DOCSLIB.ORG

Proposed Land Management Plan for the Idaho Panhandle National

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Proposed Land Management Plan for the Idaho Panhandle National Appendix F – Species of Concern and Species of Interest APPENDIX F Species of Concern and Species of Interest Appendix F: Species of Concern and Species of Interest – Idaho Panhandle National Forest................................................................................................................1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 1 Ecological sustainability................................................................................................................ 1 Step 1: Identification of species................................................................................................ 2 Step 2: Screening Species of Concern and Species of Interest for Further Consideration in the Planning Process ..................................................................................................................... 14 Results of Initial Screening..................................................................................................... 16 Further Screening – Information collection............................................................................ 17 Species of Concern brought forward for Further Analysis................................................ 29 Species of Interest brought forward for Further Analysis ................................................. 29 Step 3: Grouping Species and Selecting Surrogate Species.................................................... 32 Step 4: Plan Components for Species Diversity .................................................................... 41 Step 5: Evaluation of Plan Components on Species Diversity .............................................. 44 Appendix F: Species of Concern and Species of Interest – Kootenai National Forest .............................................................................................................................45 Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 45 Ecological sustainability.............................................................................................................. 45 Step 1: Identification of species.............................................................................................. 46 Step 2: Screening Potential Species of Concern and Species of Interest for Further Consideration in the Planning Process.................................................................................... 58 Results of Initial Screening..................................................................................................... 60 Further Screening – Information collection............................................................................ 60 Species of Concern brought forward for Further Analysis................................................ 70 Species of Interest brought forward for Further Analysis ................................................. 70 Step 3: Grouping Species and Selecting Surrogate Species.................................................... 73 Step 4: Plan Components for Species Diversity .................................................................... 82 Step 5: Evaluation of Plan Components on Species Diversity .............................................. 84 Terms and Abbreviations............................................................................................................ 85 Global and State Ranks from NatureServe and Montana Ranks from the Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy............................................................................................... 86 Literature Cited........................................................................................................................... 87 Literature Reviewed.................................................................................................................... 88 Appendix F – Species of Concern and Species of Interest KIPZ Draft Comprehensive Evaluation Report Appendix F – Species of Concern and Species of Interest Appendix F: Species of Concern and Species of Interest – Idaho Panhandle National Forest Introduction This report documents the identification and selection of species of concern and species of interest by the Forest Supervisor for the Idaho Panhandle National Forests for the Proposed Land Management Plan. The Idaho Panhandle National Forest is responsible for the management of approximately 2.5 million acres. The majority of the land administered by the Forest is located in Bonner, Boundary, Benewah, Kootenai, and Shoshone counties, Idaho with small portions in Latah and Clearwater Counties, Idaho; Pend Oreille County, Washington; and Sanders and Lincoln Counties, Montana. The forest is bordered on the north by Canada, on the west by the Colville National Forest, on the east by the Kootenai National Forest and on the south by the Clearwater National Forest. Coordination with representatives of the various adjacent forests has occurred during this analysis process. Ecological sustainability The National Forest Management Act (NFMA) requires land management plans to provide for diversity of plant and animal communities based on the suitability and capability of the land areas while meeting overall multiple use objectives. The 2005 planning rule and associated Forest Service Directives (FSH 1909.12, Chapter 40) specify how to meet this diversity requirement. A hierarchical approach that assesses both Ecosystem Diversity (section 43.1) and Species Diversity (section 43.2) is used in the Idaho Panhandle Proposed Land Management Plan. The initial focus of the assessment process is on ecosystem diversity, both in addressing the needs of healthy, diverse, and resilient ecosystems within the plan area, and in determining the extent to which maintaining ecosystem diversity will also maintain populations of plant and animal species within their ranges in the plan area. Ecosystem diversity is defined as the variety and relative extent of ecosystem types including their composition, structure, and processes. An assumption relative to terrestrial animals is that ecosystem diversity will maintain habitat for the persistence of the vast majority of species. This has often been referred to as the “coarse filter” conservation approach. For the Idaho Panhandle, a coarse filter ecosystem diversity evaluation was used to compare existing vegetation communities to a set of reference conditions in order to evaluate changes in disturbance regimes and ecological communities. See Appendix B of the CER (Range of Variability) for a complete description of the process used. Based on the results of this evaluation, proposed forest plan components were developed to maintain or move vegetation communities towards a desired level or condition. A complementary approach (species diversity) to the ecosystem diversity analysis was used for those species for which ecological conditions necessary to sustain populations may not be provided by maintaining ecosystem diversity. In these cases, a species-specific approach was used in the analysis and for the establishment of plan components (where necessary). The assessment of individual species is often referred to as the “fine-filter” approach. Forest Service directives associated with the 2005 Planning Rule provide guidelines for conducting species sustainability assessments. The focus in this analysis is on species that are of regional or local conservation KIPZ Draft Comprehensive Evaluation Report F-1 Appendix F – Species of Concern and Species of Interest concern as indicated by documented threats to populations or habitats. Native terrestrial vertebrates and invertebrates known to occur on land administered by the Kootenai National Forest were considered. Criteria in the USDA Forest Service planning directives were used as the basis for identification of species to include in the species diversity analysis (FSH 1909.12 Chapter 43.2; Effective Date 1/09/2006). Specifically species included are: • Species listed as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act • Species of concern • Species of interest A five step approach was used in the assessment for species of concern and species of interest: 1. Identification of species. 2. Screening of species of concern and species of interest for further consideration in the planning process. 3. Grouping species where possible and, if necessary, selecting surrogate species. 4. Determining plan components for species diversity. 5. Evaluation of plan components on species diversity. Step 1: Identification of species Species known to occur on the Forests For each of the criteria identified below for identification of threatened and endangered species and species of concern and species of interest, only those species known to occur on the Forest were considered. A list of vertebrate wildlife species known to occur on the KIPZ was completed for the AMS. For vertebrate species, an inventory was compiled using historical records, national forest, state, county and internet databases. Very little information is available on the Forest for terrestrial invertebrates. To obtain known occurrences of terrestrial invertebrates (mollusks), representatives from the states of Montana and Idaho provided a list of species and locations (Montana Natural Heritage Program and Idaho Conservation Data Center). The species list for the Forest was compared
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Major Indicator Shrubs and Herbs in Riparian Zones on National Forests of Central Oregon
    United States Department of Major Indicator Shrubs and Agriculture Herbs in Riparian Zones on Forest Service National Forests of Pacific Northwest Central Oregon. Region by Bernard L. Kovaichik William E. Hopkins and Steven J. Brunsfeld Major Indicator Shrubs and Herbs in Riparian Zones on National Forests of Central Oregon By Bernard L. Kovaichik, Area IV Riparian Ecologist William E. Hopkins, Area IV Area Ecologist and Steven J. Brunsfeld, University of Idaho June, 1988 1988 USDA - Forest Service Pacific Northwest Region R6-ECOL-TP-005-88 I Acknowledgements: The authors wish to thank all those who kindlydonated their time to this publication. Thanks to Bill Hopkins and Rob Rawlings for blazingthe trail with their "Major indicator shrubs and herbson National Forests in eastern Oregon" (Hopkins and Rawlings, 1985). They developedthe format for this style of guide."Major indicator shrubs and herbs on National Forests of western Oregon and southwestern Washington"(Halverson and others, 1986) follows a similar format andwas another resource for developing this guide. Thanks to Carl Burke for illustrating some of thesketches in the glossary and Nancy Halverson, Linda Newman and Nancy Shaw forediting the document.Thanks to David Mattson for his sketch of eastwood willow. Photo credits: Bernard L. Kovalchik Steven J. Brunsfeld Wayne D. Padgett Line drawings used by permission from: Hitchcock, C. L., A. Cronquist, M. Ownberg and J. W. Thompson.1977. Vascular plants of the Pacific Northwest. Vol. 1-5. Univ. of Washington Press. Seattle. 2978p. Brunsfeld, S. J. and F. D. Johnson. 1985. Field guide to thewillows of east-central Idaho. Forest, Wildlife, and Range Experiment Station Bull.
    [Show full text]
  • AGCBC Seedlist2019booklet
    ! Alpine Garden Club of British Columbia Seed Exchange 2019 Alpine Garden Club of British Columbia Seed Exchange 2019 We are very grateful to all those members who have made our Seed Exchange possible through donating seeds. The number of donors was significantly down this year, which makes the people who do donate even more precious. We particularly want to thank the new members who donated seed in their first year with the Club. A big thank-you also to those living locally who volunteer so much time and effort to packaging and filling orders. READ THE FOLLOWING INSTRUCTIONS CAREFULLY BEFORE FILLING IN THE REQUEST FORM. PLEASE KEEP YOUR SEED LIST, packets will be marked by number only. Return the enclosed request form by mail or, if you have registered to do so, by the on-line form, as soon as possible, but no later than DECEMBER 8. Allocation: Donors may receive up to 60 packets and non-donors 30 packets, limit of one packet of each selection. Donors receive preference for seeds in short supply (USDA will permit no more than 50 packets for those living in the USA). List first choices by number only, in strict numerical order, from left to right on the order form. Enter a sufficient number of second choices in the spaces below, since we may not be able to provide all your first choices. Please print clearly. Please be aware that we have again listed wild collected seed (W) and garden seed (G) of the same species separately, which is more convenient for people ordering on-line.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter Vii Table of Contents
    CHAPTER VII TABLE OF CONTENTS VII. APPENDICES AND REFERENCES CITED........................................................................1 Appendix 1: Description of Vegetation Databases......................................................................1 Appendix 2: Suggested Stocking Levels......................................................................................8 Appendix 3: Known Plants of the Desolation Watershed.........................................................15 Literature Cited............................................................................................................................25 CHAPTER VII - APPENDICES & REFERENCES - DESOLATION ECOSYSTEM ANALYSIS i VII. APPENDICES AND REFERENCES CITED Appendix 1: Description of Vegetation Databases Vegetation data for the Desolation ecosystem analysis was stored in three different databases. This document serves as a data dictionary for the existing vegetation, historical vegetation, and potential natural vegetation databases, as described below: • Interpretation of aerial photography acquired in 1995, 1996, and 1997 was used to characterize existing (current) conditions. The 1996 and 1997 photography was obtained after cessation of the Bull and Summit wildfires in order to characterize post-fire conditions. The database name is: 97veg. • Interpretation of late-1930s and early-1940s photography was used to characterize historical conditions. The database name is: 39veg. • The potential natural vegetation was determined for each polygon in the analysis
    [Show full text]
  • December 2012 Number 1
    Calochortiana December 2012 Number 1 December 2012 Number 1 CONTENTS Proceedings of the Fifth South- western Rare and Endangered Plant Conference Calochortiana, a new publication of the Utah Native Plant Society . 3 The Fifth Southwestern Rare and En- dangered Plant Conference, Salt Lake City, Utah, March 2009 . 3 Abstracts of presentations and posters not submitted for the proceedings . 4 Southwestern cienegas: Rare habitats for endangered wetland plants. Robert Sivinski . 17 A new look at ranking plant rarity for conservation purposes, with an em- phasis on the flora of the American Southwest. John R. Spence . 25 The contribution of Cedar Breaks Na- tional Monument to the conservation of vascular plant diversity in Utah. Walter Fertig and Douglas N. Rey- nolds . 35 Studying the seed bank dynamics of rare plants. Susan Meyer . 46 East meets west: Rare desert Alliums in Arizona. John L. Anderson . 56 Calochortus nuttallii (Sego lily), Spatial patterns of endemic plant spe- state flower of Utah. By Kaye cies of the Colorado Plateau. Crystal Thorne. Krause . 63 Continued on page 2 Copyright 2012 Utah Native Plant Society. All Rights Reserved. Utah Native Plant Society Utah Native Plant Society, PO Box 520041, Salt Lake Copyright 2012 Utah Native Plant Society. All Rights City, Utah, 84152-0041. www.unps.org Reserved. Calochortiana is a publication of the Utah Native Plant Society, a 501(c)(3) not-for-profit organi- Editor: Walter Fertig ([email protected]), zation dedicated to conserving and promoting steward- Editorial Committee: Walter Fertig, Mindy Wheeler, ship of our native plants. Leila Shultz, and Susan Meyer CONTENTS, continued Biogeography of rare plants of the Ash Meadows National Wildlife Refuge, Nevada.
    [Show full text]
  • Representativeness Assessment of Research Natural Areas on National Forest System Lands in Idaho
    USDA United States Department of Representativeness Assessment of Agriculture Forest Service Research Natural Areas on Rocky Mountain Research Station National Forest System Lands General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-45 in Idaho March 2000 Steven K. Rust Abstract Rust, Steven K. 2000. Representativeness assessment of research natural areas on National Forest System lands in Idaho. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-45. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 129 p. A representativeness assessment of National Forest System (N FS) Research Natural Areas in ldaho summarizes information on the status of the natural area network and priorities for identification of new Research Natural Areas. Natural distribution and abundance of plant associations is compared to the representation of plant associations within natural areas. Natural distribution and abundance is estimated using modeled potential natural vegetation, published classification and inventory data, and Heritage plant community element occur- rence data. Minimum criteria are applied to select only viable, high quality plant association occurrences. In assigning natural area selection priorities, decision rules are applied to encompass consideration of the adequacy and viability of representation. Selected for analysis were 1,024 plant association occurrences within 21 4 natural areas (including 115 NFS Research Natural Areas). Of the 1,566 combinations of association within ecological sections, 28 percent require additional data for further analysis; 8, 40, and 12 percent, respectively, are ranked from high to low conservation priority; 13 percent are fully represented. Patterns in natural area needs vary between ecological section. The result provides an operational prioritization of Research Natural Area needs at landscape and subregional scales.
    [Show full text]
  • Naturescaping Resource Guide
    NATURESCAPING A DESIGN GUIDE FOR HOMEOWNERS H E A LT H Y ENVIRONMENT – BEAUTIFUL LANDSCAPES NATURESCAPING Project Partners: Eugene Water & Electric Board (EWEB) McKenzie Watershed Council (MWC) Northwest Center for Alternatives to Pesticides (NCAP) Oregon State University Extension Service (OSU Extension) Upper Willamette Soil & Water Conservation District (SWCD) Special thanks to the East Multnomah SWCD for developing this concept and allowing us to present it to you! Please note: All information in this resource guide should be considered general guidance. Each property has unique features that will influence the success of any project. Some properties have complicating factors that may require hiring a professional. EWEB, project partners, its staff and advisors are not responsible for any property damage or loss, or any other damages resulting from the education and guidance we provide. Please check with your local jurisdiction to determine if permits are required, or any restrictions exist for activities associated with any landscape installation. All content is free from copyright; pictures and graphics courtesy of project partners, NRCS-USDA website, and Google images. TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. Introduction to Naturescaping 1 2. Getting Started 2 3. Healthy Soil & Composting 6 4. Water Conservation 9 5. Rain Gardens 13 6. Wildlife Habitat 17 7. Riparian Landscapes and Controlling Invasives 20 8. Weeds and Other Pests 28 9. Plan of Action 32 10. Watershed Stewardship 47 11. Living Lightly on the Land 49 APPENDICES A: Native Plant Selection Guide 52 B: Nuisance Plant List 60 C: Invasive Species Control 64 D: Resources 71 i 1. Introduction to Naturescaping Naturescaping is a term that generally refers to the practice of designing (or redesigning) a landscape so that it reduces water use, stormwater runoff and chemicals while allowing people and nature to co-exist.
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix a List of Preparers and Reviewers
    Glossary adfluvial —Referring to fish that live in lakes and no significant impact, aids an agency’s compliance migrate to rivers and streams. with the National Environmental Policy Act when Beyond the Boundaries —National Wildlife Refuge no environmental impact statement is necessary, Association program to expand conservation work and facilitates preparation of a statement when to areas outside national wildlife refuge borders. one is necessary. BRWCA —Bear River Watershed Conservation Area. fluvial —Referring to fish that live in rivers and candidate species —A species of plant or animal for streams. which the USFWS has sufficient information on GCN —(A species of) greatest conservation need. their biological status and threats to propose them HAPET —Habitat and Population Evaluation Team. as endangered or threatened under the Endan- Important Bird Areas Program —A global effort to gered Species Act, but for which development of find and conserve areas that are vital to birds a proposed listing regulation is precluded by other and other biodiversity sponsored by the National higher priority listing activities. Audubon Society. CFR —Code of Federal Regulations. Intermountain West Joint Venture —Diverse partner- CO2 —Carbon dioxide. ship of 18 entities including Federal agencies, conservation easement —A legally enforceable State agencies, nonprofit conservation organiza- encumbrance or transfer of property rights to a tions, and for-profit organizations representing government agency or land trust for the purposes agriculture and industry. IWJV was founded in of conservation. Rights transferred could include 1994 to facilitate bird conservation across the vast the discretion to subdivide or develop land, change 495 million acres of the Intermountain West.
    [Show full text]
  • Conservation Strategy for Spokane River Basin Wetlands
    CONSERVATION STRATEGY FOR SPOKANE RIVER BASIN WETLANDS Prepared by Mabel Jankovsky-Jones Conservation Data Center June 1999 Idaho Department of Fish and Game Natural Resource Policy Bureau 600 South Walnut, P.O. Box 25 Boise, ID 83707 Jerry Mallet, Interim Director Report prepared with funding from the United States Environmental Protection Agency through Section 104(b) (3) of the Clean Water Act Grant No. CD990620-01-0 SUMMARY The Idaho Conservation Data Center has received wetland protection grant funding from the Environmental Protection Agency under the authority of Section 104 (b)(3) of the Clean Water Act to enhance existing wetland information systems. The information summarized here can be applied to state biodiversity, conservation, and water quality enhancement projects on a watershed basis. Previous project areas included the Henrys Fork Basin, Big Wood River Basin, southeastern Idaho watersheds, the Idaho Panhandle, and east-central basins. This document is a summary of information compiled for the Spokane River Basin. We used the United States Fish and Wildlife Service National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) to gain a broad perspective on the areal extant and types of wetlands in the survey area. Land ownership and management layers were overlaid on the NWI to determine ownership and the protected status of wetlands. Plant communities occurring in the survey area were placed into the hierarchical NWI classification and provide information relative to on-the-ground resource management. Assessment of the quality and condition of plant communities and the occurrence of rare plant and animal species allowed us to categorize twenty-four wetland sites based on conservation intent.
    [Show full text]
  • A Guide to the Identification of Salix (Willows) in Alberta
    A Guide to the identification of Salix (willows) in Alberta George W. Argus 2008 Devonian Botanical Garden Workshop on willow identification Jasper National Park, Alberta 2 Available from: George W. Argus 310 Haskins Rd, Merrickville R3, Ontario, Canada K0G 1N0 email: [email protected] http://aknhp.uaa.alaska.edu/willow/index.html 3 CONTENTS Preface............................................................................................................................... 5 Salicaceae ...........…………………...........……........................................……..........…. 8 Classification ..........……………….…..….................................................….............…. 9 Some Useful Morphological Characters .......................................................….............. 11 Key to the Species.............................................................................................................13 Taxonomic Treatment .........................................................…..……….………............ 18 Glossary .....………………………………………....…..................………...........….... 61 Cited and Selected References ......................................................................................... 64 Salix Web Sites ...................……..................................……..................……............…. 68 Distribution Maps ............................................................................................................ 69 TABLES Table 1. Comparison of Salix athabascensis and Salix pedicellaris ..............................
    [Show full text]
  • FOH Newsletter 2013
    FRIENDS Of The University Of Montana HERBARIUM Spring 2013 Montana’s Special Status Plants: Thirty Years of Tracking Rare and Threatened Plants in the Treasure State By Scott Mincemoyer, Montana Natural Heritage Program 1980, the Montana Rare Plant Project, based at the tana’s plants built upon the previous work and helped to In University of Montana, was formed with the intent clarify the conservation status of many other plants based of developing the first, comprehensive listing of rare and upon additional information accumulated from field sur- threatened plants for the state (Lesica et al. 1984). Previ- veys and herbaria specimens over the previous seven ous efforts, focused on developing a list of rare plants had years. a regional or national scope, including one for the North- As early as 1987, MTNHP applied the term “Species of ern Region of the U.S. Forest Service (Inman, Hendzel, Conservation Concern” to species that previously were and Schmautz 1971) and several iterations of lists of categorized in one of the various status categories (e.g. plants under consideration for listing as threatened or en- threatened, endangered, rare) used in the preceding publi- dangered after passage of the Federal Endangered Species cations. This was later abbreviated to Species of Concern Act (ESA) in 1973. The Montana Rare Plant Project as- (SOC), terminology that is still used today for those spe- sembled information on the state’s plant species from sev- cies that meet specific criteria of rarity and/or threats to eral herbaria, including the University of Montana, Mon- their viability (MTNHP 2013).
    [Show full text]
  • Biobasics Contents
    Illinois Biodiversity Basics a biodiversity education program of Illinois Department of Natural Resources Chicago Wilderness World Wildlife Fund Adapted from Biodiversity Basics, © 1999, a publication of World Wildlife Fund’s Windows on the Wild biodiversity education program. For more information see <www.worldwildlife.org/windows>. Table of Contents About Illinois Biodiversity Basics ................................................................................................................. 2 Biodiversity Background ............................................................................................................................... 4 Biodiversity of Illinois CD-ROM series ........................................................................................................ 6 Activities Section 1: What is Biodiversity? ...................................................................................................... 7 Activity 1-1: What’s Your Biodiversity IQ?.................................................................... 8 Activity 1-2: Sizing Up Species .................................................................................... 19 Activity 1-3: Backyard BioBlitz.................................................................................... 31 Activity 1-4: The Gene Scene ....................................................................................... 43 Section 2: Why is Biodiversity Important? .................................................................................... 61 Activity
    [Show full text]
  • A Key to Common Vermont Aquatic Plant Species
    A Key to Common Vermont Aquatic Plant Species Lakes and Ponds Management and Protection Program Table of Contents Page 3 Introduction ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 4 How To Use This Guide ....................................................................................................................................................................................................... 5 Field Notes .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 6 Plant Key ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 7 Submersed Plants ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 8-20 Pipewort Eriocaulon aquaticum ...................................................................................................................................................................... 9 Wild Celery Vallisneria americana ..................................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]