DOCSLIB.ORG

Standardized National Vegetation Classification System Report

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Standardized National Vegetation Classification System Report USGS/NPS Vegetation Mapping Program Standardized National Vegetation Classification System - Final Draft Final Draft Standardized National Vegetation Classification System USGS/NPS Vegetation Mapping Program November 1994 Prepared for: United States Department of Interior United States Geological Survey and National Park Service Prepared By: The Nature Conservancy 1815 N. Lynn Street Arlington, Virginia 22209 Environmental Systems Research Institute 380 New York Street Redlands, California 92373 USGS/NPS Vegetation Mapping Program Standardized National Vegetation Classification System - Final Draft ESRI, ARC/INFO, PC ARC/INFO, ArcView, and ArcCAD are registered trademarks of Environmental Systems Research Institute, Inc. ARC/INFO COGO, ARC/INFO NETWORK, ARC/INFO TIN, ARC/INFO GRID, ARC/INFO LIBRARIAN, ARCSHELL, ARCEDIT, ARCPLOT, ARC Macro Language (AML), Simple Macro Language (SML), DATABASE INTEGRATOR, IMAGE INTEGRATOR, WorkStation ARC/INFO, ArcBrowser, ArcCensus, ARC News, ArcKits, ARCware, ArcCity, ArcDoc, ArcExpress, ArcFrame, ArcScan, ArcScene, ArcSchool, ArcSdl, ArcStorm, ArcTools, ArcUSA, ArcWorld, Avenue, FormEdit, Geographic User Interface (GUI), Geographic User System (GUS), Geographic Table of Contents (GTC), ARC Development Framework (ADF), PC ARCEDIT, PC ARCPLOT, PC ARCSHELL, PC OVERLAY, PC NETWORK, PC DATA CONVERSION, PC STARTER KIT, TABLES, University LAB KIT, the ESRI corporate logo, the ARC/INFO logo, the PC ARC/INFO logo, the ArcView logo, the ArcCAD logo, the ArcData logo, ESRI—Team GIS, and ESRI—The GIS People are trademarks of Environmental Systems Research Institute, Inc. ARCMAIL, ArcData, and Rent-a-Tech are service marks of Environmental Systems Research Institute, Inc. Other companies and products herein are trademarks or registered trademarks of their respective trademark owners. The information contained in any associated brochures is subject to change without notice. USGS/NPS Vegetation Mapping Program Standardized National Vegetation Classification System - Final Draft Table of Contents Section Page Executive Summary ...........................................................................................1-1 1.0 Introduction.................................................................................................1-4 1.1 Objectives of the Report ....................................................................................................1-4 1.1.1 Relationship to other reports in this series...............................................................1-5 1.2 Structure of the Report.......................................................................................................1-5 1.3 Terms of the Vegetation Mapping Project.........................................................................1-6 1.3.1 Project objectives.....................................................................................................1-6 1.3.2 Contract requirements..............................................................................................1-6 1.3.2.1 Classification System .....................................................................................1-6 1.3.2.2 Map Scale ......................................................................................................1-6 1.3.2.3 Map Accuracy ................................................................................................1-7 1.3.2.4 Digital Products.............................................................................................1-7 2.0 The Importance of a National Vegetation Classification Standard .......2-1 2.1 Applications of a Standard National Vegetation Classification System............................2-1 2.1.1 Facilitate regional and national resource assessments.............................................2-1 2.1.2 Advance scientific knowledge .................................................................................2-2 2.1.3 Support park planning and natural resources management .....................................2-2 2.1.4 Support ecosystem management initiatives ...................................................................2-2 2.2 Specifications/Requirement of a Candidate Standard ..............................................................2-3 3.0 Vegetation Classification: Background ........................................................ 3-1 3.1 What is Classification? ..............................................................................................................3-1 3.1.1 Community units and continua.......................................................................................3-1 Table of Contents November 1994 iii USGS/NPS Vegetation Mapping Program Standardized National Vegetation Classification System - Final Draft 3.2 Review of Different Approaches to Classification...................................................................3-2 3.2.1 Vegetation classifications................................................................................................3-2 3.2.1.1 Physiognomic Methods.........................................................................................3-2 3.2.1.2 Floristic Methods..................................................................................................3-4 3.2.1.3 Potential versus existing vegetation.....................................................................3-5 3.2.2 Site classifications ...........................................................................................................3-6 3.2.2.1 Site classifications emphasizing vegetation.........................................................3-6 3.2.2.2 Site classifications emphasizing multiple factors ...............................................3-7 3.2.3 Land cover classifications...............................................................................................3-8 3.2.4 Combined classification approaches ..............................................................................3-8 3.2.4.1 Physiognomic-Floristic Approaches....................................................................3-9 4.0 The Nature Conservancy's Vegetation Classification System .........................4-1 4.1 Approach of the Vegetation Classifiction System....................................................................4-1 4.1.1 Background......................................................................................................................4-1 4.1.2 Guiding principles ...........................................................................................................4-2 4.1.2.1 Appropriate for conservation planning and management ..................................4-2 4.1.2.2 Efficient use of existing information ....................................................................4-2 4.1.2.3 Flexible..................................................................................................................4-3 4.1.2.4 Emphasis on Natural and Semi-natural Vegetation............................................4-3 4.2 Development of the Nature Conservancy Classification System ............................................4-4 4.2.1 Identification of classification units................................................................................4-4 4.2.2 International Efforts ........................................................................................................4-5 4.2.3 Support from Federal and Academic Partners ...............................................................4-5 4.2.3.1 U.S. Geological Survey.........................................................................................4-6 4.2.3.2 United States Fish and Wildlife Service...............................................................4-6 4.2.3.3 United States Forest Service ................................................................................4-6 4.2.3.4 National Park Service...........................................................................................4-7 4.2.3.5 Environmental Protection Agency .......................................................................4-7 4.2.3.6 Inter-agency Groups.............................................................................................4-8 4.2.3.7 Academic Partners ...............................................................................................4-8 4.3 Tool and Methods that Support the Documentation and Development of the Classification..............................................................................................................................4-8 4.3.1 Field sampling .................................................................................................................4-8 4.3.2 Community descriptions ...............................................................................................4-10 Table of Contents November 1994 iv USGS/NPS Vegetation Mapping Program Standardized National Vegetation Classification System - Final Draft 4.3.2.1 Characterization variables and vegetation keys ...............................................4-10 4.3.2.2 Biological and Conservation Data System Community Records .....................4-11 4.3.3 Conservation Ranking...................................................................................................4-12 5.0 A Standard National Vegetation Classification System .............................. 5-1 5.1 Characteristics of the National Vegetation Classification System...........................................5-1 5.1.1 Based on
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Impacts of Agricultural Management Systems on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services in Highly Simplified Dryland Landscapes
    sustainability Review Impacts of Agricultural Management Systems on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services in Highly Simplified Dryland Landscapes Subodh Adhikari 1,2,* , Arjun Adhikari 3,4, David K. Weaver 1 , Anton Bekkerman 5 and Fabian D. Menalled 1,* 1 Department of Land Resources and Environmental Sciences, Montana State University, P.O. Box 173120, Bozeman, MT 59717-3120, USA; [email protected] 2 Department of Entomology, Plant Pathology and Nematology; 875 Perimeter Drive MS 2329, Moscow, ID 83844-2329, USA 3 Department of Ecology, Montana State University, P.O. Box 173460, Bozeman, MT 59717-3460, USA; [email protected] 4 Natural Resource Ecology and Management, 008C Agricultural Hall, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, OK 74078, USA 5 Department of Agricultural Economics and Economics, P.O. Box 172920, Bozeman, MT 59717-3460, USA; [email protected] * Correspondence: [email protected] (S.A.); [email protected] (F.D.M.) Received: 2 May 2019; Accepted: 9 June 2019; Published: 11 June 2019 Abstract: Covering about 40% of Earth’s land surface and sustaining at least 38% of global population, drylands are key crop and animal production regions with high economic and social values. However,land use changes associated with industrialized agricultural managements are threatening the sustainability of these systems. While previous studies assessing the impacts of agricultural management systems on biodiversity and their services focused on more diversified mesic landscapes, there is a dearth of such research
    [Show full text]
  • Biological Survey of a Prairie Landscape in Montana's Glaciated
    Biological Survey of a Prairie Landscape in Montanas Glaciated Plains Final Report Prepared for: Bureau of Land Management Prepared by: Stephen V. Cooper, Catherine Jean and Paul Hendricks December, 2001 Biological Survey of a Prairie Landscape in Montanas Glaciated Plains Final Report 2001 Montana Natural Heritage Program Montana State Library P.O. Box 201800 Helena, Montana 59620-1800 (406) 444-3009 BLM Agreement number 1422E930A960015 Task Order # 25 This document should be cited as: Cooper, S. V., C. Jean and P. Hendricks. 2001. Biological Survey of a Prairie Landscape in Montanas Glaciated Plains. Report to the Bureau of Land Management. Montana Natural Heritage Pro- gram, Helena. 24 pp. plus appendices. Executive Summary Throughout much of the Great Plains, grasslands limited number of Black-tailed Prairie Dog have been converted to agricultural production colonies that provide breeding sites for Burrow- and as a result, tall-grass prairie has been ing Owls. Swift Fox now reoccupies some reduced to mere fragments. While more intact, portions of the landscape following releases the loss of mid - and short- grass prairie has lead during the last decade in Canada. Great Plains to a significant reduction of prairie habitat Toad and Northern Leopard Frog, in decline important for grassland obligate species. During elsewhere, still occupy some wetlands and the last few decades, grassland nesting birds permanent streams. Additional surveys will have shown consistently steeper population likely reveal the presence of other vertebrate declines over a wider geographic area than any species, especially amphibians, reptiles, and other group of North American bird species small mammals, of conservation concern in (Knopf 1994), and this alarming trend has been Montana.
    [Show full text]
  • Porter's Sagebrush Is Endemic to the Wind River and Powder River Basins in Central Wyoming
    Status of Porter’s Sagebrush (Artemisia porteri) in Wyoming Prepared for the Bureau of Land Management Wyoming State Office And Wyoming Natural Diversity Database, University of Wyoming By Walter Fertig Botanical Consultant 1117 West Grand Canyon Dr. Kanab, UT 84741 25 September 2002 Agreement # K910-A4-0011 Task Order No. TO-09 ABSTRACT Porter's sagebrush is endemic to the Wind River and Powder River basins in central Wyoming. It is found primarily in sparsely vegetated Artemisia pedatifida, A. longifolia, or A. porteri communities on barren clay or ashy badlands, flats, or gullies derived from the Wind River, Wagon Bed, or Frontier formations. This species is currently known from 11 extant occurrences consisting of at least 60 subpopulations covering less than 1250 acres. Individual colonies typically number from 100-1000 individuals and occupy areas of 1-50 acres. Based on surveys in 1999, the current population of Porter's sagebrush is conservatively estimated at 50,000-75,000 plants. Porter's sagebrush is primarily threatened by mineral development (oil, natural gas and uranium) within its limited range and specialized habitat. This species was designated as Sensitive by the BLM in 2001 and occurs primarily on BLM lands in the Buffalo, Casper, and Lander field offices. No populations currently receive formal protection, although the population in the Lysite Badlands is managed under special use regulations in the BLM Lander Resource Area Resource Management Plan. Porter's sagebrush is now known to be more widespread and abundant in Wyoming than previously suspected. Until sufficient habitat is afforded protection or management strategies are developed and implemented for this species in mineral extraction areas, A.
    [Show full text]
  • Lewis and Clark Plants Collected Elsewhere That Occur in Montana
    LEWIS & CLARK PLANTS COLLECTED ELSEWHERE THAT OCCUR IN MONTANA SCIENTIFIC* L & C MATERIAL** COMMON Achillea millefolium yarrow Allium geyeri Geyer’s onion Amsinckia menziesii Menzies’ fiddleneck Amelanchier alnifolia Western serviceberry Andropogon gerardii not extant T big bluestem Anemone canadensis meadow anemone Anemone piperi Piper’s anemone Arctostaphylos uva-ursi bearberry; kinnikinnick Argentina (Potentilla) anserina common silverweed Artemisia campestris not extant northern wormwood Artemisia cana silver sage Artemisia dracunculus tarragon; silky wormwood Artemisia frigida fringed sagewort Artemisia longifolia long-leaved sage Artemisia ludoviciana prairie sagewort Aster eatonii Eaton’s aster Aster oblongifolius aromatic aster Astragalus canadensis Canada milkvetch Astragalus crassicarpus not extant T ground plum Astragalus missouriensis Missouri milkvetch Astragalus tenellus not extant pulse milkvetch Atriplex canescens four-wing saltbush Berberis (Mahonia) aquifolium shiny Oregongrape Calochortus elegans elegant sego lily; cat’s ear mariposa Calypso bulbosa fairy slipper Calystegia sepium (not native) not extant T hedge bindweed Camassia quamash blue camas Camissonia subacaulis long-leaf suncup Ceanothus sanguineus redstem ceanothus Ceanothus velutinus buckbrush; mountain balm Cerastium arvense field chickweed Chrysothamnus viscidiflorus green rabbitbrush Clarkia pulchella ragged robbin; elkhorns Claytonia lanceolata Western springbeauty Claytonia (Montia) perfoliata miner’s lettuce Claytonia (Montia) sibirica candyflower Clematis
    [Show full text]
  • Bulletin of the Natural History Museum
    Bulletin of _ The Natural History Bfit-RSH MU8&M PRIteifTBD QENERAl LIBRARY Botany Series VOLUME 23 NUMBER 2 25 NOVEMBER 1993 The Bulletin of The Natural History Museum (formerly: Bulletin of the British Museum (Natural History)), instituted in 1949, is issued in four scientific series, Botany, Entomology, Geology (incorporating Mineralogy) and Zoology. The Botany Series is edited in the Museum's Department of Botany Keeper of Botany: Dr S. Blackmore Editor of Bulletin: Dr R. Huxley Assistant Editor: Mrs M.J. West Papers in the Bulletin are primarily the results of research carried out on the unique and ever- growing collections of the Museum, both by the scientific staff and by specialists from elsewhere who make use of the Museum's resources. Many of the papers are works of reference that will remain indispensable for years to come. All papers submitted for publication are subjected to external peer review for acceptance. A volume contains about 160 pages, made up by two numbers, published in the Spring and Autumn. Subscriptions may be placed for one or more of the series on an annual basis. Individual numbers and back numbers can be purchased and a Bulletin catalogue, by series, is available. Orders and enquiries should be sent to: Intercept Ltd. P.O. Box 716 Andover Hampshire SPIO lYG Telephone: (0264) 334748 Fax: (0264) 334058 WorW Lwr abbreviation: Bull. nat. Hist. Mus. Lond. (Bot.) © The Natural History Museum, 1993 Botany Series ISSN 0968-0446 Vol. 23, No. 2, pp. 55-177 The Natural History Museum Cromwell Road London SW7 5BD Issued 25 November 1993 Typeset by Ann Buchan (Typesetters), Middlesex Printed in Great Britain at The Alden Press.
    [Show full text]
  • Badlands National Park Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment
    National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior Natural Resource Stewardship and Science Badlands National Park Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment Natural Resource Report NPS/BADL/NRR—2012/505 ON THE COVER Overlooking the Badlands Wilderness Area in Badlands National Park Photograph by: Shannon Amberg, SMUMN GSS. Badlands National Park Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment Natural Resource Report NPS/BADL/NRR—2012/505 Shannon Amberg1 Kathy Kilkus1 Sarah Gardner1 John E. Gross2 Melanie Wood2 Barry Drazkowski1 1 GeoSpatial Services Saint Mary’s University of Minnesota 700 Terrace Heights, Box #7 Winona, Minnesota 55987 2National Park Service 1201 Oakridge Drive, Suite 150 Fort Collins, Colorado 80525 April 2012 U.S. Department of the Interior National Park Service Natural Resource Stewardship and Science Fort Collins, Colorado The National Park Service, Natural Resource Stewardship and Science office in Fort Collins, Colorado publishes a range of reports that address natural resource topics of interest and applicability to a broad audience in the National Park Service and others in natural resource management, including scientists, conservation and environmental constituencies, and the public. The Natural Resource Report Series is used to disseminate high-priority, current natural resource management information with managerial application. The series targets a general, diverse audience, and may contain NPS policy considerations or address sensitive issues of management applicability. 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. Views, statements, findings, conclusions, recommendations, and data in this report do not necessarily reflect views and policies of the National Park Service, U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Biodiversity and Representativeness of Research Natural Areas on National Wildlife Refoges in Montana
    S Cooper* Stephen V 577.6 Biodiversity a"tl Nll^^rrn rep«"esenta ti veness 1999 of research natural areas on national wildlife refviges in Biodiversity and Representativeness of Research Natural Areas on National Wildlife Refoges in Montana Designated Areas Within Benton Lake, Charles M. Russell, Lake Mason, Medicine Lake, and Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuges FINAL REPORT August, 1999 ^''^-' Submitted to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Prepared by: Stephen V Cooper and Bonnie L. Heidei MONTANA Natural Heritage Program RflONTANA STATE LIBRARY 3 0864 0014 5466 2 S Cooper f Stephen V 577.6 liodi ve psi ty and Nlibrrn representativeness 1999 of research natural, areas on national wildlife refuges in UAItUUt ^,Vi ANA STATE LIBRARY 1515 East 6th Avenue Helena, MT 59620-1800 OCT 1939 Biodiversity and Representiveness of Research Natural Areas on National Wildlife Refiiges in Montana Designated Areas Within Benton Lake, Charles M. Russell, Lake Mason, Medidne Lake, and Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuges August, 1999 ©1999 Montana Natural Heritage Program State Library Building . P.O. Box 201800 .1515 East Sixth Avenue . Helena, MT . 59620-1800 . 406-444-3009 This document should be cited as follows: Cooper, S. V. and B. L. Heidel. 1999. Biodiversity and representativeness of Research Natural Areas on National Wildlife Refuges in Montana: designated areas within Benton Lake, Lake Mason, Medicine Lake, Red Rock Lakes and C. M. Russell National Wildlife Refuges. Unpublished report to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Montana Natural Heritage Program, Helena. 63 pp. plus appendices. i There are fifteen Research Natural Areas (RNAs) on National Wildlife Abstract Refuges administered by the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • The Vascular Plants of British Columbia Part 1 - Gymnosperms and Dicotyledons (Aceraceae Through Cucurbitaceae)
    The Vascular Plants of British Columbia Part 1 - Gymnosperms and Dicotyledons (Aceraceae through Cucurbitaceae) by George W. Douglas1, Gerald B. Straley2 and Del Meidinger3 1 George Douglas 2 Gerald Straley 3 Del Meidinger 6200 North Road Botanical Garden Research Branch R.R.#2 University of British Columbia B.C. Ministry of Forests Duncan, B.C. V9L 1N9 6501 S.W. Marine Drive 31 Bastion Square Vancouver, B.C. V6T 1Z4 Victoria, B. C. V8W 3E7 April 1989 Ministry of Forests THE VASCULAR PLANTS OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Part 1 - Gymnosperms and Dicotyledons (Aceraceae through Cucurbitaceae) Contributors: Dr. G.W. Douglas, Douglas Ecological Consultants Ltd., Duncan, B.C. — Aceraceae through Betulaceae Brassicaceae (except Arabis, Cardamine and Rorippa) through Cucurbitaceae. Mr. D. Meidinger, Research Branch, B.C. Ministry of Forests, Victoria, B.C. — Gymnosperms. Dr. G.B. Straley, Botanical Garden, University of B.C., Vancouver, B.C. — Boraginaceae, Arabis and Rorippa. With the cooperation of the Royal British Columbia Museum and the Botanical University of British Columbia. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS We are grateful to Dr. G.A. Allen for providing valuable suggestions during the initial stages of the project. Thanks are also due to Drs. G.A. Allen, A. Ceska and F. Ganders for reviewing taxonomically difficult groups. Mrs. O. Ceska reviewed the final draft of Part 1. Mr. G. Mulligan kindly searched the DAO herbarium and provided information on Brassicaceae. Dr. G. Argus helped with records from CAN. Louise Gronmyr and Jean Stringer kindly typed most of the contributions and helped in many ways in the production of the final manuscript which was typeset by Beth Collins.
    [Show full text]
  • Plant-List.Pdf
    SCIENTIFIC ENGLISH NOM SCIENTIFIC ENGLISH NOM NAME NAME FRANÇAIS NAME NAME FRANÇAIS Matricaria discoidea Pineappleweed Matricaire odorante DIVISION: MONOCOTYLEDONEAE Mulgedium pulchellum Blue lettuce Laitue bleue Typhaceae Cat-tail Family Nabalus albus White rattlesnakeroot Prenanthe blanche Typha angustifolia Narrow-leaved cattail Quenouille à feuilles Nabalus racemosus Glaucous rattlesnakeroot Prenathes à grappe étroites Packera paupercula Balsam groundsel Séneçon appauvri Typha latifolia Broad-leaved cattail Quenouille à feuilles Petasites frigidus Arrow-leaved coltsfoot Pétasite sagitté larges Ratibida columnifera Upright prairie coneflower Ratibida en colonne Rudbeckia hirta Black-eyed Susan Rudbeckie hérissée Sparganiaceae Burreed Family Solidago canadensis Canada goldenrod Verge d’or du Canada Sparganium eurycarpum Broad-fruited burreed Rubanier à gros fruits Solidago missouriensis Missouri goldenrod Verge d’or du Missouri Solidago nemoralis Grey-stemmed goldenrod Verge d’or des bois Juncaginaceae Arrowgrass Family Solidago ptarmicoides Upland white goldenrod Verge d’or faux- Triglochin maritima Seaside arrowgrass Troscart maritime ptarmica Triglochin palustris Marsh arrowgrass Troscart des marais Solidago rigida Stiff goldenrod Verge d’or rigide Sonchus arvensis Field sow-thistle Laiteron des champs Alismataceae Water-plantain Family Sonchus asper Prickly sow-thistle Laiteron rude Alisma triviale Northern water-plantain Alisma commun Sonchus oleraceus Common sow-thistle Laiteron potager Symphyotrichum ericoides White heath aster
    [Show full text]
  • ICBEMP Analysis of Vascular Plants
    APPENDIX 1 Range Maps for Species of Concern APPENDIX 2 List of Species Conservation Reports APPENDIX 3 Rare Species Habitat Group Analysis APPENDIX 4 Rare Plant Communities APPENDIX 5 Plants of Cultural Importance APPENDIX 6 Research, Development, and Applications Database APPENDIX 7 Checklist of the Vascular Flora of the Interior Columbia River Basin 122 APPENDIX 1 Range Maps for Species of Conservation Concern These range maps were compiled from data from State Heritage Programs in Oregon, Washington, Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, Utah, and Nevada. This information represents what was known at the end of the 1994 field season. These maps may not represent the most recent information on distribution and range for these taxa but it does illustrate geographic distribution across the assessment area. For many of these species, this is the first time information has been compiled on this scale. For the continued viability of many of these taxa, it is imperative that we begin to manage for them across their range and across administrative boundaries. Of the 173 taxa analyzed, there are maps for 153 taxa. For those taxa that were not tracked by heritage programs, we were not able to generate range maps. (Antmnnrin aromatica) ( ,a-’(,. .e-~pi~] i----j \ T--- d-,/‘-- L-J?.,: . ey SAP?E%. %!?:,KnC,$ESS -,,-a-c--- --y-- I -&zII~ County Boundaries w1. ~~~~ State Boundaries <ii&-----\ \m;qw,er Columbia River Basin .---__ ,$ 4 i- +--pa ‘,,, ;[- ;-J-k, Assessment Area 1 /./ .*#a , --% C-p ,, , Suecies Locations ‘V 7 ‘\ I, !. / :L __---_- r--j -.---.- Columbia River Basin s-5: ts I, ,e: I’ 7 j ;\ ‘-3 “.
    [Show full text]
  • Checklist of Montana Vascular Plants
    Checklist of Montana Vascular Plants June 1, 2011 By Scott Mincemoyer Montana Natural Heritage Program Helena, MT This checklist of Montana vascular plants is organized by Division, Class and Family. Species are listed alphabetically within this hierarchy. Synonyms, if any, are listed below each species and are slightly indented from the main species list. The list is generally composed of species which have been documented in the state and are vouchered by a specimen collection deposited at a recognized herbaria. Additionally, some species are included on the list based on their presence in the state being reported in published and unpublished botanical literature or through data submitted to MTNHP. The checklist is made possible by the contributions of numerous botanists, natural resource professionals and plant enthusiasts throughout Montana’s history. Recent work by Peter Lesica on a revised Flora of Montana (Lesica 2011) has been invaluable for compiling this checklist as has Lavin and Seibert’s “Grasses of Montana” (2011). Additionally, published volumes of the Flora of North America (FNA 1993+) have also proved very beneficial during this process. The taxonomy and nomenclature used in this checklist relies heavily on these previously mentioned resources, but does not strictly follow anyone of them. The Checklist of Montana Vascular Plants can be viewed or downloaded from the Montana Natural Heritage Program’s website at: http://mtnhp.org/plants/default.asp This publication will be updated periodically with more frequent revisions anticipated initially due to the need for further review of the taxonomy and nomenclature of particular taxonomic groups (e.g. Arabis s.l ., Crataegus , Physaria ) and the need to clarify the presence or absence in the state of some species.
    [Show full text]
  • Threats and Concerns the Main Threats to This Species Are Oil And
    Species and plant communities at risk accounts in the BCTS Peace – Liard Business Area Threats and Concerns The main threats to this species are oil and gas exploration and development, mining, forest harvesting, and road construction, which may occur in or adjacent to preferred habitat. Best Management Practices Current management guidelines for plant species at risk are focused at the stand level. If a potential plant species at risk is located, it is recommended that the area have ribbon placed around it, photos taken and field cards filled out with the exact location recorded. This information should then be passed on to the designated species at risk coordinator. This is essentially a fine filter approach to managing the identified species, where an individual species and/or habitat is managed singularly and at a small scale (i.e. at the stand level). This approach should be used in association with a course filter approach which involves management for a variety of species/habitats simultaneously, mainly through the use of broad scale provisions at the landscape level such as protected areas and parks. Both the plant species at risk and habitat they occur in should be protected. The current management strategies for plant species at risk are based on the Identified Wildlife Management Strategy (IWMS) wildlife and wildlife habitat provisions/measures set out by the BC Government. The best management practices are as follows: establish a core area around a known element occurrence with a 30-50 m wide buffer establish a management
    [Show full text]