DOCSLIB.ORG

Effects on Associated Species of Burning, Rotobeating, Spraying

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Effects on Associated Species of Burning, Rotobeating, Spraying understory consisted predomin- Effects on Associated Species of Burning, antly of bluebunch wheatgrass (Agrcpyron spicutum) , thick- Rotobeating, Spraying, and Railing Sagebrush spike wheatgrass (A. dusystuch- yum), Idaho fescue (Festucu ida- hoensis), plains reedgrass WALTER F. MUEGGLER AND JAMES P. BLAISDELL (Culumugrostis montunensis), subalpine needlegrass (Stipu Range Conservationists, Intermountain Forest and Range columbiuna), blue grasses (Poa Experiment Station, Forest Service, U. S. Department of spp.) , Agriculture, Ogden, Utah. threadleaf sedge (Curex filifoliu), fleabane (Erigeron corymbosus) , lupines (Lupinus Control of big sagebrush effect of various selective spp.), and minor amounts of (Artemisia tridentata) on heav- methods of sagebrush control. other grasses and forbs. Besides ily infested areas has long been Blaisdell (1953) reported in de- the dominant big sagebrush, the recognized as an effective range tail the effect of sagebrush burn- shrubby vegetation included improvement practice. By kill- ing on residual vegetation on spmeless gray horsebrush (Te- ing this one undesirable species the Upper Snake River Plains of trad ymiu cunescens) , down y the grazing capacity of range- Idaho. Bohmont (1954), Hyder rabbitbrush (Chrysothumnus lands can often be increased and Sneva (1956)) and Blaisdell puberulus) , and antelope bitter- manyf old. and Mueggler (1956) are among brush (Purshiu tridentutu) . A During the past 20 years sev- those who have studied the more detailed listing of species eral methods have been devel- effect of the sagebrush-killing and relative amounts can be oped to reduce sagebrush num- 2,4-D sprays on associated vege- found in Table 2. bers and bring about such range tation. Burning, spraying, roto- Methods improvement (Pechanec et al., beating, and railing as well as 1954). Generally these methods other methods were described by A 54-acre area was divided can be divided into two main Pechanec et al. (1954)) but only roughly into quarters, and a dif- categories: those that destroy all general information was pre- ferent treatment was imposed existing vegetation, and selective sented on the relative effects of upon each. An untreated check methods that destroy sagebrush these methods on associated veg- was reserved adjacent to the without complete destruction of etation. Evidently little infor- treated areas. Field-scale treat- the herbaceous understory. mation is available on direct ments were used and cost data When there are few plants of comparisions of various meth- were kept. desirable species, consideration ods of sagebrush removal under One-quarter was sprayed in in the selection of a control carefully controlled conditions. early June 1952 using a ground method generally need” be given A comparison of four methods spray unit with a 16-foot boom only to effectiveness of sage- of sagebrush control that main- mounted on a truck. The 2,4-D brush removal, relative cost, and tained the native herbaceous ethyl ester (Weedone 48) was development of a satisfactory understory-burning, rotob,eat- applied in a water carrier at the seedbed. Establishment of for- ing, railing, and spraying with rate of 2 pounds of acid and ap- age species will be dependent 2, 4-D-was started in 1952 on proximately 20 gallons of water upon artificial seeding. On the the Upper Snake River Plains per acre. Unfortunately it was other hand, if a good stand of in southeastern Idaho. The study necessary to spray the area when desirable species is present, it is area is in a fairly homogeneous, winds were fairly high. Spray upon these that increased pro- dense stand of big sagebrush be- drift, combined with unexpected duction should depend; selection tween 2 and 3 feet in height, on rockiness of the area, resulted in of the eradication method should the spring-fall range of the U. S. poor spray coverage with the not only consider degree of sage- Sheep Experiment Station near ground vehicle. For this reason brush kill and cost but also the Dubois, Idaho. The topography the sagebrush kill on the experi- effect of treatment upon these has only slight relief with little mental area was much lower associated plants. It is with this surface drainage; the sandy- than would ordinarily be ex- question of the effect of treat- loam soil is underlain by basal- pected. Similar treatments on ment on associiated fbrage tic lava. Precipiation averages nearby areas have caused almost species that this paper is con- about 13 inches annually. complete eradication of big sage- cerned. A good understory of native brush. Considerable information has perennial species was present One of the areas was roto- already been obtained on the throughout. This herbaceous beaten in early August 1952. A 61 62 ’ WALTER F. MUEGGLER AND JAMES P. BLAISDELL standard Case rotobeater with windward. The fire was set si- was of necessity made prior to chain flails was run over the multaneously along both wind- the early June spraying and con- area only once to shred the ward edges and a hot, clean burn sequently before plant maturity. brush. The machine was ad- was obtained. At this time it was difficult to justed so that the flails just The entire study area was de- segregate individual grass spe- cleared the ground surface. ferred from grazing the year of cies rapidly; therefore all grasses Ample power was supplied by a treatment and the year follow- were handled as one unit in the wheeled tractor. ing. Moderate grazing by sheep 1952 inventory. The 1953 and Railing was also done in early was permitted thereafter. 1955 inventories were made later August. The rail used was con- Each area, including the un- in the growing season, and structed of three 11-foot sections treated check, was sampled by grasses were segregated by indi- of heavy railroad rail loosely 20 permanent, 48-square-foot vidual species with the exception bolted together at the ends to circular plots spaced in a regular of two pairs, Agropyron dasysta- make a semiflexible 33-foot pattern. The weight estimate chyum-Calamagrostis montanen- length of rail. The center section method (Pechanec and Pickford, sis and Carex filifolia - Festuca was of double weight. Drags 1937) was used to obtain herbage idahoensis. Because of similarity were attached to the rear to keep production by species prior to of vegetative appearances, the rails upright. A deisel motor treatment (1952)) 1 year after grouping in these two pairs was patrol pulled this rail over the treatment (1953)) and 3 years necessary for rapid field identi- area twice, once each way. after treatment (1955). Esti- fication. The fourth area was burned in mates were also made of the per- Results And Discussion late August. Prior to burning, a centage of herbage available to standard fire line was con- sheep, that is, the percentage Eff ecfs of Treatments structed, consisting of a double that was not obstructed by All four treatments caused grader line and a lOO-foot back- brush. sizable reductions in sagebrush fired strip on the leeward sides In order to obtain pretreat- and increases in herbaceous spe- and a single grader line on the ment data, the 1952 inventory cies (Fig. 1). Burning and roto- cl GRASS .I’ . .,.:j::. F 0 R B S 900 q others SHRUBS sagebrush ‘52 ‘53 /55 ‘52 ‘53 ‘55 ‘52 ‘53 ‘55 ‘52 ‘53 ‘55 ‘52 ‘53 ‘55 UNTREATED BURNED ROTOBEATEN SPRAYED RAILED FIGURE1. Grass, forb, and shrub herbage production prior to treatment (1952) , and 1 year (1953) and 3 years afterward (1955) , as compared to production on untreated range. EFFECTS OF SAGEBRUSH TREATMENTS ON ASSOCIATED SPECIES 63 beating reduced sagebrush con- caused better than a one-third damage from 2,4-D is common siderably more than spraying increase, and railing resulted in (Bohmont, 1954; Hurd, 1955; and railing. Burning brought approximately a one-fifth in- Blaisdell and Mueggler, 1956). about a much greater increase in crease of grass. Apparently Very pronounced reductions forbs than any of the other treat- burning was the only treatment of shrubs occurred with all ments, and rotobeating and that actually injured the grasses. treatments. This reduction re- spraying a greater increase in Although other treatments flects the effect of treatment grasses. Railing caused inter- caused no injury, only on the upon sagebrush which composed mediate increases in both grasses sprayed area were grasses able almost 95 percent of before- and forbs. Despite general in- to take immediate advantage of treatment shrub production. creases in grasses, forbs, and the release from sagebrush com- Greatest reductions in sagebrush shrubs other than sagebrush on petition. During the first grow- were apparent the first year all treated areas, total vegetal ing season after treatment after treatment; thereafter pro- production 3 years after treat- grasses were noticeably more duction increased slightly. After ment was still considerably less vigorous on the sprayed range 3 years sagebrush production on than on the untreated area. The than on adjacent areas, and herb- the burned area was still only 11 inability of a predominantly her- age production was greatly in- percent and on the rotobeaten baceous cover to produce as creased. Substantial gains in area only 14 percent of what it much foliage dry matter as a grass production the first year would have been with no treat- shrub-herb complex has been after spraying with 2,4-D is ap- ment; production on the sprayed previously observed by Blaisdell parently the rule (Bohmont, and railed areas was 50 and 43 (1953). 1954; Hurd, 1955; Hyder and percent, respectively. Produc- It should be noted that there Sneva, 1956). However, the rea- tion of the shrub group exclud- were differences in herbage pro- son for such increase on the ing sagebrush was increased by duction on the various areas sprayed area and not on the roto- all treatments with the excep- prior to treatment as well as beaten or railed area is not clear.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Plant Species of Special Concern and Vascular Plant Flora of the National
    Plant Species of Special Concern and Vascular Plant Flora of the National Elk Refuge Prepared for the US Fish and Wildlife Service National Elk Refuge By Walter Fertig Wyoming Natural Diversity Database The Nature Conservancy 1604 Grand Avenue Laramie, WY 82070 February 28, 1998 Acknowledgements I would like to thank the following individuals for their assistance with this project: Jim Ozenberger, ecologist with the Jackson Ranger District of Bridger-Teton National Forest, for guiding me in his canoe on Flat Creek and for providing aerial photographs and lodging; Jennifer Whipple, Yellowstone National Park botanist, for field assistance and help with field identification of rare Carex species; Dr. David Cooper of Colorado State University, for sharing field information from his 1994 studies; Dr. Ron Hartman and Ernie Nelson of the Rocky Mountain Herbarium, for providing access to unmounted collections by Michele Potkin and others from the National Elk Refuge; Dr. Anton Reznicek of the University of Michigan, for confirming the identification of several problematic Carex specimens; Dr. Robert Dorn for confirming the identification of several vegetative Salix specimens; and lastly Bruce Smith and the staff of the National Elk Refuge for providing funding and logistical support and for allowing me free rein to roam the refuge for plants. 2 Table of Contents Page Introduction . 6 Study Area . 6 Methods . 8 Results . 10 Vascular Plant Flora of the National Elk Refuge . 10 Plant Species of Special Concern . 10 Species Summaries . 23 Aster borealis . 24 Astragalus terminalis . 26 Carex buxbaumii . 28 Carex parryana var. parryana . 30 Carex sartwellii . 32 Carex scirpoidea var. scirpiformis .
    [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]
  • Washington Plant List Douglas County by Scientific Name
    The NatureMapping Program Washington Plant List Revised: 9/15/2011 Douglas County by Scientific Name (1) Non- native, (2) ID Scientific Name Common Name Plant Family Invasive √ 763 Acer glabrum Douglas maple Aceraceae 800 Alisma graminium Narrowleaf waterplantain Alismataceae 19 Alisma plantago-aquatica American waterplantain Alismataceae 1087 Rhus glabra Sumac Anacardiaceae 650 Rhus radicans Poison ivy Anacardiaceae 29 Angelica arguta Sharp-tooth angelica Apiaceae 809 Angelica canbyi Canby's angelica Apiaceae 915 Cymopteris terebinthinus Turpentine spring-parsley Apiaceae 167 Heracleum lanatum Cow parsnip Apiaceae 991 Ligusticum grayi Gray's lovage Apiaceae 709 Lomatium ambiguum Swale desert-parsley Apiaceae 997 Lomatium canbyi Canby's desert-parsley Apiaceae 573 Lomatium dissectum Fern-leaf biscuit-root Apiaceae 582 Lomatium geyeri Geyer's desert-parsley Apiaceae 586 Lomatium gormanii Gorman's desert-parsley Apiaceae 998 Lomatium grayi Gray's desert-parsley Apiaceae 999 Lomatium hambleniae Hamblen's desert-parsley Apiaceae 609 Lomatium macrocarpum Large-fruited lomatium Apiaceae 1000 Lomatium nudicaule Pestle parsnip Apiaceae 634 Lomatium triternatum Nine-leaf lomatium Apiaceae 474 Osmorhiza chilensis Sweet-cicely Apiaceae 264 Osmorhiza occidentalis Western sweet-cicely Apiaceae 1044 Osmorhiza purpurea Purple sweet-cicely Apiaceae 492 Sanicula graveolens Northern Sierra) sanicle Apiaceae 699 Apocynum androsaemifolium Spreading dogbane Apocynaceae 813 Apocynum cannabinum Hemp dogbane Apocynaceae 681 Asclepias speciosa Showy milkweed Asclepiadaceae
    [Show full text]
  • Palouse Forbs for Landscaping
    More Palouse Forbs for Landscaping. by David M. Skinner, Paul Warnick, Bill French, and Mary Fauci November, 2005 The following is an additional list of native forbs which may be found in the Palouse region. These forbs may be less suitable for the landscape because of growth habit, aggressiveness, difficulty in propagating and growing, rarity, or it simply may be that we haven’t yet tried to do anything with them. For a list of Palouse forbs which may be more suitable for landscaping and about which we have more information to share, please see “Characteristics and Uses of Native Palouse Forbs in Landscaping.” Nomenclature used in this document also follows Hitchcock, C. Leo, and Arthur Cronquist. 1973. Flora of the Pacific Northwest. Univ. of Washington Press. Seattle, WA. In order to facilitate searching for a particular species, we have included some common names and alternate scientific names, but this is by no means intended to be a comprehensive source of common names or synonyms. Detailed information on propagation of many native species can be found at <http://nativeplants.for.uidaho.edu/network/search.asp?SearchType=Continental> Agastache urticifolia is probably too large a plant for a small garden. Requires a moist site. Easy to grow from seed. Plants have a minty smell and a very interesting flower. Common names include nettle-leafed giant hyssop, horsemint. Agoseris grandiflora is not a particularly attractive plant, it looks rather like a weed. Short-lived and attracts rodents, which eat the taproot and kill the plants. Easy to grow from seed, which is wind-borne and goes everywhere.
    [Show full text]
  • Riverside State Park
    Provisonal Report Rare Plant and Vegetation Survey of Riverside State Park Pacific Biodiversity Institute 2 Provisonal Report Rare Plant and Vegetation Survey of Riverside State Park Peter H. Morrison [email protected] George Wooten [email protected] Juliet Rhodes [email protected] Robin O’Quinn, Ph.D. [email protected] Hans M. Smith IV [email protected] January 2009 Pacific Biodiversity Institute P.O. Box 298 Winthrop, Washington 98862 509-996-2490 Recommended Citation Morrison, P.H., G. Wooten, J. Rhodes, R. O’Quinn and H.M. Smith IV, 2008. Provisional Report: Rare Plant and Vegetation Survey of Riverside State Park. Pacific Biodiversity Institute, Winthrop, Washington. 433 p. Acknowledgements Diana Hackenburg and Alexis Monetta assisted with entering and checking the data we collected into databases. The photographs in this report were taken by Peter Morrison, Robin O’Quinn, Geroge Wooten, and Diana Hackenburg. Project Funding This project was funded by the Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission. 3 Executive Summary Pacific Biodiversity Institute (PBI) conducted a rare plant and vegetation survey of Riverside State Park (RSP) for the Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission (WSPRC). RSP is located in Spokane County, Washington. A large portion of the park is located within the City of Spokane. RSP extends along both sides of the Spokane River and includes upland areas on the basalt plateau above the river terraces. The park also includes the lower portion of the Little Spokane River and adjacent uplands. The park contains numerous trails, campgrounds and other recreational facilities. The park receives a tremendous amount of recreational use from the nearby population.
    [Show full text]
  • The Vascular Plants of British Columbia Part 1 - Gymnosperms and Dicotyledons (Aceraceae Through Cucurbitaceae)
    The Vascular Plants of British Columbia Part 1 - Gymnosperms and Dicotyledons (Aceraceae through Cucurbitaceae) by George W. Douglas1, Gerald B. Straley2 and Del Meidinger3 1 George Douglas 2 Gerald Straley 3 Del Meidinger 6200 North Road Botanical Garden Research Branch R.R.#2 University of British Columbia B.C. Ministry of Forests Duncan, B.C. V9L 1N9 6501 S.W. Marine Drive 31 Bastion Square Vancouver, B.C. V6T 1Z4 Victoria, B. C. V8W 3E7 April 1989 Ministry of Forests THE VASCULAR PLANTS OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Part 1 - Gymnosperms and Dicotyledons (Aceraceae through Cucurbitaceae) Contributors: Dr. G.W. Douglas, Douglas Ecological Consultants Ltd., Duncan, B.C. — Aceraceae through Betulaceae Brassicaceae (except Arabis, Cardamine and Rorippa) through Cucurbitaceae. Mr. D. Meidinger, Research Branch, B.C. Ministry of Forests, Victoria, B.C. — Gymnosperms. Dr. G.B. Straley, Botanical Garden, University of B.C., Vancouver, B.C. — Boraginaceae, Arabis and Rorippa. With the cooperation of the Royal British Columbia Museum and the Botanical University of British Columbia. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS We are grateful to Dr. G.A. Allen for providing valuable suggestions during the initial stages of the project. Thanks are also due to Drs. G.A. Allen, A. Ceska and F. Ganders for reviewing taxonomically difficult groups. Mrs. O. Ceska reviewed the final draft of Part 1. Mr. G. Mulligan kindly searched the DAO herbarium and provided information on Brassicaceae. Dr. G. Argus helped with records from CAN. Louise Gronmyr and Jean Stringer kindly typed most of the contributions and helped in many ways in the production of the final manuscript which was typeset by Beth Collins.
    [Show full text]
  • Washington Flora Checklist a Checklist of the Vascular Plants of Washington State Hosted by the University of Washington Herbarium
    Washington Flora Checklist A checklist of the Vascular Plants of Washington State Hosted by the University of Washington Herbarium The Washington Flora Checklist aims to be a complete list of the native and naturalized vascular plants of Washington State, with current classifications, nomenclature and synonymy. The checklist currently contains 3,929 terminal taxa (species, subspecies, and varieties). Taxa included in the checklist: * Native taxa whether extant, extirpated, or extinct. * Exotic taxa that are naturalized, escaped from cultivation, or persisting wild. * Waifs (e.g., ballast plants, escaped crop plants) and other scarcely collected exotics. * Interspecific hybrids that are frequent or self-maintaining. * Some unnamed taxa in the process of being described. Family classifications follow APG IV for angiosperms, PPG I (J. Syst. Evol. 54:563?603. 2016.) for pteridophytes, and Christenhusz et al. (Phytotaxa 19:55?70. 2011.) for gymnosperms, with a few exceptions. Nomenclature and synonymy at the rank of genus and below follows the 2nd Edition of the Flora of the Pacific Northwest except where superceded by new information. Accepted names are indicated with blue font; synonyms with black font. Native species and infraspecies are marked with boldface font. Please note: This is a working checklist, continuously updated. Use it at your discretion. Created from the Washington Flora Checklist Database on September 17th, 2018 at 9:47pm PST. Available online at http://biology.burke.washington.edu/waflora/checklist.php Comments and questions should be addressed to the checklist administrators: David Giblin ([email protected]) Peter Zika ([email protected]) Suggested citation: Weinmann, F., P.F. Zika, D.E. Giblin, B.
    [Show full text]
  • Common Native Forbs of the Northern Great Basin Important for Greater Sage-Grouse Tara Luna • Mark R
    United States Department of Agriculture Common Native Forbs of the Northern Great Basin Important for Greater Sage-Grouse Tara Luna • Mark R. Mousseaux • R. Kasten Dumroese Forest Rocky Mountain General Technical Report November Service Research Station RMRS-GTR-387 2018 Luna, T.; Mousseaux, M.R.; Dumroese, R.K. 2018. Common native forbs of the northern Great Basin important for Greater Sage-grouse. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-387. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station; Portland, OR: U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Oregon–Washington Region. 76p. Abstract: is eld guide is a tool for the identication of 119 common forbs found in the sagebrush rangelands and grasslands of the northern Great Basin. ese forbs are important because they are either browsed directly by Greater Sage-grouse or support invertebrates that are also consumed by the birds. Species are arranged alphabetically by genus and species within families. Each species has a botanical description and one or more color photographs to assist the user. Most descriptions mention the importance of the plant and how it is used by Greater Sage-grouse. A glossary and indices with common and scientic names are provided to facilitate use of the guide. is guide is not intended to be either an inclusive list of species found in the northern Great Basin or a list of species used by Greater Sage-grouse; some other important genera are presented in an appendix. Keywords: diet, forbs, Great Basin, Greater Sage-grouse, identication guide Cover photos: Upper le: Balsamorhiza sagittata, R.
    [Show full text]
  • APPENDIX 1 Species Common to the Grasslands of British Columbia's
    APPENDIX 1 Species common to the grasslands of British Columbia’s Southern Interior This table includes 100 species common to the grasslands of British Columbia’s Southern Interior. It allows the reader to navigate the intricacies of botanical taxonomy by providing a “crosswalk” between common names, current scientific names, and older scientific names. It also provides the species category (see below) and the seven-digit abbreviation of the current scientific name. (As full scientific names are often long and unwieldy, these seven-letter acronyms—that is, “koelmac” for Koeleria macrantha—are useful in recording, storing, and manipulating large amounts of grassland data.) The Table is to genus and species level only; subspecies and varieties are not listed. The scientific names used here are from Meidinger et al. (2002). Those involved in grassland vegetation data collection should consult this Web-based source periodically as accepted scientific names change over time, reflecting refinements in species taxonomy. Species categories are as follows: Abbreviation Category Explanation NDE Native Decreaser Native species cover values decrease as grazing pressure increases NMR Native Mixed Response Native species cover values may increase or decrease depending on grazing regime or local site conditions NIN Native Increaser Native species cover values increase as grazing pressure increases NIV Native Invader Native species associated with disturbed ground and early seral situations (includes “pioneer” species) IIV Introduced Invader Introduced species that invade grasslands, usually following disturbance or overgrazing INV Introduced Noxious Invader Introduced species that invade grasslands and are found on the Provincial Noxious Weed List. Species categories are adapted from Lacey (2002), Wambolt (1981), Wroe et al.
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix 6.8-A
    Appendix 6.8-A Terrestrial Wildlife and Vegetation Baseline Report AJAX PROJECT Environmental Assessment Certificate Application / Environmental Impact Statement for a Comprehensive Study Ajax Mine Terrestrial Wildlife and Vegetation Baseline Report Prepared for KGHM Ajax Mining Inc. Prepared by This image cannot currently be displayed. Keystone Wildlife Research Ltd. #112, 9547 152 St. Surrey, BC V3R 5Y5 July 2015 Ajax Mine Terrestrial Wildlife and Vegetation Baseline Keystone Wildlife Research Ltd. DISCLAIMER This report was prepared exclusively for KGHM Ajax Mining Inc. by Keystone Wildlife Research Ltd. The quality of information, conclusions and estimates contained herein is consistent with the level of effort expended and is based on: i) information available at the time of preparation; ii) data collected by Keystone Wildlife Research Ltd. and/or supplied by outside sources; and iii) the assumptions, conditions and qualifications set forth in this report. This report is intended for use by KGHM Ajax Mining Inc. only, subject to the terms and conditions of its contract with Keystone Wildlife Research Ltd. Any other use, or reliance on this report by any third party, is at that party’s sole risk. 2 Ajax Mine Terrestrial Wildlife and Vegetation Baseline Keystone Wildlife Research Ltd. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Baseline wildlife and habitat surveys were initiated in 2007 to support a future impact assessment for the redevelopment of two existing, but currently inactive, open pit mines southwest of Kamloops. Detailed Project plans were not available at that time, so the general areas of activity were buffered to define a study area. The two general Project areas at the time were New Afton, an open pit just south of Highway 1, and Ajax, east of Jacko Lake.
    [Show full text]
  • Vascular Plant Species Checklist and Rare Plants of Fossil Butte National
    Vascular Plant Species Checklist And Rare Plants of Fossil Butte National Monument Physaria condensata by Jane Dorn from Dorn & Dorn (1980) Prepared for the National Park Service Northern Colorado Plateau Network By Walter Fertig Wyoming Natural Diversity Database University of Wyoming PO Box 3381, Laramie, WY 82071 9 October 2000 Table of Contents Page # Introduction . 3 Study Area . 3 Methods . 5 Results . 5 Summary of Plant Inventory Work at Fossil Butte National Monument . 5 Flora of Fossil Butte National Monument . 7 Rare Plants of Fossil Butte National Monument . 7 Other Noteworthy Plant Species from Fossil Butte National Monument . 8 Discussion and Recommendations . 8 Acknowledgments . 10 Literature Cited . 11 Figures, Tables, and Appendices Figure 1. Fossil Butte National Monument . 4 Figure 2. Increase in Number of Plant Species Recorded at Fossil Butte National Monument, 1973-2000 . 9 Table 1. Annotated Checklist of the Vascular Plant Flora of Fossil Butte National Monument . 13 Table 2. Rejected Plant Taxa . 32 Table 3. Potential Vascular Plants of Fossil Butte National Monument . 35 Appendix A. Rare Plants of Fossil Butte National Monument . 41 2 INTRODUCTION The National Park Service established Fossil Butte National Monument in October 1972 to preserve significant deposits of fossilized freshwater fish, aquatic organisms, and plants from the Eocene-age Green River Formation. In addition to fossils, the Monument also preserves a mosaic of 12 high desert and montane foothills vegetation types (Dorn et al. 1984; Jones 1993) and over 600 species of vertebrates and vascular plants (Beetle and Marlow 1974; Rado 1976, Clark 1977, Dorn et al. 1984; Kyte 2000). From a conservation perspective, Fossil Butte National Monument is especially significant because it is one of only two managed areas in the basins of southwestern Wyoming to be permanently protected and managed with an emphasis on maintaining biological processes (Merrill et al.
    [Show full text]
  • Plant List of the Area That Is Available Online
    Draft List for Brochure Revision 12-03-08 Species List for the Hart’s Pass Watchable Wildflower Area FORM FAMILY SCIENTIFIC Common Name TREE Pinaceae Abies amabilis Pacific silver fir TREE Pinaceae Abies lasiocarpa subalpine fir TREE Aceraceae Acer macrophyllum bigleaf maple TREE Pinaceae Larix lyallii subalpine larch TREE Pinaceae Picea engelmannii Engelmann's spruce TREE Pinaceae Pinus albicaulis whitebark pine TREE Pinaceae Pinus contorta lodgepole pine SHRUB Ericaceae Arctostaphylos uva-ursi bearberry/kinnikinnick SHRUB Ericaceae Cassiope mertensiana Mertens’ mountain heather SHRUB Ericaceae Cassiope tetragona four-angled mountain heather SHRUB Empetraceae Empetrum nigrum crowberry SHRUB Cupressaceae Juniperus communis common juniper SHRUB Celastraceae Pachistima myrsinites Oregon boxwood SHRUB Ericaceae Phyllodoce empetriformis pink mountain-heath SHRUB Ericaceae Phyllodoce glanduliflora yellow mountain-heath SHRUB Ericaceae Rhododendron albiflorum Cascade azalea SHRUB Grossulariaceae Ribes howellii mapleleaf currant SHRUB Grossulariaceae Ribes viscosissimum sticky currant SHRUB Salicaceae Salix arctica arctic willow SHRUB Salicaceae Salix barclayi Barclay's willow SHRUB Salicaceae Salix boothii Booth’s willow SHRUB Salicaceae Salix cascadensis Cascade willow SHRUB Salicaceae Salix commutata undergreen willow SHRUB Salicaceae Salix drummondiana Drummond's willow SHRUB Salicaceae Salix myrtillifolia blueberry willow SHRUB Salicaceae Salix nivalis nivalis snow willow SHRUB Ericaceae Vaccinium caespitosum dwarf huckleberry SHRUB Ericaceae
    [Show full text]