DOCSLIB.ORG

Dixie Meadows Geothermal Utilization Project Environmental Assessment

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Appendix D Biological Survey Reports EMPSi 2016; WRC 2013; ESRS 2013 This page intentionally left blank. Biological Survey Report ORNI 32, LLC DIXIE MEADOWS GEOTHERMAL UTILIZATION PROJECT PERSHING AND CHURCHILL COUNTIES, NEVADA July 2016 Environmental Management and Planning Solutions, Inc. 4741 Caughlin Parkway, Suite 4 Reno, Nevada 89519 This page intentionally left blank. TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter Page 1. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................ 1-1 1.1 Project Background ...................................................................................................................... 1-1 1.2 Regional and Geographic Overview ......................................................................................... 1-2 1.3 Methods .......................................................................................................................................... 1-2 1.3.1 Ground Survey ............................................................................................................... 1-2 1.3.2 Golden Eagle Aerial Survey ......................................................................................... 1-5 2. VEGETATION ................................................................................................................. 2-1 2.1 Vegetation Types within the Project Area ............................................................................. 2-1 2.1.1 Inter-Mountain Basins Mixed Salt Desert Scrub .................................................... 2-1 2.1.2 Inter-Mountain Basins Greasewood Flat .................................................................. 2-2 2.1.3 Invasive Shrubland, Forbland, and Grassland .......................................................... 2-2 2.1.4 Inter-Mountain Basins Big Sagebrush Shrubland ..................................................... 2-2 2.1.5 North American Arid West Emergent Marsh ........................................................ 2-5 2.1.6 Inter-Mountain Basins Playa ........................................................................................ 2-5 2.2 Noxious, Invasive, and Nonnative Species .............................................................................. 2-6 3. WILDLIFE ...................................................................................................................... 3-1 3.1 Regional Overview ....................................................................................................................... 3-1 3.2 Migratory Birds .............................................................................................................................. 3-2 3.2.1 Regulatory Background ................................................................................................ 3-2 3.2.2 Migratory Birds in the Survey Area ........................................................................... 3-2 3.3 Game Species ................................................................................................................................. 3-5 3.4 Other Wildlife Species ................................................................................................................ 3-5 4. SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES ............................................................................................. 4-1 4.1 Regulatory Background ............................................................................................................... 4-1 4.2 Special Status Species ................................................................................................................... 4-3 5. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................................................... 5-1 5.1 Summary ......................................................................................................................................... 5-1 5.2 Recommendations ........................................................................................................................ 5-2 6. REFERENCES .................................................................................................................. 6-1 FIGURES Page 1 Project Area .................................................................................................................................................. 1-3 2 Southwest Regional GAP Analysis Landcover Types within Survey Area ..................................... 2-3 3 Noxious Weeds ........................................................................................................................................... 2-7 4 Special Status Species Observations ..................................................................................................... 4-13 July 2016 Dixie Meadows Biological Survey Report i TABLES Page Table 2-1 SWReGAP Landcover Types within the Survey Area .................................................................... 2-5 Table 2-2 Noxious Weeds ....................................................................................................................................... 2-9 Table 3-1 Typical Wildlife Species Associated with Habitats within the Survey Area ............................... 3-1 Table 3-2 Birds of Conservation Concern Potentially Occurring within the Survey Area ...................... 3-3 Table 3-3 Game Birds Below Desired Condition Potentially Occurring within the Survey Area .......... 3-4 Table 4-1 Special Status Species .............................................................................................................................. 4-3 APPENDICES A Agency Correspondence B Photo Log C List of Species Observed ii Dixie Meadows Biological Survey Report July 2016 ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS Full Phrase BLM United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management ESA Endangered Species Act GPS global positioning system IM Instruction Memorandum kV kilovolt MW megawatt NDOW Nevada Department of Wildlife NNHP Nevada Natural Heritage Program Orni 32 Orni 32 LLC SWReGAP Southwest Regional Gap Analysis Project USC United States Code USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service USGS United States Geological Survey July 2016 Dixie Meadows Biological Survey Report iii Table of Contents This page intentionally left blank. iv Dixie Meadows Biological Survey Report July 2016 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION This report summarizes observations made during biological field surveys for the proposed Ormat Nevada Inc. (Ormat) Dixie Meadows Geothermal Utilization Project (Project). The proposed site is in Churchill and Pershing Counties, Nevada (Figure 1, Project Area). The biological field surveys were conducted to identify vegetation communities; evaluate project area habitat suitability for special status plant and wildlife species; locate important habitat features, such as nest sites and riparian and wetland areas; identify invasive, nonnative species; and document wildlife use of the area. The results of the biological surveys will be used to evaluate potential impacts of the proposed Project on biological resources in the environmental document prepared by the United States (US) Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Stillwater Field Office in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). 1.1 PROJECT BACKGROUND Orni 32, LLC, a subsidiary of Ormat, is proposing the Dixie Meadows Geothermal Utilization Project in Dixie Valley, approximately 43 miles northeast of Fallon in Churchill County, Nevada (see Figure 1). Orni 32, LLC, proposes to construct up to two 30 megawatt (MW) geothermal power plants; to drill, test, and operate up to 15 geothermal production and injection well sites and 8 core hole sites; and to construct and operate pipelines to carry geothermal fluid between well fields and the power plants. Once commercial operations begin, power would be delivered to NV Energy by constructing a new 120-kilovolt (kV) interconnection line between the power plant and the Jersey Valley 120-kV transmission line. The new interconnection line would be 48 miles in length. July 2016 Dixie Meadows Biological Survey Report 1-1 1. Introduction In 2009, a biological survey was conducted within the original Dixie Meadows lease area, which is located east and southeast of the current survey area. It covered 4,936 acres (CH2M HILL 2009). In 2011, EMPSi conducted a biological survey in the project area and northern gen-tie alignment. In 2013, WRC conducted additional biological surveys in portions of the project area and in an alternate, southern gen-tie alignment, which is not covered in this report (WRC 2013; ESRS 2013). The biological surveys from 2016, detailed in this report, encompassed approximately 400 acres in the project area that have not been previously surveyed. In addition, the 2016 biological surveys covered portions of the current northern gen-tie alignment that are outside the 500-foot-wide buffer originally surveyed in 2011 (see Figure 1). 1.2 REGIONAL AND GEOGRAPHIC OVERVIEW The survey area is located on the east side of the Stillwater Range and west side of the Fish Creek Mountains. It spans from the Dixie Valley in the south up to the Jersey Valley in the north (Figure 1). The project area is located within the Great Basin ecoregion, which is a cold desert characterized by a series of uplifted mountain ranges and their associated intervening valleys. Elevations range from approximately 3,300 feet to 3,600 feet, and the Stillwater National Wildlife
Recommended publications
  • Springs and Springs-Dependent Taxa of the Colorado River Basin, Southwestern North America: Geography, Ecology and Human Impacts

    Springs and Springs-Dependent Taxa of the Colorado River Basin, Southwestern North America: Geography, Ecology and Human Impacts

    water Article Springs and Springs-Dependent Taxa of the Colorado River Basin, Southwestern North America: Geography, Ecology and Human Impacts Lawrence E. Stevens * , Jeffrey Jenness and Jeri D. Ledbetter Springs Stewardship Institute, Museum of Northern Arizona, 3101 N. Ft. Valley Rd., Flagstaff, AZ 86001, USA; Jeff@SpringStewardship.org (J.J.); [email protected] (J.D.L.) * Correspondence: [email protected] Received: 27 April 2020; Accepted: 12 May 2020; Published: 24 May 2020 Abstract: The Colorado River basin (CRB), the primary water source for southwestern North America, is divided into the 283,384 km2, water-exporting Upper CRB (UCRB) in the Colorado Plateau geologic province, and the 344,440 km2, water-receiving Lower CRB (LCRB) in the Basin and Range geologic province. Long-regarded as a snowmelt-fed river system, approximately half of the river’s baseflow is derived from groundwater, much of it through springs. CRB springs are important for biota, culture, and the economy, but are highly threatened by a wide array of anthropogenic factors. We used existing literature, available databases, and field data to synthesize information on the distribution, ecohydrology, biodiversity, status, and potential socio-economic impacts of 20,872 reported CRB springs in relation to permanent stream distribution, human population growth, and climate change. CRB springs are patchily distributed, with highest density in montane and cliff-dominated landscapes. Mapping data quality is highly variable and many springs remain undocumented. Most CRB springs-influenced habitats are small, with a highly variable mean area of 2200 m2, generating an estimated total springs habitat area of 45.4 km2 (0.007% of the total CRB land area).
  • Riverside State Park

    Riverside State Park

    Provisonal Report Rare Plant and Vegetation Survey of Riverside State Park Pacific Biodiversity Institute 2 Provisonal Report Rare Plant and Vegetation Survey of Riverside State Park Peter H. Morrison [email protected] George Wooten [email protected] Juliet Rhodes [email protected] Robin O’Quinn, Ph.D. [email protected] Hans M. Smith IV [email protected] January 2009 Pacific Biodiversity Institute P.O. Box 298 Winthrop, Washington 98862 509-996-2490 Recommended Citation Morrison, P.H., G. Wooten, J. Rhodes, R. O’Quinn and H.M. Smith IV, 2008. Provisional Report: Rare Plant and Vegetation Survey of Riverside State Park. Pacific Biodiversity Institute, Winthrop, Washington. 433 p. Acknowledgements Diana Hackenburg and Alexis Monetta assisted with entering and checking the data we collected into databases. The photographs in this report were taken by Peter Morrison, Robin O’Quinn, Geroge Wooten, and Diana Hackenburg. Project Funding This project was funded by the Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission. 3 Executive Summary Pacific Biodiversity Institute (PBI) conducted a rare plant and vegetation survey of Riverside State Park (RSP) for the Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission (WSPRC). RSP is located in Spokane County, Washington. A large portion of the park is located within the City of Spokane. RSP extends along both sides of the Spokane River and includes upland areas on the basalt plateau above the river terraces. The park also includes the lower portion of the Little Spokane River and adjacent uplands. The park contains numerous trails, campgrounds and other recreational facilities. The park receives a tremendous amount of recreational use from the nearby population.
  • W a Sh in G to N Na Tu Ra L H Er Itag E Pr Og Ra M

    W a Sh in G to N Na Tu Ra L H Er Itag E Pr Og Ra M

    PROGRAM HERITAGE NATURAL Conservation Status Ranks of Washington’s Ecological Systems Prepared for Washington Dept. of Fish and WASHINGTON Wildlife Prepared by F. Joseph Rocchio and Rex. C. Crawford August 04, 2015 Natural Heritage Report 2015-03 Conservation Status Ranks for Washington’s Ecological Systems Washington Natural Heritage Program Report Number: 2015-03 August 04, 2015 Prepared by: F. Joseph Rocchio and Rex C. Crawford Washington Natural Heritage Program Washington Department of Natural Resources Olympia, Washington 98504-7014 .ON THE COVER: (clockwise from top left) Crab Creek (Inter-Mountain Basins Big Sagebrush Steppe and Columbia Basin Foothill Riparian Woodland and Shrubland Ecological Systems); Ebey’s Landing Bluff Trail (North Pacific Herbaceous Bald and Bluff Ecological System and Temperate Pacific Tidal Salt and Brackish Marsh Ecological Systems); and Judy’s Tamarack Park (Northern Rocky Mountain Western Larch Savanna). Photographs by: Joe Rocchio Table of Contents Page Table of Contents ............................................................................................................................ ii Tables ............................................................................................................................................. iii Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 4 Methods..........................................................................................................................................
  • Wood Anatomy of Senecioneae (Compositae) Sherwin Carlquist Claremont Graduate School

    Wood Anatomy of Senecioneae (Compositae) Sherwin Carlquist Claremont Graduate School

    Aliso: A Journal of Systematic and Evolutionary Botany Volume 5 | Issue 2 Article 3 1962 Wood Anatomy of Senecioneae (Compositae) Sherwin Carlquist Claremont Graduate School Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.claremont.edu/aliso Part of the Botany Commons Recommended Citation Carlquist, Sherwin (1962) "Wood Anatomy of Senecioneae (Compositae)," Aliso: A Journal of Systematic and Evolutionary Botany: Vol. 5: Iss. 2, Article 3. Available at: http://scholarship.claremont.edu/aliso/vol5/iss2/3 ALISO VoL. 5, No.2, pp. 123-146 MARCH 30, 1962 WOOD ANATOMY OF SENECIONEAE (COMPOSITAE) SHERWIN CARLQUISTl Claremont Graduate School, Claremont, California INTRODUCTION The tribe Senecioneae contains the largest genus of flowering plants, Senecio (between 1,000 and 2,000 species). Senecioneae also encompasses a number of other genera. Many species of Senecio, as well as species of certain other senecionean genera, are woody, despite the abundance of herbaceous Senecioneae in the North Temperate Zone. Among woody species of Senecioneae, a wide variety of growth forms is represented. Most notable are the peculiar rosette trees of alpine Africa, the subgenus Dendrosenecio of Senecio. These are represented in the present study of S. aberdaricus (dubiously separable from S. battescombei according to Hedberg, 195 7), S. adnivalis, S. cottonii, and S. johnstonii. The Dendra­ senecios have been discussed with respect to taxonomy and distribution by Hauman ( 1935) and Hedberg ( 195 7). Cotton ( 1944) has considered the relationship between ecology and growth form of the Dendrosenecios, and anatomical data have been furnished by Hare ( 1940) and Hauman ( 19 3 5), but these authors furnish little information on wood anatomy.
  • 2012 Volume 71 Issue 1

    2012 Volume 71 Issue 1

    BULLETIN OF THE AMERICAN PENSTEMON SOCIETY 2012 Number 71 Membership in the American Penstemon Society is $15.00 a year for US and Canada. Overseas membership is $20.00, which includes 10 free selections from the Seed Exchange. US life membership is $150.00. Dues are payable in January of each year. Please see Membership Application form located at the back of this bulletin. Elective Officers President: Val Myrick, 20475 West Walnut, Sonora, CA 95370; [email protected] Vice-President: Andrea Wolfe, Dept. EEOR, Ohio State University, U318 W 12 Ave., Columbus, OH 43210; [email protected] Treasurer: Mary Cunningham, 25761 Deertrail Dr., Tehachapi, CA 93561; [email protected] Membership Secretary: Dale Lindgren1 and Phoebe McFarlane2, 19202 Maloney Drive, North Platte, NE 69101, 25609 S. Locust St., Greenwood Village, CO 80111; [email protected] Past President: Bob McFarlane, 5609 Locust St., Greenwood Village, CO 80111; [email protected] Executive Board: Libby Wheeler, 1635 W. Shadowridge, Fayetteville, AR 72701; [email protected] Eric Gouda, Univ. Botanic Garden, PO Box 80162, Utrecht, Netherlands NL3508TD; [email protected] Gerald L. Klingaman, 1645 Applebury Dr., Fayetteville, AR 72701; [email protected] Appointive Officers Director of Seed Exchange: Louise Parsons, 1915 SE Stone St., Corvallis, OR 97333; [email protected] Registrar of Cultivars/Hybrids: Dr. Dale Lindgren, 9202 Maloney Drive, North Platte, NE 69101; [email protected] Nominating Committee Chair: Dallas and Sharon Boge, 10735 NW Thornburg Rd, Gales Creek, OR 97117; [email protected] Finance – Auditor: Ed Godleski, 2231 Elandon Dr. Cleveland Heights, OH 44106; [email protected] Librarian: Dr.
  • Dixie Meadows Geothermal Utilization Project Environmental Assessment I Table of Contents

    Dixie Meadows Geothermal Utilization Project Environmental Assessment I Table of Contents

    Stillwater Field Office, Nevada ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ORNI 32, LLC Dixie Meadows Geothermal Utilization Project DOI-BLM-NV-C010-2016-0014-EA US Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management Carson City District Stillwater Field Office 5665 Morgan Mill Road Carson City, NV 89701 775-885-6000 Cooperating Agencies: Nevada Department of Wildlife US Fish and Wildlife Service US Navy, Naval Air Station Fallon May 2017 It is the mission of the Bureau of Land Management to sustain the health, diversity, and productivity of the public lands for the use and enjoyment of present and future generations. DOI-BLM-NV-C010-2016-0014-EA TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter Page 1. INTRODUCTION/PURPOSE AND NEED .......................................................................... 1-1 1.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 1-1 1.2 Background ..................................................................................................................................... 1-4 1.3 Purpose and Need ........................................................................................................................ 1-8 1.4 Land Use Plan Conformance Statement ................................................................................. 1-8 1.5 Relationship to Laws, Regulations, Policies, Plans, and Other Environmental Analyses .........................................................................................................................................
  • Artemisia Borealis Var. Wormskioldii, Miller Island, Washington

    Artemisia Borealis Var. Wormskioldii, Miller Island, Washington

    NATURAL HERITAGE PROGRAM HERITAGE NATURAL Wormskiold’s northern wormwood (Artemisia borealis var. wormskioldii) Miller Island Conservation Plan WASHINGTON WASHINGTON Prepared for U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Region 1 Prepared by Joseph Arnett September 20, 2010 Natural Heritage Report 2010-03 Wormskiold’s Northern Wormwood (Artemisia borealis var. wormskioldii) Miller Island Conservation Plan September 20, 2010 Prepared for The US Fish and Wildlife Service Western Washington Fish and Wildlife Office Through Section 6 funding, Region 1 Project 3E2, Segment 51 by Joseph Arnett Washington Natural Heritage Program Washington Department of Natural Resources PO Box 47014 Olympia, WA 98504-7014 ii Acknowledgements Many thanks to U.S. Forest Service staff who assisted with monitoring, including Robyn Beck, Robin Dobson, and Chuti Fiedler, and especially to Cathy Flick for all her help with logistics. Many volunteers also participated in the monitoring over the years; without their help the work would have been less successful and much less enjoyable: Nancy Allen, Kelly Amsberry, Robin Beck, Debi Budnick, Melissa Carr, Char Corkran, Kristin Currin, Rebecca Currin, Elizabeth Daniel, Kim Garner, Alison Henderson, Jurgen Hess, Susan Hess, Drew Merritt, Andrea Raven, Jamie Sheahan, Krista Thie, Jennifer Wade, Karen Whitlock, Carolyn Wright, and Sara Wu. The RareCare Program from the University of Washington provided training for many of the volunteers. Captain Jack LeFond, of Young’s Fishing Service, has transported us to the island and brought us back, and made our trips enjoyable as well as safe. Special thanks to Katie Birkhauser for her help revising the monitoring methodology in 2006. This work has been conducted with logistical support from the U.S.
  • FY 2020 Cooperative Endangered Species Conservation Fund (CESCF) Traditional Conservation Grants Program Notice of Funding Opportunity

    FY 2020 Cooperative Endangered Species Conservation Fund (CESCF) Traditional Conservation Grants Program Notice of Funding Opportunity

    FY 2020 Cooperative Endangered Species Conservation Fund (CESCF) Traditional Conservation Grants Program Notice of Funding Opportunity Notice of Funding Opportunity Number: F20AS00070 Federal Program: Department of the Interior, United States (U.S.) Fish and Wildlife Service, Ecological Services & Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) Number: 15.615 Authorizing Legislation Endangered Species Act of 1973, 16 U.S.C. 1535, as amended Paperwork Reduction Act Statement: We are collecting this information in accordance with the authorizing legislation identified above. Your response is required to obtain or retain a benefit. We will use the information you provide to conduct a competitive review and select projects for funding and, if awarded, to evaluate performance. We may not conduct or sponsor and you are not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. We estimate that it will take you on average about 40 hours to complete an initial application, about 3 hours to revise the terms of an award, and about 8 hours per report to prepare and submit financial and performance reports, including time to maintain records and gather information. Actual time for these activities will vary depending on program-specific requirements. You may send comments on the burden estimate or any other aspect of this information collection to the Information Collection Clearance Officer, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, MS BPHC, 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041-3803. OMB Control Number: 1018-0100 (Expiration Date: 7/31/2021) I. Program Description More than half of all species listed as endangered or threatened spend at least part of their life cycle on non-federal lands.
  • Empsi Document Template

    Empsi Document Template

    US Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management Carson City District, Nevada March 2013 Carson City District Resource Management Plan Revision Areas of Critical Environmental Concern Report on the Application of the Relevance and Importance Criteria TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page SUMMARY ...................................................................................................................................... 1 I. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................ 1 II. REQUIREMENTS FOR ACEC DESIGNATION ...................................................................... 4 III. SPECIAL MANAGEMENT ATTENTION ............................................................................... 8 IV. EVALUATION PROCESS ..................................................................................................... 8 V. LIST OF PREPARERS ......................................................................................................... 36 APPENDICES A Maps of ACECs Recommended for Further Analysis in the Draft RMP TABLES Page 1 Proposed ACECs Found to Meet the Relevance and Importance Criteria ...................................... 6 2 Summary of the Existing and Proposed ACECs in the Planning Area Determined to Meet the Relevance and Importance Criteria ......................................................................................................... 10 3 Summary of the Proposed ACECs in the Planning Area Determined Not to Meet the
  • Annotated Checklist of the Vascular Plant Flora of Grand Canyon-Parashant National Monument Phase II Report

    Annotated Checklist of the Vascular Plant Flora of Grand Canyon-Parashant National Monument Phase II Report

    Annotated Checklist of the Vascular Plant Flora of Grand Canyon-Parashant National Monument Phase II Report By Dr. Terri Hildebrand Southern Utah University, Cedar City, UT and Dr. Walter Fertig Moenave Botanical Consulting, Kanab, UT Colorado Plateau Cooperative Ecosystems Studies Unit Agreement # H1200-09-0005 1 May 2012 Prepared for Grand Canyon-Parashant National Monument Southern Utah University National Park Service Mojave Network TABLE OF CONTENTS Page # Introduction . 4 Study Area . 6 History and Setting . 6 Geology and Associated Ecoregions . 6 Soils and Climate . 7 Vegetation . 10 Previous Botanical Studies . 11 Methods . 17 Results . 21 Discussion . 28 Conclusions . 32 Acknowledgments . 33 Literature Cited . 34 Figures Figure 1. Location of Grand Canyon-Parashant National Monument in northern Arizona . 5 Figure 2. Ecoregions and 2010-2011 collection sites in Grand Canyon-Parashant National Monument in northern Arizona . 8 Figure 3. Soil types and 2010-2011 collection sites in Grand Canyon-Parashant National Monument in northern Arizona . 9 Figure 4. Increase in the number of plant taxa confirmed as present in Grand Canyon- Parashant National Monument by decade, 1900-2011 . 13 Figure 5. Southern Utah University students enrolled in the 2010 Plant Anatomy and Diversity course that collected during the 30 August 2010 experiential learning event . 18 Figure 6. 2010-2011 collection sites and transportation routes in Grand Canyon-Parashant National Monument in northern Arizona . 22 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page # Tables Table 1. Chronology of plant-collecting efforts at Grand Canyon-Parashant National Monument . 14 Table 2. Data fields in the annotated checklist of the flora of Grand Canyon-Parashant National Monument (Appendices A, B, C, and D) .
  • Prosopis Kuntzei Harms

    Prosopis Kuntzei Harms

    TYGE W. BO C H ER STRUCTURE OF THE MULTINODAL PHOTOSYNTHETIC THORNS IN PROSOPIS KUNTZEI HARMS Det Kongelige Danske Videnskabernes Selskab Biologiske Skrifter 20,8 Kommissionær: Munksgaard København 1975 D et Kongelige Danske Videnskabernes S elskab udgiver følgende publikationsrækker: T he Royal Danish Academy of Sciences and L etters issues the following series o f publications: Bibliographical Abbreviation Oversigt over Selskabets Virksomhed (8°) Overs. Dan. Vid. Selsk. (Annual in Danish) Historisk-fllosofiske Meddelelser (8°) Hist. Filos. Medd. Dan. Vid. Selsk. Historisk-filosoflske Skrifter (4°) Hist. Filos. Skr. Dan. Vid. Selsk. (History, Philology, Philosophy, Archeology, Art History) Matematisk-fysiske Meddelelser (8°) Mat. Fys. Medd. Dan. Vid. Selsk. Matematisk-fysiske Skrifter (4°) Mat. Fys. Skr. Dan. Vid. Selsk. (Mathematics, Physics, Chemistry, Astronomy, Geology) Biologiske Meddelelser (8°) Biol. Medd. Dan. Vid. Selsk. Biologiske Skrifter (4°) Biol. Skr. Dan. Vid. Selsk. (Botany, Zoology, General Biology) Selskabets sekretariat og postadresse: Dantes Plads 5, 1556 København V. The address of the secretariate of the Academy is: Det Kongelige Danske Videnskabernes Selskab, Dantes Plads 5, DK-1556 Copenhagen V. Denmark. Selskabets kommissionær: Munksgaard’s Boghandel Nørregade 6, 1165 København K. The publications are sold by the agent of the Academy: Munk sga ard, Ltd. 6, Norregade, DK-1165 Copenhagen K. Denmark. TYGE W. BO CH ER STRUCTURE OF THE MULTINODAL PHOTOSYNTHETIC THORNS IN PROSOPIS KUNTZEHARMS Det Kongelige Danske Videnskabernes Selskab Biologiske Skrifter 20, 8 Kommissionær: Munksgaard København 1975 Synopsis The structure of the photosynthetic, multinodal thorns in Prosopis kunlzei was studied anatomically. The stem anatomy in this xeromorphic subtropical tree deviates in many ways and exhibits several charac­ teristics which raise questions of more general interest.
  • Journal of the Oklahoma Native Plant Society, Volume 9, December 2009

    Journal of the Oklahoma Native Plant Society, Volume 9, December 2009

    4 Oklahoma Native Plant Record Volume 9, December 2009 VASCULAR PLANTS OF SOUTHEASTERN OKLAHOMA FROM THE SANS BOIS TO THE KIAMICHI MOUNTAINS Submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate College of the Oklahoma State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy May 1969 Francis Hobart Means, Jr. Midwest City, Oklahoma Current Email Address: [email protected] The author grew up in the prairie region of Kay County where he learned to appreciate proper management of the soil and the native grass flora. After graduation from college, he moved to Eastern Oklahoma State College where he took a position as Instructor in Botany and Agronomy. In the course of conducting botany field trips and working with local residents on their plant problems, the author became increasingly interested in the flora of that area and of the State of Oklahoma. This led to an extensive study of the northern portion of the Oauchita Highlands with collections currently numbering approximately 4,200. The specimens have been processed according to standard herbarium procedures. The first set has been placed in the Herbarium of Oklahoma State University with the second set going to Eastern Oklahoma State College at Wilburton. Editor’s note: The original species list included habitat characteristics and collection notes. These are omitted here but are available in the dissertation housed at the Edmon-Low Library at OSU or in digital form by request to the editor. [SS] PHYSICAL FEATURES Winding Stair Mountain ranges. A second large valley lies across the southern part of Location and Area Latimer and LeFlore counties between the The area studied is located primarily in Winding Stair and Kiamichi mountain the Ouachita Highlands of eastern ranges.