus Turpentine spring-parsley Apiaceae 167 Heracleum lanatum Cow parsnip Apiaceae 991 Ligusticum grayi Gray's lovage Apiaceae 709 Lomatium ambiguum Swale desert-parsley Apiaceae 997 Lomatium canbyi Canby's desert-parsley Apiaceae 573 Lomatium dissectum Fern-leaf biscuit-root Apiaceae 582 Lomatium geyeri Geyer's desert-parsley Apiaceae 586 Lomatium gormanii Gorman's desert-parsley Apiaceae 998 Lomatium grayi Gray's desert-parsley Apiaceae 999 Lomatium hambleniae Hamblen's desert-parsley Apiaceae 609 Lomatium macrocarpum Large-fruited lomatium Apiaceae 1000 Lomatium nudicaule Pestle parsnip Apiaceae 634 Lomatium triternatum Nine-leaf lomatium Apiaceae 474 Osmorhiza chilensis Sweet-cicely Apiaceae 264 Osmorhiza occidentalis Western sweet-cicely Apiaceae 1044 Osmorhiza purpurea Purple sweet-cicely Apiaceae 492 Sanicula graveolens Northern Sierra) sanicle Apiaceae 699 Apocynum androsaemifolium Spreading dogbane Apocynaceae 813 Apocynum cannabinum Hemp dogbane Apocynaceae 681 Asclepias speciosa Showy milkweed Asclepiadaceae
  • Vascular Plant Inventory of Mount Rainier National Park

    Vascular Plant Inventory of Mount Rainier National Park

    National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior Natural Resource Program Center Vascular Plant Inventory of Mount Rainier National Park Natural Resource Technical Report NPS/NCCN/NRTR—2010/347 ON THE COVER Mount Rainier and meadow courtesy of 2007 Mount Rainier National Park Vegetation Crew Vascular Plant Inventory of Mount Rainier National Park Natural Resource Technical Report NPS/NCCN/NRTR—2010/347 Regina M. Rochefort North Cascades National Park Service Complex 810 State Route 20 Sedro-Woolley, Washington 98284 June 2010 U.S. Department of the Interior National Park Service Natural Resource Program Center Fort Collins, Colorado The National Park Service, Natural Resource Program Center publishes a range of reports that address natural resource topics 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 Technical Report Series is used to disseminate results of scientific studies in the physical, biological, and social sciences for both the advancement of science and the achievement of the National Park Service mission. The series provides contributors with a forum for displaying comprehensive data that are often deleted from journals because of page limitations. All manuscripts in the series receive the appropriate level of peer review to ensure that the information is scientifically credible, technically accurate, appropriately written for the intended audience, and designed and published in a professional manner. This report received informal peer review by subject-matter experts who were not directly involved in the collection, analysis, or reporting of the data.
  • Ventura County Plant Species of Local Concern

    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.
  • Sagebrush Identification Guide

    Sagebrush Identification Guide

    Sagebrush Identification Table For Use With Black Light For Use in the Inter-Great Basin Area Fluoresces Under Ultraviolet Branching Mature Plant Plant Nomenclature Light Leaf shape and size Plant Growth Form Environment Comments Pattern Height Water Alcohol Leaves 3/4 ‐1 1/4 in. Uneven topped; Main stem is undivided and trunk‐like at base;. Located long; long narrow; Leaf Uneven normally in drainage bottoms; Small concave areas and valley floors, but will normally be 4 times Colorless to Very topped; always on deep Non‐saline Non‐calcareous soils. Vegetative leader is greater Brownish to longer than it is at its "V"ed Mesic to Frigid 3.5 ft. to Very Pale blue Floral stems than 1/2 the length of the flower stalk from the same single branch. In Basin Basin Big Sagebrush Artemisia Reddish‐Brown widest point; Leaf branching/ Xeric to Ustic greater than 8 tridentata subsp. tridentata (ARTRT) Rarely pale growing there are two growth forms: One the Typical tall form (Diploid); Two a shorter to colorless margins not extending upright 4000 to 8000 ft. ft. Brownish‐red throughout form that looks similar to Wyoming sagebrush if you do not look for the trunk outward; Crushed leaves the crown (around 1 inch or so); the branching pattern; and the seedhead to vegetative have a strong turpentine leader characteristics (Tetraploid). smell Uneven Leaves 1/2 ‐ 3/4 inches topped; Uneven topped; Main stem is usually divided at ground level. Plants will often Mesic to Frigid Wyoming Big Sagebrush Colorless to Very Colorless to pale long; Leaf margins curved Floral stems Spreading/ keep the last years seed stalks into the following fall.
  • A Comparison of Cumulative-Germination Response of Cheatgrass (Bromus Tectorum L.) and Five Perennial Bunchgrass Species to Simulated Field-Temperature Regimes

    A Comparison of Cumulative-Germination Response of Cheatgrass (Bromus Tectorum L.) and Five Perennial Bunchgrass Species to Simulated Field-Temperature Regimes

    University of Nebraska - Lincoln DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln U.S. Department of Agriculture: Agricultural Publications from USDA-ARS / UNL Faculty Research Service, Lincoln, Nebraska 2010 A comparison of cumulative-germination response of cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum L.) and five perennial bunchgrass species to simulated field-temperature regimes Stuart P. Hardegree USDA-Agricultural Research Service, [email protected] Corey A. Moffet USDA-Agricultural Research Service Bruce A. Roundy Brigham Young University Thomas A. Jones USDA-Agricultural Research Service Stephen J. Novak Boise State University See next page for additional authors Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/usdaarsfacpub Part of the Agricultural Science Commons Hardegree, Stuart P.; Moffet, Corey A.; Roundy, Bruce A.; Jones, Thomas A.; Novak, Stephen J.; Clark, Patrick E.; Pierson, Frederick B.; and Flerchinger, Gerald N., "A comparison of cumulative-germination response of cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum L.) and five perennial bunchgrass species to simulated field- temperature regimes" (2010). Publications from USDA-ARS / UNL Faculty. 855. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/usdaarsfacpub/855 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the U.S. Department of Agriculture: Agricultural Research Service, Lincoln, Nebraska at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. It has been accepted for inclusion in Publications from USDA-ARS / UNL Faculty by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@University