DOCSLIB.ORG

Natural Environment Study

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Natural Environment Study Dollar Creek Shared-Use Trail Natural Environment Study Placer County, CA June 2012 Natural Environment Study Dollar Creek Shared Use Trail Placer County, CA June, 2012 Placer County, CA North Tahoe Public Utility District California Tahoe Conservancy Prepared By: Hauge Brueck Associates 310 Dorla Court, Ste. 209 Zephyr Cove, NV 89448 ESA 2600 Capitol Ave., Ste. 200 Sacramento, CA 95816 916.564.4500 www.esassoc.com Recommended for Approval By: ___________________________________ Date: ____________ Approved By: ___________________________________ Date: ____________ Table of Contents Table of Contents Cover Sheet i Table of Contents ...................................................................................................................... iii! List of Figures .......................................................................................................................... vii! List of Tables .......................................................................................................................... viii! List of Abbreviated Terms ........................................................................................................ ix! Chapter 1.! Introduction .................................................................................................... 1! 1.1.! Project History ............................................................................................................ 1! 1.2.! Project Description ..................................................................................................... 1! Chapter 2.! Study Methods ................................................................................................ 5! 2.1.! Regulatory Requirements ............................................................................................ 5! 2.2.! Studies Required .......................................................................................................... 5! 2.3.! Personnel and Survey Dates ....................................................................................... 6! Chapter 3.! Results: Environmental Setting ...................................................................... 7! 3.1.! Description of the Existing Biological and Physical Conditions ................................ 7! 3.1.1.! Biological Study Area .......................................................................................... 7! 3.1.2.! Physical Conditions .............................................................................................. 7! 3.1.3.! Biological Conditions in the Biological Study Area ............................................ 8! 3.2.! Regional Species and Habitats of Concern ............................................................... 11! 3.3.! Noxious Weeds .......................................................................................................... 17! Chapter 4.! Results: Biological Resources, Discussion of Impacts and Mitigation ........ 19! 4.1.! Natural Communities of Special Concern ................................................................. 19! 4.1.1.! Montane Riparian Scrub ..................................................................................... 19! 4.1.1.1.! Survey Results ............................................................................................. 20! 4.1.1.2.! Avoidance and Minimization Efforts .......................................................... 20! 4.1.1.3.! Project Impacts ............................................................................................ 20! 4.1.1.4.! Compensatory Mitigation ............................................................................ 21! 4.1.1.5.! Cumulative Impacts ..................................................................................... 21! 4.1.2.! Jurisdictional Water of the U.S. ......................................................................... 21! 4.1.2.1.! Survey Results ............................................................................................. 24! 4.1.2.2.! Avoidance and Minimization Efforts .......................................................... 24! 4.1.2.3.! Project Impacts ............................................................................................ 25! 4.1.2.4.! Compensatory Mitigation ............................................................................ 25! 4.1.2.5.! Cumulative Impacts ..................................................................................... 25! 4.2.! Special-Status Plant Species ..................................................................................... 26! 4.2.1.! Upswept moonwort (Botrychium ascendens) .................................................... 27! 4.2.1.1.! Survey Results ............................................................................................. 27! 4.2.1.2.! Avoidance and Minimization Efforts .......................................................... 28! 4.2.1.3.! Project Impacts ............................................................................................ 28! 4.2.1.4.! Compensatory Mitigation ............................................................................ 29! 4.2.1.5.! Cumulative Effects ...................................................................................... 29! 4.2.2.! Scalloped moonwort (Botrychium crenulatum) ................................................. 29! 4.2.2.1.! Survey Results ............................................................................................. 29! 4.2.2.2.! Avoidance and Minimization Efforts .......................................................... 30! 4.2.2.3.! Project Impacts ............................................................................................ 30! 4.2.2.4.! Compensatory Mitigation ............................................................................ 30! 4.2.2.5.! Cumulative Effects ...................................................................................... 30! 4.2.3.! Mingan moonwort (Botrychium minganense) .................................................... 30! Dollar Creek Shared-Use Trail Project NES iii Table of Contents 4.2.3.1.! Survey Results ............................................................................................. 30! 4.2.3.2.! Avoidance and Minimization Efforts .......................................................... 31! 4.2.3.3.! Project Impacts ............................................................................................ 31! 4.2.3.4.! Compensatory Mitigation ............................................................................ 31! 4.2.3.5.! Cumulative Effects ...................................................................................... 31! 4.2.4.! Davy’s sedge (Carex davyi) ............................................................................... 32! 4.2.4.1.! Survey Results ............................................................................................. 32! 4.2.4.2.! Avoidance and Minimization Efforts .......................................................... 32! 4.2.4.3.! Project Impacts ............................................................................................ 32! 4.2.4.4.! Compensatory Mitigation ............................................................................ 33! 4.2.4.5.! Cumulative Effects ...................................................................................... 33! 4.2.5.! Woolly-fruited sedge sedge (Carex lasiocarpa) ................................................ 33! 4.2.5.1.! Survey Results ............................................................................................. 33! 4.2.5.2.! Avoidance and Minimization Efforts .......................................................... 33! 4.2.5.3.! Project Impacts ............................................................................................ 33! 4.2.5.4.! Compensatory Mitigation ............................................................................ 34! 4.2.5.5.! Cumulative Effects ...................................................................................... 34! 4.2.6.! Mariposa sedge (Carex mariposana) ................................................................. 34! 4.2.6.1.! Survey Results ............................................................................................. 34! 4.2.6.2.! Avoidance and Minimization Efforts .......................................................... 35! 4.2.6.3.! Project Impacts ............................................................................................ 35! 4.2.6.4.! Compensatory Mitigation ............................................................................ 35! 4.2.6.5.! Cumulative Effects ...................................................................................... 35! 4.2.7.! Northern meadow sedge (Carex praticola) ........................................................ 35! 4.2.7.1.! Survey Results ............................................................................................. 36! 4.2.7.2.! Avoidance and Minimization Efforts .......................................................... 36! 4.2.7.3.! Project Impacts ............................................................................................ 36! 4.2.7.4.! Compensatory Mitigation ............................................................................ 36! 4.2.7.5.! Cumulative Effects .....................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Natural Regeneration of White and Red Fir. . . Influence of Several Factors. Berkeley, Calif., Pacific SW
    PACIFIC SOUTHWEST Forest and Range FOREST SERVICE. U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE P.O. BOX 245, BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA 94701 Experiment Station U.S.D.A. FOREST SERVICE RESEARCH PAPER PSW- 58 /1970 Gordon, Donald T. 1970. Natural regeneration of white and red fir. influence of several factors. Berkeley, Calif., Pacific SW. Forest & Range Exp. Sta. 32 p., illus. (U.S.D.A. Forest Serv. Res. Pap. PSW-58) In a group of studies at Swain Mountain Experimental Forest in northeastern California, seedling survival and mortality were analyzed within the general framework of seed production and dispersal, germination, seedbed condition, soil surface temperature, insolation, soil moisture, and vegetative competition. Factors found to favor seedling establishment were abundance of sound seed, mineral soil seedbed, and probably some shade in the first year. Chief obstacles to seedling survival and growth included strong insolation, deep litter, insects, competing low vegetation, and time between good seed years. The most practical approach to securing natural regeneration appears to be keeping abundant seed trees close to a prepared mineral soil seedbed. Oxford: 231–181.525[+ 174.7 Abies concolor + 174.7 Abies magnifica + 174.7 Abies magnifica var. shastensis]. Retrieval Terms: Abies concolor; Abies magnifica; Abies magnifica var. shastensis; natural regeneration; seedling establishment; seedbed; protective shading; seed production; seedling mortality; Swain Mountain Experimental Forest. Gordon, Donald T. 1970. Natural regeneration of white and red fir. influence of several factors. Berkeley, Calif., Pacific SW. Forest & Range Exp. Sta. 32 p., illus. (U.S.D.A. Forest Serv. Res. Pap. PSW-58) In a group of studies at Swain Mountain Experimental Forest in northeastern California, seedling survival and mortality were analyzed within the general framework of seed production and dispersal, germination, seedbed condition, soil surface temperature, insolation, soil moisture, and vegetative competition.
    [Show full text]
  • Emergency Preparedness and Evacuation Plan
    Squaw Valley Real Estate, LLC Emergency Preparedness and Evacuation Plan THE VILLAGE AT SQUAW VALLEY 6/28/2016 This Emergency Preparedness and Evacuation Plan (EPEP) has been prepared for The Village at Squaw Valley Specific Plan (VSVSP) project under the supervision of Placer County and in coordination with Pete Hnat, Chief Executive Officer, Emergency Management Consultants. The focus of the EPEP is primarily on emergency preparedness and evacuation protocols as related to emergency events, such as fire. However, other hazards are addressed as well, including avalanche, seismic and flood protection measures. Emergency Preparedness and Evacuation Plan TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................. 4 1.1 Introduction ....................................................................................................................................... 4 1.2 Purpose .............................................................................................................................................. 4 1.3 Project Summary .............................................................................................................................. 4 1.3.1 Location .................................................................................................................................. 4 1.3.2 Project Description ................................................................................................................ 6 2.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS ....................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Seed Maturity in White Fir and Red Fir. Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Exp
    PACIFIC SOUTHWEST Forest and Range FOREST SERVICE U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE P.O. BOX 245, BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA 94701 Experiment Station USDA FOREST SERVICE RESEARCH PAPER PSW-99 /1974 CONTENTS Page Summary ................................................... 1 Introduction ................................................. 3 Methods .................................................... 3 Testing Fresh Seeds ....................................... 3 Testing Stratified Seeds .................................... 3 Seedling Vigor Tests ...................................... 4 Artificial Ripening Trial ................................... 4 Other Observations ........................................ 4 Results and Discussion ....................................... 5 Cone Specific Gravity ..................................... 5 Seed Germination, byCollection Date ....................... 5 Seed GerminationandCone Specific Gravity ................ 7 Red Fir Seedling Vigor .................................... 9 ArtificialRipening of White Fir Seeds ....................... 9 OtherMaturity Indices ..................................... 9 Application ................................................. 10 Literature Cited.............................................. 12 THE AUTHOR WILLIAM W. OLIVER is doing silvicultural research on Sierra Nevada conifer types with headquarters at Redding, California. He earned a B.S. degree (1956) in forestry from the University of New Hampshire, and an M.F. degree (1960) from the University of Michigan. A native of
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • Squaw Valley |Alpine Meadows Base-To-Base Gondola Project Draft EIS/EIR 4.3-1 Wilderness SE Group & Ascent Environmental
    SE Group & Ascent Environmental Wilderness 4.3 WILDERNESS This section includes discussion of potential impacts of the proposed Base-to-Base Gondola project on the National Forest System-Granite Chief Wilderness (GCW), which is adjacent to the project area (i.e., the area generally encompassed by all three action alternatives). No construction, and therefore no direct effects, would occur on National Forest System (NFS) lands within the GCW. However, indirect impacts on its wilderness character and wilderness users could occur, as described below. This section additionally assesses impacts associated with a portion of privately owned land that was included within the area mapped by Congress as part of the GCW within the 1984 California Wilderness Act. For clarity, this section references the NFS lands within the GCW as “National Forest System-GCW” and refers to the privately owned land included within the congressionally mapped wilderness boundary as “private lands within the congressionally mapped GCW.” In accordance with the Wilderness Act of 1964, federally-managed Wilderness areas, like the National Forest System-GCW, are defined as follows: (c) A wilderness, in contrast with those areas where man and his works dominate the landscape, is hereby recognized as an area where the earth and its community of life are untrammeled by man, where man himself is a visitor who does not remain. An area of wilderness is further defined to mean in this Act an area of undeveloped Federal land retaining its primeval character and influence, without
    [Show full text]
  • Hybridization of the California Firs
    Forest Science, Vol. 34, No. I, pp. 139-151. Copyright 1988 by the Society of American Foresters Hybridization of the California Firs William B. Critchfield Abstract. Four groups of firs (sections, in the most recent classification of Abies) are represented in California. Crossing within these sections is possible and even easy, and in two of the sections intergrading populations between highly crossable taxa are wide spread in California. An exception is A. amabilis, a Northwestern fir that has not been crossed with other species in the same section {Grandes: A. concolor, A. grandis) or in other sections (e.g., Nobiles: A magnified). Crossing species in different sections is usually difficult or impossible. The genetic isolation of A. bracteata, an endemic species classified as a monotypic subgenus or section, may be nearly complete: two probable hybrids with A. concolor died at a few years of age. A few putative hybrids from inter- sectional crosses between species in Grandes and Nobiles died within months of germi nation. Intersectional crosses with firs outside California (two Mexican and four Eur asian species) all failed except A. concolor x A. religiosa, which produced numerous healthy hybrids. The common occurrence of genetic barriers in Abies is at odds with the long-held view that it is easy to hybridize fir species. For. Sci. 34(1): 139-151. Additional key words. Abies, interspecific hybrids, crossability, classification. The ability of species to hybridize has not been explored as systemati cally in the genus Abies (true firs) as it has in other genera of Pinaceae such as Pinus and Pice a.
    [Show full text]
  • Bear Creek Watershed Assessment Report
    BEAR CREEK WATERSHED ASSESSMENT PLACER COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Prepared for: Prepared by: PO Box 8568 Truckee, California 96162 February 16, 2018 And Dr. Susan Lindstrom, PhD BEAR CREEK WATERSHED ASSESSMENT – PLACER COUNTY – CALIFORNIA February 16, 2018 A REPORT PREPARED FOR: Truckee River Watershed Council PO Box 8568 Truckee, California 96161 (530) 550-8760 www.truckeeriverwc.org by Brian Hastings Balance Hydrologics Geomorphologist Matt Wacker HT Harvey and Associates Restoration Ecologist Reviewed by: David Shaw Balance Hydrologics Principal Hydrologist © 2018 Balance Hydrologics, Inc. Project Assignment: 217121 800 Bancroft Way, Suite 101 ~ Berkeley, California 94710-2251 ~ (510) 704-1000 ~ [email protected] Balance Hydrologics, Inc. i BEAR CREEK WATERSHED ASSESSMENT – PLACER COUNTY – CALIFORNIA < This page intentionally left blank > ii Balance Hydrologics, Inc. BEAR CREEK WATERSHED ASSESSMENT – PLACER COUNTY – CALIFORNIA TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 INTRODUCTION 1 1.1 Project Goals and Objectives 1 1.2 Structure of This Report 4 1.3 Acknowledgments 4 1.4 Work Conducted 5 2 BACKGROUND 6 2.1 Truckee River Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) 6 2.2 Water Resource Regulations Specific to Bear Creek 7 3 WATERSHED SETTING 9 3.1 Watershed Geology 13 3.1.1 Bedrock Geology and Structure 17 3.1.2 Glaciation 18 3.2 Hydrologic Soil Groups 19 3.3 Hydrology and Climate 24 3.3.1 Hydrology 24 3.3.2 Climate 24 3.3.3 Climate Variability: Wet and Dry Periods 24 3.3.4 Climate Change 33 3.4 Bear Creek Water Quality 33 3.4.1 Review of Available Water Quality Data 33 3.5 Sediment Transport 39 3.6 Biological Resources 40 3.6.1 Land Cover and Vegetation Communities 40 3.6.2 Invasive Species 53 3.6.3 Wildfire 53 3.6.4 General Wildlife 57 3.6.5 Special-Status Species 59 3.7 Disturbance History 74 3.7.1 Livestock Grazing 74 3.7.2 Logging 74 3.7.3 Roads and Ski Area Development 76 4 WATERSHED CONDITION 81 4.1 Stream, Riparian, and Meadow Corridor Assessment 81 Balance Hydrologics, Inc.
    [Show full text]
  • Status Species Occurrences
    S U G A R L O A F M OUNTAIN T RAIL Biological Resources Report Prepared for: Bear-Yuba Land Trust (BYLT) ATTN: Bill Haire 12183 South Auburn Road Grass Valley, CA 95949 Ph: (530) 272-5994 and City of Nevada City ATTN: Amy Wolfson 317 Broad Street Nevada City, CA 95959 Ph: (530) 265-2496 Prepared by: Chainey-Davis Biological Consulting ATTN: Carolyn Chainey-Davis 182 Grove Street Nevada City, CA 95959 Ph: (530) 205-6218 August 2018 Sugarloaf Mountain Trail — Biological Inventory C h a i n e y - Davis Biological Consulting SUMMARY This Biological Resources Report (BRR) includes an inventory and analysis of potential impacts to biological resources resulting from the construction and operation of the Sugarloaf Mountain Trail, a proposed 1.5-mile public recreational trail in Nevada City, California, on a 30-acre open space preserve owned by the City of Nevada City (APN 036-020-026). The trail would be constructed, managed, and maintained by the Bear-Yuba Land Trust, a private non-profit organization. The project would expand an existing small, primitive trail and construct a new segment of trail on Sugarloaf Mountain, just north of Nevada City. The trail begins near the intersection of State Route 49 and North Bloomfield Road and terminates on Sugarloaf Mountain. The proposed trail includes a quarter-mile segment on an easement through private land. The project drawings are provided in Appendix A. Trail tread width will vary from 36 to 48 inches, depending on location and physical constraints, and constructed using a mini excavator, chainsaws, and a variety of hand tools.
    [Show full text]
  • French Meadows Forest Restoration Project February 2019
    French Meadows Forest Restoration Project February 2019 The 28,000-acre French Meadows Forest Restoration Project is using a collaborative, all-lands approach to restore forest health and resilience and reduce the risk of high-severity wildfire in the headwaters of the Middle Fork of the American River, a critical municipal watershed located on the Tahoe National Forest in California’s Sierra Nevada. The Project was developed by a diverse partnership, including the U.S. Forest Service, which manages most of the land within the project area; Placer County Water Agency, which manages two reservoirs downstream of the project for municipal water and hydropower; The Nature Conservancy, one of the world’s largest conservation organizations; the Sierra Nevada Conservancy, a state agency and funder; Placer County, a business partner in the hydropower project; the American River Conservancy, an adjacent private landowner; and the Sierra Nevada Research Institute at UC Merced. The French Meadows Project aims to accelerate ecologically-based forest and watershed restoration on the Tahoe National Forest through a shared stewardship approach involving: • Collaborative Management. The partners co-led development of the project and hired consultants to undertake planning and environmental analysis, substantially reducing the planning time for similar Forest Service projects. • Diverse Fundraising. The partners raised funds from a wide variety of federal, state, local, and private sources, including significant investment from downstream water beneficiaries like the water utility and private beverage companies. • Innovative Project Implementation. Placer County will hire contractors to implement thinning and other mechanical treatments, under a Master Stewardship Agreement with the Forest Service. The Nature Conservancy and the Forest Service will work together to develop and implement a prescribed burn plan.
    [Show full text]
  • Vegetation Descriptions NORTH COAST and MONTANE ECOLOGICAL PROVINCE
    Vegetation Descriptions NORTH COAST AND MONTANE ECOLOGICAL PROVINCE CALVEG ZONE 1 December 11, 2008 Note: There are three Sections in this zone: Northern California Coast (“Coast”), Northern California Coast Ranges (“Ranges”) and Klamath Mountains (“Mountains”), each with several to many subsections CONIFER FOREST / WOODLAND DF PACIFIC DOUGLAS-FIR ALLIANCE Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii) is the dominant overstory conifer over a large area in the Mountains, Coast, and Ranges Sections. This alliance has been mapped at various densities in most subsections of this zone at elevations usually below 5600 feet (1708 m). Sugar Pine (Pinus lambertiana) is a common conifer associate in some areas. Tanoak (Lithocarpus densiflorus var. densiflorus) is the most common hardwood associate on mesic sites towards the west. Along western edges of the Mountains Section, a scattered overstory of Douglas-fir often exists over a continuous Tanoak understory with occasional Madrones (Arbutus menziesii). When Douglas-fir develops a closed-crown overstory, Tanoak may occur in its shrub form (Lithocarpus densiflorus var. echinoides). Canyon Live Oak (Quercus chrysolepis) becomes an important hardwood associate on steeper or drier slopes and those underlain by shallow soils. Black Oak (Q. kelloggii) may often associate with this conifer but usually is not abundant. In addition, any of the following tree species may be sparsely present in Douglas-fir stands: Redwood (Sequoia sempervirens), Ponderosa Pine (Ps ponderosa), Incense Cedar (Calocedrus decurrens), White Fir (Abies concolor), Oregon White Oak (Q garryana), Bigleaf Maple (Acer macrophyllum), California Bay (Umbellifera californica), and Tree Chinquapin (Chrysolepis chrysophylla). The shrub understory may also be quite diverse, including Huckleberry Oak (Q.
    [Show full text]
  • A Natural Resource Condition Assessment for Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks Appendix 14 – Plants of Conservation Concern
    National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior Natural Resource Stewardship and Science A Natural Resource Condition Assessment for Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks Appendix 14 – Plants of Conservation Concern Natural Resource Report NPS/SEKI/ NRR—2013/665.14 In Memory of Rebecca Ciresa Wenk, Botaness ON THE COVER Giant Forest, Sequoia National Park Photography by: Brent Paull A Natural Resource Condition Assessment for Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks Appendix 14 – Plants of Conservation Concern Natural Resource Report NPS/SEKI/ NRR—2013/665.14 Ann Huber University of California Berkeley 41043 Grouse Drive Three Rivers, CA 93271 Adrian Das U.S. Geological Survey Western Ecological Research Center, Sequoia-Kings Canyon Field Station 47050 Generals Highway #4 Three Rivers, CA 93271 Rebecca Wenk University of California Berkeley 137 Mulford Hall Berkeley, CA 94720-3114 Sylvia Haultain Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks 47050 Generals Highway Three Rivers, CA 93271 June 2013 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. These reports are 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.
    [Show full text]
  • Plant List Lomatium Mohavense Mojave Parsley 3 3 Lomatium Nevadense Nevada Parsley 3 Var
    Scientific Name Common Name Fossil Falls Alabama Hills Mazourka Canyon Div. & Oak Creeks White Mountains Fish Slough Rock Creek McGee Creek Parker Bench East Mono Basin Tioga Pass Bodie Hills Cicuta douglasii poison parsnip 3 3 3 Cymopterus cinerarius alpine cymopterus 3 Cymopterus terebinthinus var. terebinth pteryxia 3 3 petraeus Ligusticum grayi Gray’s lovage 3 Lomatium dissectum fern-leaf 3 3 3 3 var. multifidum lomatium Lomatium foeniculaceum ssp. desert biscuitroot 3 fimbriatum Plant List Lomatium mohavense Mojave parsley 3 3 Lomatium nevadense Nevada parsley 3 var. nevadense Lomatium rigidum prickly parsley 3 Taxonomy and nomenclature in this species list are based on Lomatium torreyi Sierra biscuitroot 3 western sweet- the Jepson Manual Online as of February 2011. Changes in Osmorhiza occidentalis 3 3 ADOXACEAE–ASTERACEAE cicely taxonomy and nomenclature are ongoing. Some site lists are Perideridia bolanderi Bolander’s 3 3 more complete than others; all of them should be considered a ssp. bolanderi yampah Lemmon’s work in progress. Species not native to California are designated Perideridia lemmonii 3 yampah with an asterisk (*). Please visit the Inyo National Forest and Perideridia parishii ssp. Parish’s yampah 3 3 Bureau of Land Management Bishop Resource Area websites latifolia for periodic updates. Podistera nevadensis Sierra podistera 3 Sphenosciadium ranger’s buttons 3 3 3 3 3 capitellatum APOCYNACEAE Dogbane Apocynum spreading 3 3 androsaemifolium dogbane Scientific Name Common Name Fossil Falls Alabama Hills Mazourka Canyon Div. & Oak Creeks White Mountains Fish Slough Rock Creek McGee Creek Parker Bench East Mono Basin Tioga Pass Bodie Hills Apocynum cannabinum hemp 3 3 ADOXACEAE Muskroot Humboldt Asclepias cryptoceras 3 Sambucus nigra ssp.
    [Show full text]