DOCSLIB.ORG

Glebe Park Stewardship Plan 2011-2021

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Glebe Park Stewardship Plan 2011-2021 DRAFT Glebe Park Stewardship Plan 2011-2021 Produced by Forest Design In association with Glenside Ecological Services Limited June 2011 Glebe Park Stewardship Plan - DRAFT 2011 TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction ................................................................................................................... 1 Glebe Park Committee objectives ............................................................................................ 1 Recreation ...................................................................................................................... 1 Environment ................................................................................................................... 2 Nature appreciation ........................................................................................................ 2 Scope of Work ......................................................................................................................... 2 General Property Description ....................................................................................... 2 Legal description...................................................................................................................... 2 Activities .................................................................................................................................. 5 History of Glebe Park management ......................................................................................... 5 Surrounding landscape ............................................................................................................ 5 Field Investigation ......................................................................................................... 6 Methodology ........................................................................................................................... 6 Results ..................................................................................................................................... 8 Forest compartments ................................................................................................... 11 Major diseases and defects affecting forest health in Glebe Park .................................. 28 Wildlife and ecological values ....................................................................................... 30 Management Approach ............................................................................................... 36 Ecological viability ................................................................................................................. 36 Monitoring tree health .......................................................................................................... 37 Safety .................................................................................................................................... 37 Stand improvement ............................................................................................................... 40 Cost Analysis .............................................................................................................. 40 Produced by Forest Design Consulting in association with Glenside Ecological Services Limited Page ii Glebe Park Stewardship Plan - DRAFT 2011 SUMMARY ................................................................................................................... 42 Appendix 1: Wildlife Inventory ................................................................................... 43 Appendix 2: Compartment Operational Cruise Sheets ............................................. 48 Photograph 1: Tree identification sign in arboretum ................................................................. 12 Photograph 2: Forest composition of Compartment C1 ............................................................. 14 Photograph 3: Forest composition of Compartment C2 ............................................................. 17 Photograph 4: Forest composition of Compartment C3 ............................................................. 20 Photograph 5: Forest composition of Compartment C4 ............................................................. 22 Photograph 6: Forest Structure of Compartment C5 .................................................................. 25 Photograph 7: Ski chalet and toboggan hill ................................................................................ 26 Photograph 8: Northern open area ........................................................................................... 27 Photograph 9: Crown Dieback ................................................................................................... 28 Photograph 10: Cobra canker (Eutypella parasitica)................................................................... 28 Photograph 11: Target canker (Nectria galligena) ...................................................................... 29 Photograph 12: Sugar Maple Borer ........................................................................................... 29 Photograph 13: Escape cavity at base of mature Yellow Birch.................................................... 31 Photograph 14: Nesting cavity in mature Yellow Birch ............................................................... 32 Photograph 15: Bear claw marks on mature American Beech .................................................... 32 Photograph 16: Stick nest in mature maple ............................................................................... 33 Photograph 17: Vernal Pond ..................................................................................................... 33 Photograph 18: Two-leaved Toothwort (Dentaria Diphylla) ....................................................... 36 Photograph 19: Wide diameter ski trail ..................................................................................... 37 Figure 1: Property location map .................................................................................................. 3 Figure 2: Detailed property location map .................................................................................... 4 Figure 3: Forest compartments ................................................................................................... 9 Figure 4: Infrared aerial photograph of forest compartments .................................................... 10 Figure 5: Application of 25m trail buffer .................................................................................... 39 Table 1: General wildlife features ................................................................................................ 7 Table 2: Species composition and feature inventory of Compartment C1 .................................. 12 Table 3: Regeneration composition of Compartment C1 ............................................................ 12 Table 4: Forest structure (m2/ha) of Compartment C1 ............................................................... 13 Table 5: Species composition and feature inventory of Compartment C2 .................................. 15 Table 6: Regeneration composition of Compartment C2 ............................................................ 15 Table 7: Forest structure (m2/ha) of Compartment C2 ............................................................... 16 Produced by Forest Design Consulting in association with Glenside Ecological Services Limited Page iii Glebe Park Stewardship Plan - DRAFT 2011 Table 8: Species composition and feature inventory of Compartment C3 .................................. 18 Table 9: Regeneration composition of Compartment C3 ............................................................ 19 Table 10: Forest structure (m2/ha) of Compartment C3 ............................................................. 19 Table 11: Species composition and feature inventory of Compartment C4 ................................ 21 Table 12: Regeneration composition of Compartment C4 .......................................................... 21 Table 13: Forest structure (m2/ha) of Compartment C4 ............................................................. 21 Table 14: Species composition and feature inventory of Compartment C5 ................................ 23 Table 15: Regeneration composition of Compartment C5 .......................................................... 24 Table 16: Forest structure (m2/ha) of Compartment C5 ............................................................. 24 Table 17: Songbird inventory, area sensitivity and habitat guild................................................. 34 Table 18: Trail buffer areas for each compartment .................................................................... 38 Table 19: Estimated costs of forest management ...................................................................... 41 Produced by Forest Design Consulting in association with Glenside Ecological Services Limited Page iv Glebe Park Stewardship Plan - DRAFT 2011 INTRODUCTION Glebe Park is a forested recreational area within the village of Haliburton that provides public outdoor activities that are related to natural environmental experiences. Glebe Park is owned by the Municipality of Dysart et al and is managed by the Glebe Park Committee: a committee of volunteers who represent key stakeholder groups that have interests in the management activities associated within the park. The Glebe Park Committee represents the following organizations:
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Florida Native Blackberries Me
    The Nature Coastline Newsletter of the Nature Coast Chapter of the Florida Native Plant Society A Message from the President A little bit of Nature eases stress in our everyday life! We all have stress in our lives from not those gardens with stones, ce- one thing or another. We also all ment and alien plants that do not love native plants and know that encourage nature. Even if you our environment is very important spend only a short time outside MARCH-APRIL to us and the future. How can we enjoying your environment and 2020 handle our everyday lives and still breathing the fresh air, you can In this issue: have time to follow the mission of relieve stress. So, the moral of this Meetings/Programs the Florida Native Plant Society of story is that if we plant natives and by Pat Kelly preserving, conserving and restor- encourage wildlife into our back- ing native plants and native plant yards we are also healing our- Calendar communities of Florida? I found selves. In the Spotlight several ways to do this and I hope Thank you for being members of David Barnard you might have your own methods. the Nature Coast Chapter of the One way I found to cope with the Florida Native Plant Society. stress of life and still follow the Lessons from the Landscape by Julie Wert mission is to sit in the backyard with a cup of coffee or a glass of Jonnie Spitler, President Plant Profile: wine! and just enjoy nature around Florida Native Blackberries me.
    [Show full text]
  • Plant Collecting Expedition for Berry Crop Species Through Southeastern
    Plant Collecting Expedition for Berry Crop Species through Southeastern and Midwestern United States June and July 2007 Glassy Mountain, South Carolina Participants: Kim E. Hummer, Research Leader, Curator, USDA ARS NCGR 33447 Peoria Road, Corvallis, Oregon 97333-2521 phone 541.738.4201 [email protected] Chad E. Finn, Research Geneticist, USDA ARS HCRL, 3420 NW Orchard Ave., Corvallis, Oregon 97330 phone 541.738.4037 [email protected] Michael Dossett Graduate Student, Oregon State University, Department of Horticulture, Corvallis, OR 97330 phone 541.738.4038 [email protected] Plant Collecting Expedition for Berry Crops through the Southeastern and Midwestern United States, June and July 2007 Table of Contents Table of Contents.................................................................................................................... 2 Acknowledgements:................................................................................................................ 3 Executive Summary................................................................................................................ 4 Part I – Southeastern United States ...................................................................................... 5 Summary.............................................................................................................................. 5 Travelog May-June 2007.................................................................................................... 6 Conclusions for part 1 .....................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Rubus Arcticus Ssp. Acaulis Is Also Appreciated
    Rubus arcticus L. ssp. acaulis (Michaux) Focke (dwarf raspberry): A Technical Conservation Assessment Prepared for the USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region, Species Conservation Project October 18, 2006 Juanita A. R. Ladyman, Ph.D. JnJ Associates LLC 6760 S. Kit Carson Cir E. Centennial, CO 80122 Peer Review Administered by Society for Conservation Biology Ladyman, J.A.R. (2006, October 18). Rubus arcticus L. ssp. acaulis (Michaux) Focke (dwarf raspberry): a technical conservation assessment. [Online]. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. Available: http:// www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/rubusarcticussspacaulis.pdf [date of access]. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The time spent and help given by all the people and institutions mentioned in the reference section are gratefully acknowledged. I would also like to thank the Wyoming Natural Diversity Database, in particular Bonnie Heidel, and the Colorado Natural Heritage Program, in particular David Anderson, for their generosity in making their records available. The data provided by Lynn Black of the DAO Herbarium and National Vascular Plant Identification Service in Ontario, Marta Donovan and Jenifer Penny of the British Columbia Conservation Data Center, Jane Bowles of University of Western Ontario Herbarium, Dr. Kadri Karp of the Aianduse Instituut in Tartu, Greg Karow of the Bighorn National Forest, Cathy Seibert of the University of Montana Herbarium, Dr. Anita Cholewa of the University of Minnesota Herbarium, Dr. Debra Trock of the Michigan State University Herbarium, John Rintoul of the Alberta Natural Heritage Information Centre, and Prof. Ron Hartman and Joy Handley of the Rocky Mountain Herbarium at Laramie, were all very valuable in producing this assessment.
    [Show full text]
  • Nimpkish Black Bear Study: Habitat Analyses
    Nimpkish Black Bear Study: Habitat Analyses Prepared for: Canadian Forest Products Ltd. Woss, BC February 2003 This report has not been peer-reviewed and is not suitable for citation or distribution. Please refer to Davis et al. (in submission) for citation or distribution of the information contained in this report. Prepared by: Helen Davis, M.Sc., R.P.Bio. Richard D. Weir, M.Sc., R.P.Bio. Artemis Wildlife Consultants 4515 Hullcar Road Armstrong, BC V0E 1B4 (250) 546-0531 Final Report – Nimpkish Black Bear Habitat Analyses Executive Summary We examined habitat selectivity by American black bears (Ursus americanus) at 2 spatial scales (within home ranges and patches within stands) in coastal British Columbia, Canada from 1992–1995. We monitored 13 radio-collared males, but could only gather unbiased data for 4. We used information-theoretic inference to assess the effect of 18 habitat and spatial variables in 22 candidate models to explain selection of sites within home ranges. We examined patch scale selection within stands for 4 food and security variables by comparing the sites used by radio-collared males to typical stand conditions. Male black bears exhibited selectivity for a variety of resources that provided food and security at different spatial scales. The probability of use of sites by adult males increased with increasing values of berry-producing and succulent forage plants as well with increased security cover. Juvenile male black bears, however, did not make similar selections and may be relegated to using poor quality habitats with higher mortality risk because of social factors. The male black bears that we studied appeared to make the majority of their site selection decisions at the scale of the home range (i.e., for stands within their home ranges), although some selection was evident at the patch spatial scale.
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix 2: Plant Lists
    Appendix 2: Plant Lists Master List and Section Lists Mahlon Dickerson Reservation Botanical Survey and Stewardship Assessment Wild Ridge Plants, LLC 2015 2015 MASTER PLANT LIST MAHLON DICKERSON RESERVATION SCIENTIFIC NAME NATIVENESS S-RANK CC PLANT HABIT # OF SECTIONS Acalypha rhomboidea Native 1 Forb 9 Acer palmatum Invasive 0 Tree 1 Acer pensylvanicum Native 7 Tree 2 Acer platanoides Invasive 0 Tree 4 Acer rubrum Native 3 Tree 27 Acer saccharum Native 5 Tree 24 Achillea millefolium Native 0 Forb 18 Acorus calamus Alien 0 Forb 1 Actaea pachypoda Native 5 Forb 10 Adiantum pedatum Native 7 Fern 7 Ageratina altissima v. altissima Native 3 Forb 23 Agrimonia gryposepala Native 4 Forb 4 Agrostis canina Alien 0 Graminoid 2 Agrostis gigantea Alien 0 Graminoid 8 Agrostis hyemalis Native 2 Graminoid 3 Agrostis perennans Native 5 Graminoid 18 Agrostis stolonifera Invasive 0 Graminoid 3 Ailanthus altissima Invasive 0 Tree 8 Ajuga reptans Invasive 0 Forb 3 Alisma subcordatum Native 3 Forb 3 Alliaria petiolata Invasive 0 Forb 17 Allium tricoccum Native 8 Forb 3 Allium vineale Alien 0 Forb 2 Alnus incana ssp rugosa Native 6 Shrub 5 Alnus serrulata Native 4 Shrub 3 Ambrosia artemisiifolia Native 0 Forb 14 Amelanchier arborea Native 7 Tree 26 Amphicarpaea bracteata Native 4 Vine, herbaceous 18 2015 MASTER PLANT LIST MAHLON DICKERSON RESERVATION SCIENTIFIC NAME NATIVENESS S-RANK CC PLANT HABIT # OF SECTIONS Anagallis arvensis Alien 0 Forb 4 Anaphalis margaritacea Native 2 Forb 3 Andropogon gerardii Native 4 Graminoid 1 Andropogon virginicus Native 2 Graminoid 1 Anemone americana Native 9 Forb 6 Anemone quinquefolia Native 7 Forb 13 Anemone virginiana Native 4 Forb 5 Antennaria neglecta Native 2 Forb 2 Antennaria neodioica ssp.
    [Show full text]
  • Ilex Mucronata (Formerly Nemopanthus Mucronata) – Mountain Holly, Catberry Pretty Fruits, but Not Palatable/Edible for Humans; Eaten by Birds
    Prepared by Henry Mann, Nature Enthusiast/Naturalist For the Pasadena Ski and Nature Park In late summer and in fall, some herbs, shrubs and trees will produce fleshy fruits, some of which are edible, some inedible and some toxic to humans. Because of their detailed structure they have various botanical names such as pomes, drupes, berries, etc., however, commonly we often refer to all fleshy fruits as just berries. Also many dry fruits are produced, but only a few of these will be featured because of their edibility or toxicity. Photos are from the archives of HM except where otherwise indicated. Edibility “Edibility” is a highly variable term with a range of meanings from delicious, to nourishing and somewhat tasty, to edible but not very palatable. A small number of fruits that are edible and even delicious to most, can be non- palatable or even allergenic to a few individuals. Some fleshy fruits which are not very palatable fresh make superb jams, jellies, syrups, wines, etc. when cooked or fermented. Then there are fruits that have distinct toxic properties from mild to deadly. With any food collected and eaten from the wild it is extremely important to be certain of identity. There can be similar appearing fruits that are poisonous. This presentation does not recommend consuming any of the featured fruits. The viewer takes full personal responsibility for anything he or she eats. Vaccinium angustifolium - Low Sweet Blueberry, Lowbush Blueberry. A Newfoundland favorite and staple. Vaccinium vitis-idaea – Partridgeberry, Mountain Cranberry. A commonly sought and utilized Newfoundland fruit. Fragaria virginiana – Wild Strawberry and F.
    [Show full text]
  • Summary Data
    Table 11. Summary List of Species Identified in 2001-2002, Squam Lakes Watershed, New Hampshire. Page 1 of 12 Type Common Name Scientific Name Amphibians Bullfrog Rana catesbeiana Amphibians Eastern American toad Bufo americanus Amphibians Gray treefrog Hyla versicolor Amphibians Green frog Rana clamitans Amphibians Northern leopard frog Rana pipiens Amphibians Northern dusky salamander Desmognathus fuscus Amphibians Northern spring peeper Pseudacris crucifer Amphibians Northern two-lined salamander Eurycea bislineata Amphibians Pickerel frog Rana palustris Amphibians Redback salamander Plethodon cinereus Amphibians Red-spotted newt Notophthalmus viridescens Amphibians Spotted salamander Ambystoma maculatum Amphibians Wood frog Rana sylvatica Birds Alder Flycatcher Empidonax alnorum Birds American Bittern Botaurus lentiginosus Birds American Black Duck Anas rubripes Birds American Coot Fulica americana Birds American Crow Corvus brachyrhynchos Birds American Goldfinch Carduelis tristis Birds American Green-winged Teal Anas crecca Birds American Kestrel Falco sparverius Birds American Redstart Setophaga ruticilla Birds American Robin Turdus migratorius Birds American Tree Sparrow Spizella arborea Birds American Woodcock Scolopax minor Birds Atlantic Brant Branta bernicla Birds Bald Eagle* Haliaeetus leucocephalus* Birds Baltimore Oriole Icterus galbula Birds Bank Swallow Riparia riparia Birds Barn Swallow Hirundo rustica Birds Barred Owl Strix varia Birds Belted Kingfisher Ceryle alcyon Birds Black-and-white Warbler Mniotilta varia Birds
    [Show full text]
  • Wetland Forest Habitat Type Classification System for Northern
    (Photo from Kemp Natural Resources Station Archives) Region 4 GENERAL DESCRIPTION Region 4 encompasses Door, Marinette, Menominee, Oconto, and Shawano Counties. The entire region was glaciated during the Wisconsin glacial period. It is characterized by glacial and fluvioglacial landforms from lake plain, end moraine and outwash. Loams and silt loams are predominant soils and are developed over calcareous dolomite. Black spruce and tamarack forested wetlands exist on the sandy outwash in the northern portion of the region. Boreal conifer (white spruce and northern white cedar) and lowland black and green ash forested swamps exist on the lake plain influenced by Lake Michigan. Green ash is more predominant in the hardwood swamps of this region. Region 4: Door, Marinette, Menominee, Oconto, and Shawano Counties Section 5: Region 4 • 4-1 (Photo from Kemp Natural Resources Station Archives) WETLAND FOREST HABITAT TYPES OF REGION 4 PmLLe • Picea-Larix/Ledum • Black Spruce-Tamarack/Labrador Tea PmLNe • Picea-Larix/Nemopanthus • Black Spruce-Tamarack/Mountain Holly ThAbFnC • Thuja-Abies-Fraxinus/Coptis • Northern White Cedar-Balsam Fir-Black Ash/ Goldthread AbThArAsp • Abies-Thuja-Acer/Acer • Balsam Fir-Northern White Cedar-Red Maple/ Mountain Maple FnThAbAt • Fraxinus-Thuja-Abies/Athyrium • Black Ash-Northern White Cedar-Balsam Fir/ Lady Fern FnUB • Fraxinus-Ulmus/Boehmeria • Black Ash-(Formerly) Red Elm/False Nettle Section 5: Region 4 • 4-2 REGION 4 Key to Wetland Habitat Types (Scientific Names) 1 Sphagnum bog, conifer dominated: Picea mariana and Larix laricina usually most common. Fraxinus nigra absent. YES NO 2 3 4 Three or more These species These species present: better represented than better represented than Thuja canadensis those in Box 4: those in Box 3: Acer rubrum Acer spicatum Ulmus rubra Populus tremuloides Cornus canadensis Parthenocissus spp.
    [Show full text]
  • Botanical Name Common Name
    Approved Approved & as a eligible to Not eligible to Approved as Frontage fulfill other fulfill other Type of plant a Street Tree Tree standards standards Heritage Tree Tree Heritage Species Botanical Name Common name Native Abelia x grandiflora Glossy Abelia Shrub, Deciduous No No No Yes White Forsytha; Korean Abeliophyllum distichum Shrub, Deciduous No No No Yes Abelialeaf Acanthropanax Fiveleaf Aralia Shrub, Deciduous No No No Yes sieboldianus Acer ginnala Amur Maple Shrub, Deciduous No No No Yes Aesculus parviflora Bottlebrush Buckeye Shrub, Deciduous No No No Yes Aesculus pavia Red Buckeye Shrub, Deciduous No No Yes Yes Alnus incana ssp. rugosa Speckled Alder Shrub, Deciduous Yes No No Yes Alnus serrulata Hazel Alder Shrub, Deciduous Yes No No Yes Amelanchier humilis Low Serviceberry Shrub, Deciduous Yes No No Yes Amelanchier stolonifera Running Serviceberry Shrub, Deciduous Yes No No Yes False Indigo Bush; Amorpha fruticosa Desert False Indigo; Shrub, Deciduous Yes No No No Not eligible Bastard Indigo Aronia arbutifolia Red Chokeberry Shrub, Deciduous Yes No No Yes Aronia melanocarpa Black Chokeberry Shrub, Deciduous Yes No No Yes Aronia prunifolia Purple Chokeberry Shrub, Deciduous Yes No No Yes Groundsel-Bush; Eastern Baccharis halimifolia Shrub, Deciduous No No Yes Yes Baccharis Summer Cypress; Bassia scoparia Shrub, Deciduous No No No Yes Burning-Bush Berberis canadensis American Barberry Shrub, Deciduous Yes No No Yes Common Barberry; Berberis vulgaris Shrub, Deciduous No No No No Not eligible European Barberry Betula pumila
    [Show full text]
  • Complete Iowa Plant Species List
    !PLANTCO FLORISTIC QUALITY ASSESSMENT TECHNIQUE: IOWA DATABASE This list has been modified from it's origional version which can be found on the following website: http://www.public.iastate.edu/~herbarium/Cofcons.xls IA CofC SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME PHYSIOGNOMY W Wet 9 Abies balsamea Balsam fir TREE FACW * ABUTILON THEOPHRASTI Buttonweed A-FORB 4 FACU- 4 Acalypha gracilens Slender three-seeded mercury A-FORB 5 UPL 3 Acalypha ostryifolia Three-seeded mercury A-FORB 5 UPL 6 Acalypha rhomboidea Three-seeded mercury A-FORB 3 FACU 0 Acalypha virginica Three-seeded mercury A-FORB 3 FACU * ACER GINNALA Amur maple TREE 5 UPL 0 Acer negundo Box elder TREE -2 FACW- 5 Acer nigrum Black maple TREE 5 UPL * Acer rubrum Red maple TREE 0 FAC 1 Acer saccharinum Silver maple TREE -3 FACW 5 Acer saccharum Sugar maple TREE 3 FACU 10 Acer spicatum Mountain maple TREE FACU* 0 Achillea millefolium lanulosa Western yarrow P-FORB 3 FACU 10 Aconitum noveboracense Northern wild monkshood P-FORB 8 Acorus calamus Sweetflag P-FORB -5 OBL 7 Actaea pachypoda White baneberry P-FORB 5 UPL 7 Actaea rubra Red baneberry P-FORB 5 UPL 7 Adiantum pedatum Northern maidenhair fern FERN 1 FAC- * ADLUMIA FUNGOSA Allegheny vine B-FORB 5 UPL 10 Adoxa moschatellina Moschatel P-FORB 0 FAC * AEGILOPS CYLINDRICA Goat grass A-GRASS 5 UPL 4 Aesculus glabra Ohio buckeye TREE -1 FAC+ * AESCULUS HIPPOCASTANUM Horse chestnut TREE 5 UPL 10 Agalinis aspera Rough false foxglove A-FORB 5 UPL 10 Agalinis gattingeri Round-stemmed false foxglove A-FORB 5 UPL 8 Agalinis paupercula False foxglove
    [Show full text]
  • And Natural Community Restoration
    RECOMMENDATIONS FOR LANDSCAPING AND NATURAL COMMUNITY RESTORATION Natural Heritage Conservation Program Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources P.O. Box 7921, Madison, WI 53707 August 2016, PUB-NH-936 Visit us online at dnr.wi.gov search “ER” Table of Contents Title ..……………………………………………………….……......………..… 1 Southern Forests on Dry Soils ...................................................... 22 - 24 Table of Contents ...……………………………………….….....………...….. 2 Core Species .............................................................................. 22 Background and How to Use the Plant Lists ………….……..………….….. 3 Satellite Species ......................................................................... 23 Plant List and Natural Community Descriptions .…………...…………….... 4 Shrub and Additional Satellite Species ....................................... 24 Glossary ..................................................................................................... 5 Tree Species ............................................................................... 24 Key to Symbols, Soil Texture and Moisture Figures .................................. 6 Northern Forests on Rich Soils ..................................................... 25 - 27 Prairies on Rich Soils ………………………………….…..….……....... 7 - 9 Core Species .............................................................................. 25 Core Species ...……………………………….…..…….………........ 7 Satellite Species ......................................................................... 26 Satellite Species
    [Show full text]
  • Conservation Assessment for White Adder's Mouth Orchid (Malaxis B Brachypoda)
    Conservation Assessment for White Adder’s Mouth Orchid (Malaxis B Brachypoda) (A. Gray) Fernald Photo: Kenneth J. Sytsma USDA Forest Service, Eastern Region April 2003 Jan Schultz 2727 N Lincoln Road Escanaba, MI 49829 906-786-4062 This Conservation Assessment was prepared to compile the published and unpublished information on Malaxis brachypoda (A. Gray) Fernald. This is an administrative study only and does not represent a management decision or direction by the U.S. Forest Service. Though the best scientific information available was gathered and reported in preparation for this document and subsequently reviewed by subject experts, it is expected that new information will arise. In the spirit of continuous learning and adaptive management, if the reader has information that will assist in conserving the subject taxon, please contact: Eastern Region, USDA Forest Service, Threatened and Endangered Species Program, 310 Wisconsin Avenue, Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53203. Conservation Assessment for White Adder’s Mouth Orchid (Malaxis Brachypoda) (A. Gray) Fernald 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS .................................................................................................................1 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS..............................................................................................................2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ..............................................................................................................3 INTRODUCTION/OBJECTIVES ...................................................................................................3
    [Show full text]