DOCSLIB.ORG

South Carolina Landscape Management Plan

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
South Carolina Landscape Management Plan AMERICAN TREE FARM SYSTEM® LANDSCAPE MANAGEMENT PLAN State of South Carolina i Landscape Management Plan Creation Plan Development and Composition The American Forest Foundation (AFF), in conjunction with Southern Forestry Consultants, Inc.(SFC), developed the original components, outlines, structure, and drafts of the Landscape Management Plan (LMP) and the associated geodatabase. AFF and SFC also worked cooperatively to evaluate and incorporate edits, comments, and modifications that resulted in the final LMP and geodatabase. Natural Resource Professional Support Committee AFF consulted regularly with staff from the South Carolina Forestry Commission (SCFC) to seek their input on various thematic, structural, and scientific components through multiple drafts of this LMP. Additionally, SCFC staff facilitated access to and procurement of publicly available geospatial data during the development of the geodatabase. Additional Stakeholders AFF also sought input from a variety of additional stakeholders with expertise in the natural resources, planning, certification, and regulatory disciplines. Like the Support Committee, these additional stakeholders did not necessarily endorse all components of the LMP, nor does AFF imply a consensus was reached. These additional stakeholders included: • American Forest Management • SC Department of Agriculture • Association of Consulting Foresters • SC Department of Natural Resources (DNR) • Audubon South Carolina • SC Native Plant Society • Belle W. Baruch Foundation • SC Sustainable Forestry Initiative • Bishop Brothers Forestry Consultants Implementation Committee • Boise Cascade Company • SC State Park Service • Canfor Southern Pine • SC Timber Producers Association • Center for Heirs’ Property Preservation • SC Tree Farm Committee • Clemson Extension Service • SC Vegetation Management Association • Congaree Land Trust • SC Wildlife Federation • Forestry Association of South Carolina • Sierra Club South Carolina • Georgia Forestry Commission • The Nature Conservancy • Georgia-Pacific Corporation • US Army – Fort Jackson • Interfor Corporation • US Fish & Wildlife Service • International Paper Company • USDA Farm Service Agency (FSA) • Longleaf Alliance • USDA Forest Service • National Wild Turkey Federation • USDA Natural Resources Conservation • Palmetto Conservation Foundation Service (NRCS) • Pee Dee Land Trust • WestRock Company • Quality Deer Management Association • Weyerhaeuser Company • SC Association of Conservation Districts • SC Conservation Bank ii TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................... 2 1.1. Forest Resource Professionals ....................................................................................................... 4 1.2. Adaptive Management .................................................................................................................... 4 1.3. 2015-2020 ATFS Standards of Sustainability within the LMP ..................................................... 5 1.4. Forest Stewardship Program Standards within the LMP ............................................................ 12 1.5. A Forester’s Field Guide for Using the Landscape Management Plan with Landowners ................................................................................................................................................................. 3 1.6. A Landowner’s Field Guide for Using the Landscape Management Plan .................................... 4 1.6.1. Landowner “Leave-Behind” Document ............................................................................... 6 2. SITE SPECIFIC CHARACTERIZATION THROUGH GEODATABASE TOOLS ................................ 8 2.1. Instructions for Use ......................................................................................................................... 8 2.2. Geodatabase Layer Descriptions ................................................................................................... 8 3. ECOREGIONS (LEVEL III) ............................................................................................................. 16 3.1. Blue Ridge ..................................................................................................................................... 18 3.1.1. Forest Types Within Ecoregion .......................................................................................... 21 3.2. Piedmont ....................................................................................................................................... 21 3.2.1. Forest Types Within Ecoregion .......................................................................................... 23 3.3. Southeastern Plains ...................................................................................................................... 23 3.3.1. Sandhills Level IV Ecoregion .............................................................................................. 25 3.3.2. Forest Types Within Ecoregion .......................................................................................... 25 3.4. Middle Atlantic Coastal Plain ........................................................................................................ 25 3.4.1. Forest Types Within Ecoregion .......................................................................................... 27 3.5. Southern Coastal Plain ................................................................................................................. 27 3.5.1. Forest Types Within Ecoregion .......................................................................................... 29 3.6. Ecoregions Application to Landscape Management Plan ........................................................... 29 4. HYDROLOGIC CATEGORIES ....................................................................................................... 31 5. OBJECTIVES .................................................................................................................................. 34 5.1. Common Landscape Objectives ................................................................................................... 34 5.1.1. Forest Land Conservation and Retention ......................................................................... 34 5.1.2. Support Healthy Forest Products Industry ........................................................................ 37 5.1.3. Watershed Protection and Restoration............................................................................. 37 5.1.4. Wildlife Management and Protection................................................................................ 38 5.1.5. Forest Ecological Restoration ............................................................................................ 44 5.1.6. Non-Native and Invasive Species (NNIS) and Nuisance Species Management ............. 45 5.1.7. Supporting Military Bases .................................................................................................. 51 5.2. Landowner Objectives ................................................................................................................... 51 5.2.1. Forest Health Management ............................................................................................... 52 5.2.2. Conservation ....................................................................................................................... 55 5.2.3. Economic Return ................................................................................................................ 55 5.2.4. Wildlife Management and Protection................................................................................ 59 5.2.5. Recreation .......................................................................................................................... 61 5.2.6. Aesthetics ........................................................................................................................... 62 5.2.7. Legacy Planning ................................................................................................................. 63 6. COMMON SOUTH CAROLINA FOREST TYPES .......................................................................... 68 6.1. Loblolly Pine Dominant ................................................................................................................. 72 6.2. Longleaf Pine Dominant ............................................................................................................... 72 6.3. Shortleaf Pine/Hardwood Mixed .................................................................................................. 73 iii 6.4. Loblolly Pine/Hardwood Mixed ..................................................................................................... 74 6.5. Upland Hardwoods ........................................................................................................................ 75 6.6. Bottomland Hardwoods ................................................................................................................ 75 6.6.1. Tupelo-Cypress Mixed ........................................................................................................ 76 6.6.2. Carolina Bay ....................................................................................................................... 77 6.7. Maritime Forests ..........................................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Richard Chinn Environmental Training, Inc. Info
    Scientific Name Common Name Region 6 Habit Scientific Name Common Name Region 6 Habit Abies balsamea FIR,BALSAM FACW NT Amaranthus californicus AMARANTH,CALIFORNIA NI ANF Abutilon theophrasti VELVET-LEAF NI AIF Amaranthus crassipes AMARANTH,TROPICAL FAC+ AIF Acacia greggii ACACIA,CATCLAW UPL NST Amaranthus greggii AMARANTH,GREGGIS FAC ANF Acacia smallii HUISACHE FACU NTS Amaranthus obcordatus AMARANTH,TRANS PECOS NI ANF Acalypha rhomboidea COPPER-LEAF,COMMON UPL* ANF Amaranthus palmeri AMARANTH,PALMER'S FACU- ANF Acalypha virginica MERCURY,THREE-SEEDED UPL* ANF Amaranthus retroflexus AMARANTH,RED-ROOT FACU- ANF Acer negundo BOX-ELDER FACW- NT Amaranthus rudis AMARANTH,TALL FAC ANF Acer rubrum MAPLE,DRUMMOND RED FACW NT Amaranthus spinosus AMARANTH,SPINY FACU- ANF Acer rubrum MAPLE,TRIDENT RED NI NT Amaranthus tuberculatus AMARANTH,ROUGH-FRUIT NI ANF Acer rubrum MAPLE,RED FAC NT Ambrosia artemisiifolia RAGWEED,ANNUAL FACU- ANF Acer saccharinum MAPLE,SILVER FAC NT Ambrosia grayi BURSAGE,WOOLLY-LEAF FACW PNF Acer saccharum MAPLE,SUGAR UPL NT Ambrosia psilostachya RAGWEED,NAKED-SPIKE FAC- PNF Achillea millefolium YARROW,COMMON FACU PNF Ambrosia trifida RAGWEED,GREAT FAC ANF Acorus calamus SWEETFLAG OBL PIEF Amelanchier alnifolia SERVICE-BERRY,SASKATOON FAC- NS Adiantum capillus-veneris FERN,SOUTHERN MAIDEN-HAIR FACW+ PNF3 Amelanchier arborea SERVICE-BERRY,DOWNY FACU NT Adiantum pedatum FERN,NORTHERN MAIDEN-HAIR FAC PNF3 Amianthium muscaetoxicum FLYPOISON FAC PNF Adiantum tricholepis FERN,HAIRY MAIDEN-HAIR FAC PNF3 Ammannia auriculata AMMANNIA,RED-STEM
    [Show full text]
  • Q U a R T E R L Y N E W S L E T T E R December 2009 Volume 7 Number 2 of 4
    LOUISIANA NATURAL AREAS REGISTRY Q u a r t e r l y N e w s l e t t e r December 2009 Volume 7 Number 2 of 4 Working with landowners towards conservation of Louisiana’s ecologically sensitive lands http//www.Louisiana.gov/experience/natural heritage/naturalareasregistry/ Can you name this flower? See Page 6 for answer. NATURAL AREAS UPDATE They are considered together here due to their floristic similarity Amity Bass has joined the and/or similarity in management needs.) Louisiana Natural Cypress‐Tupelo‐Blackgum Swamps throughout the natural range are Heritage Program staff as forested alluvial swamps growing on intermittently exposed soils our new Community most commonly along rivers and streams but also occurring in back Ecologist. She is a native swamp depressions and swales. The soils are inundated or saturated of West Monroe in by surface water or ground water on a nearly permanent basis northeast Louisiana. throughout the growing season except during periods of extreme Amity received her drought. However, even deepwater swamps, with almost Bachelors in Biology from continuous flooding, experience seasonal fluctuations in water levels the University of (LNHP 1986‐2004). Baldcypress swamps generally occur on mucks Louisiana at Monroe and clays, and also silts and sands with underlying clay layers (ULM) in 2005 and her (Alfisols, Entisols, Histosols, and Inceptisols) (Conner and Buford undergraduate work 1998). focused on the nesting ecology of turtles on sandbars and Cypress‐Tupelo‐Blackgum swamps have relatively low floristic herpetofaunal (study of reptiles and amphibians) surveys on state diversity. Taxodium distichum (baldcypress) and Nyssa aquatica wildlife management areas.
    [Show full text]
  • Cypress Knees Exploit Stumps
    Volume 28: Number 2 > Summer/Fall 2011 PalmettoThe Quarterly Journal of the Florida Native Plant Society Cypress Knees Exploit Stumps ● 2011 Residential Landscape Awards ● Red Coontie or White? Above: Cypress outrigger roots with knees exposed along a river bank at Fisheating Creek. Photo by Maureen Bonness. Cypress Knees Exploit Stumps By Maureen S. Bonness Photos by Nick Shirghio and Maureen Bonness Cypress looping-roots and knees growing in a cypress stump. Photo by Nick Shirghio. 4 ● The Palmetto Volume 28:2 ● Spring/Summer 2011 Above left: Melaleuca stump (note the white papery bark) with infiltrating cypress knee and root loop. The stump is 35 inches tall. Above right: Melaleuca stump with bark removed to show infiltrating cypress roots attached to looping-roots and knee. Photos by Nick Shirghio. The roots of cypress trees (Taxodium distichum and T. ascendens) have been released from typical constraints that keep roots subterranean, and regularly protrude above ground in odd woody formations known as “knees”. Most knees are more or less conical, but I would describe some as being shaped more like spires, Hershey kisses, blobs, or shmoos. Knees are prominent features that bestow cypress swamps with an ambiance like no other swamp. For nearly two centuries, the function of knees has been theorized and researched, without consensus, and remains “an enduring enigma” as discussed by C. H. Briand (2000; see also Brown 1984 and references within both articles). Hypotheses include gas exchange (e.g., aeration of root system), mechanical support, nutrient acquisition (including detritus catchers), and carbohydrate storage. Knees generally do not grow much above the average high-water level in any particular swamp, thus the aeration theory is arguably the most popular, despite this specialized function being unsupported by physiological and anatomical research.
    [Show full text]
  • Forested Wetlands of the Southern United States: a Bibliography William Conner Clemson University, [email protected]
    Clemson University TigerPrints Publications Plant and Environmental Sciences 10-2001 Forested Wetlands of the Southern United States: A Bibliography William Conner Clemson University, [email protected] Nicole L. Hill Evander M. Whitehead William S. Busbee Marceau A. Ratard See next page for additional authors Follow this and additional works at: https://tigerprints.clemson.edu/ag_pubs Part of the Forest Sciences Commons Recommended Citation Please use publisher's recommended citation. This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Plant and Environmental Sciences at TigerPrints. It has been accepted for inclusion in Publications by an authorized administrator of TigerPrints. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Authors William Conner, Nicole L. Hill, Evander M. Whitehead, William S. Busbee, Marceau A. Ratard, Mehmet Ozalp, Darrell L. Smith, and James P. Marshall This article is available at TigerPrints: https://tigerprints.clemson.edu/ag_pubs/3 United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service Forested Wetlands of the Southern United States: A Bibliography Southern Research Station William H. Conner, Nicole L. Hill, Evander M. Whitehead, General Technical William S. Busbee, Marceau A. Ratard, Mehmet Ozalp, Report SRS-43 Darrel L. Smith, and James P. Marshall The Authors William H. Conner, Professor, Clemson University, Baruch Institute of Coastal Ecology and Forest Science, Clemson University, Georgetown, SC; Nicole L. Hill, Land Protection Specialist, Southwest Michigan Land Conservancy, Kalamazoo, MI; Evander M. Whitehead, Graduate Student, University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC; William S. Busbee, Graduate Student, Greenville, SC; and Marceau A. Ratard, Mehmet Ozalp, and James P. Marshall, Graduate Students, Forestry Department, Clemson University, Clemson, SC, respectively.
    [Show full text]
  • The Development and Evaluation of a Freshwater Mussel Sampling
    THE DEVELOPMENT AND EVALUATION OF A FRESHWATER MUSSEL SAMPLING PROTOCOL FOR A LARGE LOWLAND RIVER by JASON RAY MEADOR Under the direction of James T. Peterson ABSTRACT Freshwater mussels are among the most imperiled aquatic species within the southeastern United States. Mangers are faced with the task gathering information via monitoring, and making decisions based on available information about local mussel populations. I gathered data on mussel behavior, demography, distribution, and detection to develop a cost-effective protocol for monitoring freshwater mussel populations within the Altamaha River. Surface abundance, survival, occupancy, and detection varied spatially, temporally, and among species. I then developed sampling stratum within mesohabitats based on empirical data and evaluated the efficacy of several sampling protocols via simulation. Spatial and temporal variation among species emphasize the importance for properly estimating and evaluating habitat based on use and detection and suggest refraining from raw count indices. INDEX WORDS: Altamaha River, Freshwater Mussels, Occupancy, Abundance, Estimation, Robust Design, Migration Patterns, Sample Design, Detection THE DEVELOPMENT AND EVALUATION OF A FRESHWATER MUSSEL SAMPLING PROTOCOL FOR A LARGE LOWLAND RIVER by JASON RAY MEADOR B.S., North Carolina State University, 2004 A Thesis Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of The University of Georgia in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree MASTER OF SCIENCE ATHENS, GEORGIA 2008 © 2008 Jason Ray Meador All Rights Reserved THE DEVELOPMENT AND EVALUATION OF A FRESHWATER MUSSEL SAMPLING PROTOCOL FOR A LARGE LOWLAND RIVER by JASON RAY MEADOR Major Professor: James T. Peterson Committee: Brett Albanese Michael J. Conroy Electronic Version Approved: Maureen Grasso Dean of the Graduate School The University of Georgia May 2008 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS There are many people that offered assistance throughout the duration of this project for whom I am grateful.
    [Show full text]
  • Correlations Between Biotic Indices, Water Quality, And
    CURRENT STATUS OF ENDEMIC MUSSELS IN THE LOWER OCMULGEE AND ALTAMAHA RIVERS Jason M. Wisniewski, Greg Krakow, and Brett Albanese AUTHORS: Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Wildlife Resources Division, Natural Heritage Program, Social Circle, GA 30025 REFERENCE: Proceedings of the 2005 Georgia Water Resources Conference, held April 25-27, 2005, at the University of Georgia. Kathryn J. Hatcher, editor, Institute of Ecology, The University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia. Abstract. The Altamaha River Basin is well known to stable. As a result, the current status of the endemic among malacologists for its high percentage (ca. 40%) of mussels of the lower Altamaha River system was reviewed. endemic mussels. While little historical data exists to This review will provide information to policy makers and quantify changes in mussel abundance, many biologists regulatory agencies for developing conservation strategies believe that some species are declining. We assembled a that may affect the persistence and habitat quality of large database of mussel occurrence records from imperiled mussels. surveys conducted since 1967 and used this data to assess the current status of endemic mussels in the lower Ocmulgee and Altamaha rivers. The percentage of sites BACKGROUND occupied and the ranges of the Altamaha arcmussel, Altamaha spinymussel, and inflated floater have declined The Altamaha River Basin is the largest basin in Georgia over the past 10 years. The remaining endemic mussel (36,976 km2). Major tributaries in the basin include: the species occupy a large percentage of sites and appear to Ocmulgee, Oconee, and Ohoopee rivers (Figure 1). be stable. We recommend the development of a long- Although historic collections date back to the 1830’s, most term monitoring program for Altamaha basin endemic major surveys have been conducted since the late 1960's mussels.
    [Show full text]
  • Evolution of Flooding Tolerance in a Spatially and Temporally Heterogeneous Landscape
    EVOLUTION OF FLOODING TOLERANCE IN A SPATIALLY AND TEMPORALLY HETEROGENEOUS LANDSCAPE A Dissertation Presented to the Faculty of the Graduate School of Cornell University In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy by Jill Theresa Anderson January 2009 © 2009 Jill Theresa Anderson EVOLUTION OF FLOODING TOLERANCE IN A SPATIALLY AND TEMPORALLY HETEROGENEOUS LANDSCAPE Jill Theresa Anderson, Ph. D. Cornell University 2009 This dissertation explores plant adaptations to flooding and drought stress. In the first study, I assessed flooding tolerance as a function of life history stage in Itea virginica, a species of shrub from cypress tupelo forests of the United States. Results from this study indicate that limited flooding tolerance of juveniles restricts the distribution patterns of adults (Chapter 1). In a complementary study, I assessed adaptive evolution in Elliott’s blueberry (Vaccinium elliottii). In heterogeneous landscapes, natural selection can result in the evolution of locally adapted ecotypes. However, if habitats differ in size or quality, demographic source-sink dynamics can shape the evolutionary trajectory of species. I conducted a multiyear reciprocal transplant experiment to test whether V. elliottii is locally adapted to upland and floodplain forests in South Carolina. These contrasting habitats vary tremendously in water table depth, light levels and edaphic conditions. In the greenhouse, I exposed individuals to drought and flooding to assess selection on traits in response to disparate abiotic stresses. Finally, I quantified population differentiation and gene flow via microsatellite markers. V.elliottii families exhibited significantly higher fitness in upland relative to floodplain forests, regardless of the habitat of origin.
    [Show full text]
  • Softwoods of North America. Gen
    United States Department of Agriculture Softwoods of Forest Service Forest North America Products Laboratory General Technical Report FPL–GTR–102 Harry A. Alden Abstract This report describes 52 taxa of North American softwoods, which are organized alphabeti- cally by genus. Descriptions include scientific name, trade name, distribution, tree character- istics, wood characteristics (e.g., general, weight, mechanical properties, drying, shrinkage, working properties, durability, preservation, uses, and toxicity), and additional sources of information. Data were compiled from existing literature, mostly from research done at the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Forest Products Laboratory, Madison, Wis- consin. Keywords: softwoods, properties, North America, wood Acknowledgments Sincere thanks to the staff of the USDA Forest Service, Forest Products Laboratory, for their aid in the preparation of this work. Special thanks to David Green, David Kretschmann, and Kent McDonald of the Engineering Properties of Wood Group; John “Rusty” Dramm of State and Private Forestry; Scott Leavengood and James Reeb of Oregon State University; and Lisa Johnson of the Southern Pine Inspection Bureau who reviewed this manuscript. Also thanks to Susan LeVan, Assistant Director, Forest Products Laboratory, for her support and the Information Services team, Forest Products Laboratory, for final editing and produc- tion of this report. This book is dedicated to Elbert Luther Little, Jr. (1907–present) for his significant and vo- luminous contributions to the nomenclature and geographic distributions of both softwood and hardwood trees of North America (45, 76, 100–139, 197, 198). September 1997 Alden, Harry A. 1997. Softwoods of North America. Gen. Tech. Rep. FPL–GTR–102. Madison, WI: U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Coastal Resilience Assessment of the Savannah River Watershed
    Coastal Resilience Assessment of the Savannah River Watershed Suggested Citation: Crist, P.J., R. White, M. Chesnutt, C. Scott, R. Sutter, E. Linden, P. Cutter, and G. Dobson. Coastal Resilience Assessment of the Savannah River Watershed. 2019. National Fish and Wildlife Foundation. IMPORTANT INFORMATION/DISCLAIMER: This report represents a Regional Coastal Resilience Assessment that can be used to identify places on the landscape for resilience-building efforts and conservation actions through understanding coastal flood threats, the exposure of populations and infrastructure have to those threats, and the presence of suitable fish and wildlife habitat. As with all remotely sensed or publicly available data, all features should be verified with a site visit, as the locations of suitable landscapes or areas containing flood hazards and community assets are approximate. The data, maps, and analysis provided should be used only as a screening-level resource to support management decisions. This report should be used strictly as a planning reference tool and not for permitting or other legal purposes. The scientific results and conclusions, as well as any views or opinions expressed herein, are those of the authors and should not be interpreted as representing the opinions or policies of the U.S. Government, or the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation’s partners. Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute their endorsement by the U.S. Government or the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation or its funding sources. NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION DISCLAIMER: The scientific results and conclusions, as well as any views or opinions expressed herein, are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect those of NOAA or the Department of Commerce.
    [Show full text]
  • Current Issue of Arnoldia
    The Magazine of the Arnold Arboretum VOLUME 78 • NUMBER 3 The Magazine of the Arnold Arboretum VOLUME 78 • NUMBER 3 • 2021 CONTENTS Arnoldia (ISSN 0004–2633; USPS 866–100) 2 Building a Comprehensive Plant Collection is published quarterly by the Arnold Arboretum Jeffrey D. Carstens of Harvard University. Periodicals postage paid at Boston, Massachusetts. 5 A Conservation SOS: Polygonum hickmanii Holly Forbes Annual subscriptions are $20.00 domestic or $25.00 international, payable in U.S. dollars. 7 An Unusual Autumn at the Dana Greenhouses Subscribe and purchase back issues online at Tiffany Enzenbacher https://arboretum.harvard.edu/arnoldia/ or send orders, remittances, change-of-address notices, 10 A Brief History of Juglandaceae and all other subscription-related communica- Jonas Frei tions to Circulation Manager, Arnoldia, Arnold Arboretum, 125 Arborway, Boston, MA 02130- 18 Discovering the Majestic Mai Hing Sam of Laos 3500. Telephone 617.524.1718; fax 617.524.1418; Gretchen C. Coffman e-mail [email protected] 28 Backyard Climate Solutions Arnold Arboretum members receive a subscrip- Edward K. Faison tion to Arnoldia as a membership benefit. To become a member or receive more information, 38 A New Look at Boston Common Trees please call Wendy Krauss at 617.384.5766 or Kelsey Allen and W. Wyatt Oswald email [email protected] 42 Case of the Anthropocene Postmaster: Send address changes to Jonathan Damery Arnoldia Circulation Manager 44 Planting Edo: Pinus thunbergii The Arnold Arboretum Rachel Saunders 125 Arborway Boston, MA 02130–3500 Front and back cover: Jonas Frei’s collection of walnut family fruits includes a disc-shaped wheel wingnut (Cyc- Jonathan Damery, Editor locarya paliurus, back cover) among other more familiar- David Hakas, Editorial Intern Andy Winther, Designer looking species.
    [Show full text]
  • Environmental Assessment on the Effects of the Issuance of a Scientific Research Permit (File No
    UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OP COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Admlnletratlon PROGRAM PLANNING AND INTEGRATION S ilv e r S p ring, Maryland 2 09 1 0 OCT 7 2009 To All Interested Government Agencies and Public Groups: Under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), an environmental review has been performed on the following action. TITLE: Environmental Assessment on the Effects of the Issuance of a Scientific Research Permit (File No. 14394) to Conduct Research on Shortnose Sturgeon in the Altamaha River, Georgia LOCATION: The proposed research would occur in the Altamaha River, Georgia, between the Altamaha Sound and the confluence of the Oconee and Ocmulgee Rivers (rkm 215). Most sampling, however, would occur in the tidally influenced portions of the river to river kilometer 65. SUMMARY: The current EA analyzed the effects of shortnose sturgeon research on the environment in the Altamaha River. This proposed research is a continuation of similar research objectives conducted under Permit 1420-01 which expired on September 30, 2009. The permit would be valid for five years from the date of issuance and would authorize non-lethal sampling methods on up to 500 shortnose sturgeon annually, but not to exceed 1,500 over the life of the permit. Research activities would include netting, measurement (length, weight, photos), genetic and fin-ray tissue sampling, PIT and sonic tagging, anesthesia, laparoscopy, and gastric lavage. To document spawning in the river, up to 20 eggs or larvae would be lethally collected with artificial substrates annually. Additionally, one incidence of unintentional mortality or serious injury is proposed over the life of the permit.
    [Show full text]
  • Tracked Plant Elements
    Working List of Rare Oklahoma Plants Oklahoma Natural Heritage Inventory Database CLASS FAMILY SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME GRANK SRANK EQUISETOPSIDA EQUISETACEAE EQUISETUM ARVENSE FIELD HORSETAIL G5 S1 FILICOPSIDA ASPLENIACEAE ASPLENIUM BRADLEYI BRADLEY'S SPLEENWORT G4 S1 ASPLENIUM PINNATIFIDUM LOBED SPLEENWORT G4 S1 ASPLENIUM SEPTENTRIONALE NORTHERN SPLEENWORT G4G5 SH DRYOPTERIDACEAE DRYOPTERIS FILIX-MAS MALE FERN G5 S1 WOODSIA OREGANA WESTERN CLIFF FERN G5 S1 MARSILEACEAE MARSILEA VESTITA HAIRY WATER-FERN G5 S1 PILULARIA AMERICANA AMERICAN PILLWORT G5 S1S2 PTERIDACEAE ASTROLEPIS SINUATA A LIPFERN G5? S1S3 CHEILANTHES ALABAMENSIS ALABAMA LIPFERN G4G5 SH CHEILANTHES FENDLERI FENDLER LIPFERN G4 S1S2 CHEILANTHES HORRIDULA ROUGH LIPFERN G4G5 S2? CHEILANTHES LINDHEIMERI LINDHEIMER LIPFERN G4G5 S1S2 CHEILANTHES WOOTONII WOOTON LACEFERN G5 S2 SALVINIACEAE AZOLLA CAROLINIANA EASTERN MOSQUITO-FERN G5 S2 ISOETOPSIDA ISOETACEAE ISOETES BUTLERI BUTLER'S QUILLWORT G4 S1 ISOETES MELANOPODA BLACKFOOT QUILLWORT G5 S1S2 SELAGINELLACEAE SELAGINELLA DENSA DENSE SPIKE-MOSS G5 S1 LYCOPODIOPSIDA LYCOPODIACEAE LYCOPODIELLA APPRESSA SOUTHERN BOG CLUBMOSS G5 S1 Monday, May 05, 2003 Oklahoma Biological Survey, 111 East Chesapeake St., Norman, OK 73019 Page 1 of 14 CLASS FAMILY SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME GRANK SRANK OPHIOGLOSSOPSIDA OPHIOGLOSSACEAE BOTRYCHIUM LUNARIOIDES WINTER GRAPE-FERN G4? S1 OPHIOGLOSSUM NUDICAULE LEAST ADDER'S-TONGUE FERN G5 S1 OPHIOGLOSSUM PETIOLATUM LONGSTEM ADDER'S-TONGUE FERN G5 S1 MONOCOTYLEDONEAE AGAVACEAE NOLINA TEXANA TEXAS BEAR-GRASS
    [Show full text]