DOCSLIB.ORG

63420 FSPLT2 123833.Pdf

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

INTRODUCTION The purpose of this biological evaluation is to determine whether implementation of the Twomile Restoration Projects will result in a trend toward Federal listing of any Sensitive Plant species. A Sensitive Plant is defined as a plant species "identified by a Regional Forester for which population viability is a concern, as evidenced by: "a. Significant current or predicted downward trends in population numbers or density." and "b. Significant current or predicted downward trends in habitat capability that would reduce a species' existing distribution." The primary purposes of these projects are listed on pages 3 – 6 as well as a summary of the actions. For a more complete description of the proposed activities, refer to the environmental documents for each project. The area of these projects was surveyed using the most recent sensitive plant list in 2007- 2009. There had been previous surveys in portions of the project area for other projects in 1995, 1999, and 2001 all with previous plant lists and some follow-up surveys in 2011. One occurrence of Clarkia australis, seven occurrences of Cypripedium montanum, six occurrences of Lewisia kelloggii ssp. hutchisonii, and eleven occurrences of Lomatium stebbinsii have been found in the analysis area. There is unsurveyed suitable habitat for Allium tribracteatum, Clarkia australis, Clarkia biloba ssp. australis, Cypripedium montanum, Lewisia kelloggii ssp. hutchinsonii, and Lomatium stebbinsii. For a complete list of Forest Sensitive Plants, refer to page 12. There are six different projects covered by this analysis as summarized on pages 3 - 6 CONSULTATIO N TO DATE A list of all Federally listed Threatened, Endangered or Proposed plant species which might occur on the Stanislaus National Forest was requested from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service website. As indicated by the latest database update on April 29, 2010, there are no known Federally Threatened or Endangered plants on the Stanislaus National Forest. There is one Candidate species, Pinus albicaulis (whitebark pine. There is no Pinus albicaulis known in the project area. This species will not be analyzed further in this document. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) list no longer includes Species of Concern. CURRENT MANAGEMENT DIRECTION Management of Sensitive Plants on the Stanislaus National Forest is based on Forest Service policy set out in the Forest Service Manual (FSM 2670) and the Forest Service Handbook (FSH 2609.26), the Stanislaus National Forest “Forest Plan Direction,” which presents the current Forest Plan management direction, based on the original Forest Plan as modified through the Forest Plan appeals and amendment processes (USDA 1988).and, where applicable, Species Management Guides. Page 2 It is the Secretary of Agriculture's policy to "avoid actions 'which may cause a species to become threatened or endangered.'" (FSM 2670.12). Further, it is a Forest Service objective to "maintain viable populations of all native ... plant species in habitats distributed throughout their geographic range on National Forest System lands" (FSM 2670.22). Forest Service policy set out in FSM 2670.32 is to "avoid or minimize impacts to [Sensitive] species whose viability has been identified as a concern." Further, where it is determined that impacts cannot be avoided, "the line officer with project approval authority, [may make] the decision to allow or disallow impact, but the decision must not result in loss of species viability or create significant trends toward Federal listing.” Under the Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment (SNFPA), “conduct field surveys for threatened, endangered, proposed, and sensitive (TEPS) plant species early enough in the project planning process so that the project can be designed to conserve or enhance TEPS plants and their habitat. … If additional field surveys are conducted as part of project implementation, document the survey results in the project file (USDA Forest Service 2010).” General direction for management of Sensitive Plants under the LRMP is to "provide for protection and habitat needs of sensitive plants, so that Forest activities will not jeopardize their continued existence." LRMP standards and guidelines advise to "modify planned projects to avoid or minimize adverse impacts to sensitive plants." This project also falls within the Clavey River Watershed Assessment (CREP 2008). The desired condition for sensitive plants is that “threatened, endangered, and sensitive plant species are managed to improve population viability” with a measure that “populations of TES species are present, protected, and contributing to the maintenance of species viability.” DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED PROJECT Project Summaries This section summarizes each of the six Twomile Ecological Restoration projects. The intent of this section is to provide the reader with a brief overview of the analysis type and project number, purpose and need, and proposed action. Detailed descriptions of each project can be found in the individual environmental analysis documents. The projects are presented in the following order: (A) Vegetation Management, (B) Noxious Weed Control (Dyers Woad Eradication), (C) Great Grey Owl Habitat Improvement, (D) Meadow Restoration, (E) Soil Windrow Improvement, and (F) Motorized Trails. Project A: Vegetation Management Analysis Type and Project Number Environmental Assessment - 30525 Purpose and Need The purpose of this project is to improve fire and fuels conditions, forest health and resiliency, and hardwood and wildlife habitat in a manner that provides socio-economic benefits. Forest stands have increased in density and experienced shifts in species composition from shade intolerant pine and hardwood species to shade tolerant conifer species. These changes in forest structure have altered the role of fire on the landscape, creating unsafe and ineffective fire management conditions, diminished Page 3 forest health and integrity, and degraded old forest wildlife species habitat. The desired conditions are as follows: 1. Surface, ladder and crown fuel conditions that allow fire to function as a natural process. 2. Strategically placed fuel conditions that facilitate safe and effective fire management activities. 3. Stand densities necessary for healthy and resilient forests during drought conditions. 4. Stands with a greater component of pine and hardwood species. 5. Increased forest heterogeneity with improved hardwood and wildlife habitat components. 6. Cost-effective treatments that produce forest products. 7. Retention/improvement of meadow habitat. Proposed Action (Alternative 1) Treatments would include varying combinations of thinning, biomass removal, shredding, prescribed fire and herbicides throughout 7,700 acres of the overall Twomile project area (i.e. in the vicinity of Hull Creek, Twomile Creek, Reed Creek and the Clavey River). Road reconstruction (26.0 miles) or maintenance (60.7 miles) would occur on roads, as needed, in support of treatment activities. Additional road management treatments would consist of temporary roads (1.8 miles), reopening then closing (3.0 miles), and reopening then gating (0.3 miles). No Action (Alternative 2) Non-Commercial Alternative (Alternative 3) Treatment units proposed would remain the same as the Proposed Action; however, in Alternative 3 those units proposed for commercial thinning would have only material necessary to meet fuels objectives removed. In general, this would result in a 12 inch maximum diameter limit for removal; however, in order to facilitate equipment access to treat the units effectively, there could be circumstances where larger than 12 inch trees would be removed. Project B: Noxious Weed Control (Dyers Woad Eradication) Analysis Type and Project Number Environmental Assessment - 34045 Purpose and Need The purpose of this project is to eradicate the only known infestation of dyers woad (Isatis tinctoria) on the Stanislaus National Forest as well as an infestation of perennial sweetpea (Lathyrus latifolia). The infestations are located on 10.3 acres of steep rocky soil near Reed Creek where they could potentially spread downstream into the Clavey and Tuolumne Rivers, and have persisted for more than a decade despite annual hand pulling. The desired condition is to contain or reduce, where possible, the spread of noxious weed infestations on National Forest System lands. Proposed Action Hand pull and dig infestations of dyers woad and perennial sweetpea on 10.3 acres near Reed Creek. On approximately five of those acres, glyphosate would be used in addition to hand pulling and digging. Project C: Great Gray Owl Habitat Improvement Analysis Type and Project Number Categorical Exclusion - 34047 Page 4 Purpose and Need The purpose of this project is to improve great gray owl breeding habitat near Fahey and Wolfin Meadows. Forested stands adjacent to these meadows lack adequate nesting structures, which is an important limiting factor for this species. The desired condition is to provide suitable breeding habitat to improve the viability of this Region 5 Forest Service sensitive and California State Endangered species across its range in the central Sierra Nevada. Proposed Action Create two to three nesting structures in forested stands adjacent to Fahey and Wolfin Meadows. Project D: Meadow Restoration Analysis Type and Project Number Categorical Exclusion - 34043 Purpose and Need The purpose of this project is to improve the hydrologic function of the following meadows: Wolfin Meadow –
Recommended publications
  • Likely to Have Habitat Within Iras That ALLOW Road

    Likely to Have Habitat Within Iras That ALLOW Road

    Item 3a - Sensitive Species National Master List By Region and Species Group Not likely to have habitat within IRAs Not likely to have Federal Likely to have habitat that DO NOT ALLOW habitat within IRAs Candidate within IRAs that DO Likely to have habitat road (re)construction that ALLOW road Forest Service Species Under NOT ALLOW road within IRAs that ALLOW but could be (re)construction but Species Scientific Name Common Name Species Group Region ESA (re)construction? road (re)construction? affected? could be affected? Bufo boreas boreas Boreal Western Toad Amphibian 1 No Yes Yes No No Plethodon vandykei idahoensis Coeur D'Alene Salamander Amphibian 1 No Yes Yes No No Rana pipiens Northern Leopard Frog Amphibian 1 No Yes Yes No No Accipiter gentilis Northern Goshawk Bird 1 No Yes Yes No No Ammodramus bairdii Baird's Sparrow Bird 1 No No Yes No No Anthus spragueii Sprague's Pipit Bird 1 No No Yes No No Centrocercus urophasianus Sage Grouse Bird 1 No Yes Yes No No Cygnus buccinator Trumpeter Swan Bird 1 No Yes Yes No No Falco peregrinus anatum American Peregrine Falcon Bird 1 No Yes Yes No No Gavia immer Common Loon Bird 1 No Yes Yes No No Histrionicus histrionicus Harlequin Duck Bird 1 No Yes Yes No No Lanius ludovicianus Loggerhead Shrike Bird 1 No Yes Yes No No Oreortyx pictus Mountain Quail Bird 1 No Yes Yes No No Otus flammeolus Flammulated Owl Bird 1 No Yes Yes No No Picoides albolarvatus White-Headed Woodpecker Bird 1 No Yes Yes No No Picoides arcticus Black-Backed Woodpecker Bird 1 No Yes Yes No No Speotyto cunicularia Burrowing
  • Other Botanical Resource Assessment

    Other Botanical Resource Assessment

    USDA Forest Service Tahoe National Forest District Yuba River Ranger District OTHER BOTANICAL RESOURCE ASSESSMENT Yuba Project 08/01/2017 Prepared by: Date: Courtney Rowe, District Botanist TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 TNF Watch List Botanical Species ........................................................................................................ 1 1.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 1 1.2 Summary of Analysis Procedure .................................................................................................. 2 1.3 Project Compliance ..................................................................................................................... 2 2 Special Status Plant Communities ....................................................................................................... 5 2.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 5 2.2 Project Compliance ..................................................................................................................... 5 3 Special Management Designations ..................................................................................................... 6 3.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 6 3.2 Project Compliance ....................................................................................................................
  • Special-Status Plants and Invasive/Noxious Weeds Technical Report

    Special-Status Plants and Invasive/Noxious Weeds Technical Report

    SACRAMENTO MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT UPPER AMERICAN RIVER PROJECT (FERC NO. 2101) SPECIAL-STATUS PLANTS AND INVASIVE/NOXIOUS WEEDS TECHNICAL REPORT Prepared by: Devine Tarbell & Associates, Inc. Sacramento, California Prepared for: Sacramento Municipal Utility District Sacramento, California JULY 2004 Sacramento Municipal Utility District Upper American River Project FERC Project No. 2101 TABLE OF CONTENTS Section & Description Page 1.0 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1 2.0 BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................ 2 2.1 Special-Status Plants Study Plan ............................................................................ 2 2.2 Invasive/Noxious Weeds Study Plan...................................................................... 3 2.3 Water Year Types................................................................................................... 4 2.4 Agency Requested Information .............................................................................. 5 3.0 METHODS ......................................................................................................................... 5 3.1 Special-Status Plants............................................................................................... 5 3.2 Noxious Weeds ....................................................................................................... 6 4.0 RESULTS ..........................................................................................................................
  • NORTH TABLE MOUNTAIN ECOLOGICAL RESERVE Land Management Plan

    NORTH TABLE MOUNTAIN ECOLOGICAL RESERVE Land Management Plan

    NORTH TABLE MOUNTAIN ECOLOGICAL RESERVE Land Management Plan Prepared for: December 2006 State of California The Resources Agency Department of Fish and Game NORTH TABLE MOUNTAIN ECOLOGICAL RESERVE Land Management Plan Prepared for: December 2006 State of California The Resources Agency Department of Fish and Game 8950 Cal Center Drive Building 3, Suite 300 Sacramento, CA 95826 916.564.4500 www.esassoc.com Los Angeles Oakland Orlando Petaluma Portland San Francisco Seattle Tampa 204427 ESA J MORTH TABLE MOUNTAIN ECOLOGICAL RESERVE Land Management Plan Approved by: Acting RegionalTftartager / Date _nhltn Acting Deputy Direaor for Regional Operations 'Date TABLE OF CONTENTS North Table Mountain Ecological Reserve Land Management Plan Page 1 Summary 1-1 2 Introduction 2-1 Purpose of Acquisition 2-1 Acquisition History 2-1 Purpose of This Management Plan 2-1 3 Property Description 3-1 Geographical Setting 3-1 Property Boundaries and Adjacent Lands 3-1 Geology, Soils, Climate, and Hydrology 3-1 Cultural Features 3-11 4 Vegetation Types, Habitat, and Species Descriptions 4-1 Vegetation Types and Habitats 4-1 Special-Status Species 4-5 5 Management Goals and Environmental Impacts 5-1 Definition of Terms Used in This Plan 5-1 Biological Elements: Goals, Objectives, and Environmental Impacts 5-1 Public Use Elements: Goals and Environmental Impacts 5-5 Facility Maintenance Elements: Goals and Environmental Impacts 5-6 6 Operations and Maintenance Summary 6-1 Operations and Maintenance Tasks to Implement Plan 6-1 Existing Staff and Additional Personnel
  • A Taxonomic Re-Evaluation of the Allium Sanbornii Complex

    A Taxonomic Re-Evaluation of the Allium Sanbornii Complex

    University of the Pacific Scholarly Commons University of the Pacific Theses and Dissertations Graduate School 1986 A taxonomic re-evaluation of the Allium sanbornii complex Stella Sue Denison University of the Pacific Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarlycommons.pacific.edu/uop_etds Part of the Biology Commons Recommended Citation Denison, Stella Sue. (1986). A taxonomic re-evaluation of the Allium sanbornii complex. University of the Pacific, Thesis. https://scholarlycommons.pacific.edu/uop_etds/2124 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in University of the Pacific Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of Scholarly Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. A TAXONOMIC RE-EVALUATION OF THE ALLIUM SANBORNII COMPLEX A Thesis Presented to the Faculty of the Graduate School University of the Pacific In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Master of Science by Stella S. Denison August 1986 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Many contributions have been made for my successful completion of this work. Appreciation is extended to: Drs. Dale McNeal, Alice Hunter, and Anne Funkhouser for their advice and assistance during the research and in the preparation of this manuscript, the entire Biology faculty for their, friendship and suggestions, Ginger Tibbens for the typing of this manuscript, and to my husband, Craig, and my children, Amy, Eric and Deborah for their continued support and encouragement. Grateful acknowledgement is made to the curators of the herbaria from which material was borrowed during this investigation. These herbaria are indicated below by the standard abbreviations of Holmgren and Keuken (1974}.
  • Sierra Nevada Framework FEIS Chapter 3

    Sierra Nevada Framework FEIS Chapter 3

    table of contrents Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment – Part 4.6 4.6. Vascular Plants, Bryophytes, and Fungi4.6. Fungi Introduction Part 3.1 of this chapter describes landscape-scale vegetation patterns. Part 3.2 describes the vegetative structure, function, and composition of old forest ecosystems, while Part 3.3 describes hardwood ecosystems and Part 3.4 describes aquatic, riparian, and meadow ecosystems. This part focuses on botanical diversity in the Sierra Nevada, beginning with an overview of botanical resources and then presenting a more detailed analysis of the rarest elements of the flora, the threatened, endangered, and sensitive (TES) plants. The bryophytes (mosses and liverworts), lichens, and fungi of the Sierra have been little studied in comparison to the vascular flora. In the Pacific Northwest, studies of these groups have received increased attention due to the President’s Northwest Forest Plan. New and valuable scientific data is being revealed, some of which may apply to species in the Sierra Nevada. This section presents an overview of the vascular plant flora, followed by summaries of what is generally known about bryophytes, lichens, and fungi in the Sierra Nevada. Environmental Consequences of the alternatives are only analyzed for the Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive plants, which include vascular plants, several bryophytes, and one species of lichen. 4.6.1. Vascular plants4.6.1. plants The diversity of topography, geology, and elevation in the Sierra Nevada combine to create a remarkably diverse flora (see Section 3.1 for an overview of landscape patterns and vegetation dynamics in the Sierra Nevada). More than half of the approximately 5,000 native vascular plant species in California occur in the Sierra Nevada, despite the fact that the range contains less than 20 percent of the state’s land base (Shevock 1996).
  • Landscaping with Native Plants by Stephen L

    Landscaping with Native Plants by Stephen L

    SHORT-SEASON, HIGH-ALTITUDE GARDENING BULLETIN 862 Landscaping with native plants by Stephen L. Love, Kathy Noble, Jo Ann Robbins, Bob Wilson, and Tony McCammon INTRODUCTION There are many reasons to consider a native plant landscape in Idaho’s short- season, high-altitude regions, including water savings, decreased mainte- nance, healthy and adapted plants, and a desire to create a local theme CONTENTS around your home. Most plants sold for landscaping are native to the eastern Introduction . 1 United States and the moist climates of Europe. They require acid soils, con- The concept of native . 3 stant moisture, and humid air to survive and remain attractive. Most also Landscaping Principles for Native Plant Gardens . 3 require a longer growing season than we have available in the harshest cli- Establishing Native Landscapes and Gardens . 4 mates of Idaho. Choosing to landscape with these unadapted plants means Designing a Dry High-Desert Landscape . 5 Designing a Modified High-Desert Landscape . 6 accepting the work and problems of constantly recreating a suitable artificial Designing a High-Elevation Mountain Landscape . 6 environment. Native plants will help create a landscape that is more “com- Designing a Northern Idaho Mountain/Valley fortable” in the climates and soils that surround us, and will reduce the Landscape . 8 resources necessary to maintain the landscape. Finding Sources of Native Plants . 21 The single major factor that influences Idaho’s short-season, high-altitude climates is limited summer moisture. Snow and rainfall are relatively abun- dant in the winter, but for 3 to 4 months beginning in June, we receive only a YOU ARE A SHORT-SEASON, few inches of rain.
  • Ventura County Plant Species of Local Concern

    Ventura County Plant Species of Local Concern

    Checklist of Ventura County Rare Plants (Twenty-second Edition) CNPS, Rare Plant Program David L. Magney Checklist of Ventura County Rare Plants1 By David L. Magney California Native Plant Society, Rare Plant Program, Locally Rare Project Updated 4 January 2017 Ventura County is located in southern California, USA, along the east edge of the Pacific Ocean. The coastal portion occurs along the south and southwestern quarter of the County. Ventura County is bounded by Santa Barbara County on the west, Kern County on the north, Los Angeles County on the east, and the Pacific Ocean generally on the south (Figure 1, General Location Map of Ventura County). Ventura County extends north to 34.9014ºN latitude at the northwest corner of the County. The County extends westward at Rincon Creek to 119.47991ºW longitude, and eastward to 118.63233ºW longitude at the west end of the San Fernando Valley just north of Chatsworth Reservoir. The mainland portion of the County reaches southward to 34.04567ºN latitude between Solromar and Sequit Point west of Malibu. When including Anacapa and San Nicolas Islands, the southernmost extent of the County occurs at 33.21ºN latitude and the westernmost extent at 119.58ºW longitude, on the south side and west sides of San Nicolas Island, respectively. Ventura County occupies 480,996 hectares [ha] (1,188,562 acres [ac]) or 4,810 square kilometers [sq. km] (1,857 sq. miles [mi]), which includes Anacapa and San Nicolas Islands. The mainland portion of the county is 474,852 ha (1,173,380 ac), or 4,748 sq.
  • USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region Sensitive Plant Species by Forest

    USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region Sensitive Plant Species by Forest

    USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region 1 Sensitive Plant Species by Forest 2013 FS R5 RF Plant Species List Klamath NF Mendocino NF Shasta-Trinity NF NF Rivers Six Lassen NF Modoc NF Plumas NF EldoradoNF Inyo NF LTBMU Tahoe NF Sequoia NF Sierra NF Stanislaus NF Angeles NF Cleveland NF Los Padres NF San Bernardino NF Scientific Name (Common Name) Abies bracteata (Santa Lucia fir) X Abronia alpina (alpine sand verbena) X Abronia nana ssp. covillei (Coville's dwarf abronia) X X Abronia villosa var. aurita (chaparral sand verbena) X X Acanthoscyphus parishii var. abramsii (Abrams' flowery puncturebract) X X Acanthoscyphus parishii var. cienegensis (Cienega Seca flowery puncturebract) X Agrostis hooveri (Hoover's bentgrass) X Allium hickmanii (Hickman's onion) X Allium howellii var. clokeyi (Mt. Pinos onion) X Allium jepsonii (Jepson's onion) X X Allium marvinii (Yucaipa onion) X Allium tribracteatum (three-bracted onion) X X Allium yosemitense (Yosemite onion) X X Anisocarpus scabridus (scabrid alpine tarplant) X X X Antennaria marginata (white-margined everlasting) X Antirrhinum subcordatum (dimorphic snapdragon) X Arabis rigidissima var. demota (Carson Range rock cress) X X Arctostaphylos cruzensis (Arroyo de la Cruz manzanita) X Arctostaphylos edmundsii (Little Sur manzanita) X Arctostaphylos glandulosa ssp. gabrielensis (San Gabriel manzanita) X X Arctostaphylos hooveri (Hoover's manzanita) X Arctostaphylos luciana (Santa Lucia manzanita) X Arctostaphylos nissenana (Nissenan manzanita) X X Arctostaphylos obispoensis (Bishop manzanita) X Arctostphylos parryana subsp. tumescens (interior manzanita) X X Arctostaphylos pilosula (Santa Margarita manzanita) X Arctostaphylos rainbowensis (rainbow manzanita) X Arctostaphylos refugioensis (Refugio manzanita) X Arenaria lanuginosa ssp. saxosa (rock sandwort) X Astragalus anxius (Ash Valley milk-vetch) X Astragalus bernardinus (San Bernardino milk-vetch) X Astragalus bicristatus (crested milk-vetch) X X Pacific Southwest Region, Regional Forester's Sensitive Species List.
  • A Comparative Study of the Allium Obtusum Comples

    A Comparative Study of the Allium Obtusum Comples

    University of the Pacific Scholarly Commons University of the Pacific Theses and Dissertations Graduate School 1983 A comparative study of the Allium obtusum comples William R. Mortola University of the Pacific Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarlycommons.pacific.edu/uop_etds Part of the Life Sciences Commons Recommended Citation Mortola, William R.. (1983). A comparative study of the Allium obtusum comples. University of the Pacific, Thesis. https://scholarlycommons.pacific.edu/uop_etds/2096 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in University of the Pacific Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of Scholarly Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF THE ALLIUM OBTUSUM COMPLEX A Thesis Presented to the Faculty of the Graduate School University of the Pacific In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Master of Science by William R. Mortola May 1983 This dissertation, written and submitted by Willi§m Richard Mortola is approved for recommendation to the Committee on Graduate Studies, University of the Pacific Dean of the School or Department Chairman: Dissertation Committee: Chairman •;=- J i i' ACKNOWLEDGMENTS t4uch gratitude is expressed to Dr, Dale 'II, McNeal for suggesting the problem investigated and for his par­ ticipation and supervision during all phases of this in­ vestigation, To Dr. Alice Hunter I am indebted for her reading of the manuscript and her identification of the insects collected during this study. To Dr, Steve Ander­ son I would like to extend appreciation for his reading of the manuscript and for making valuable suggestions.
  • USGS DDS-43, Status of Rare and Endemic Plants

    USGS DDS-43, Status of Rare and Endemic Plants

    JAMES R. SHEVOCK U.S. Forest Service Pacific Southwest Region San Francisco, California 24 Status of Rare and Endemic Plants ABSTRACT The Sierra Nevada represents nearly 20% of the California land base INTRODUCTION yet contains over 50% of the state’s flora. Approximately 405 vascu- For more than 100 years, the flora of the Sierra Nevada has lar plant taxa are endemic to the Sierra Nevada. Of this total, 218 fascinated botanists even beyond the borders of the United taxa are considered rare by conservation organizations and/or state States. Visions of Yosemite, giant sequoias, and extensive and federal agencies. In addition, 168 other rare taxa have at least mixed conifer forests have added to an awareness of this one occurrence in the Sierra Nevada. Five monotypic genera are magnificent mountain range. The Sierra Nevada, part of the endemic to the Sierra Nevada (Bolandra, Carpenteria, Orochaenactis, California Floristic Province, is characterized by high rates of Phalacoseris, and Sequoiadendron). Information on rarity and ende- plant endemism (Stebbins and Major 1965; Raven and Axelrod mism for lichens and bryophytes for the Sierra Nevada is very specu- 1978; Messick 1995). For most of this century, plant collecting lative and fragmentary due to limited fieldwork and the small number and floristic research remained the pursuits of professional of available collections. Two mosses are endemic to the Sierra Ne- botanists with ties to major scientific and educational centers vada. Parameters obtained for each rare and/or endemic taxon in- (Shevock and Taylor 1987). Floristic studies have as one of clude habitat type and distributions by county, river basin, and their primary goals documentation of all the taxa (species, topographic quadrangle.
  • Biological Evaluation Sensitive Plants and Fungi Tahoe National Forest American River Ranger District Big Hope Fire Salvage and Restoration Project

    Biological Evaluation Sensitive Plants and Fungi Tahoe National Forest American River Ranger District Big Hope Fire Salvage and Restoration Project

    BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION SENSITIVE PLANTS AND FUNGI TAHOE NATIONAL FOREST AMERICAN RIVER RANGER DISTRICT BIG HOPE FIRE SALVAGE AND RESTORATION PROJECT Prepared by: KATHY VAN ZUUK Plant Ecologist/Botanist TNF Nonnative Invasive Plant Coordinator February 27, 2014 A Portion of the American Wildfire Area along Foresthill Divide Road 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS Topic Page Executive Summary 4 Introduction 6 Consultation to Date 6 Current Management Direction 8 Alternative Descriptions 9 Existing Environment 11 Description of Affected Sensitive Species Habitat Effects Analysis and 20 Determinations Reasonably Foreseeable Actions/Time Frames for the Analysis/ List of 20 Assumptions Effects to Species without potential habitat in the Project Area 22 • Lemmon’s milk-vetch, Astragalus lemmonii 22 • Modoc Plateau milk-vetch, Astragalus pulsiferae var. coronensis 22 • Sierra Valley Ivesia, Ivesia aperta var. aperta 22 • Dog Valley Ivesia, Ivesia aperta var. canina 23 • Plumas Ivesia, Ivesia sericoleuca 23 • Webber’s Ivesia, Ivesia webberi 23 • Wet-cliff Lewisia, Lewisia cantelovii 24 • Long-petaled Lewisia, Lewisia longipetala 24 • Follett’s mint, Monardella follettii 24 • Layne’s butterweed, Packera layneae 24 • White bark pine, Pinus albicaulis 25 • Sticky Pyrrocoma, Pyrrocoma lucida 25 Effects to Species with potential habitat in the Project Area 26 • Webber’s Milkvetch, Astragalus webberi 26 • Carson Range rock cress, Boechera rigidissima var. demota 27 • Triangle-lobe moonwort, Botrychium ascendens 27 • Scalloped moonwort, Botrychium crenulatum 27 • Common moonwort, Botrychium lunaria 27 • Mingan moonwort, Botrychium minganense 27 • Mountain moonwort, Botrychium montanum 28 • Bolander’s candle moss, Bruchia bolanderi 29 • Clustered Lady’s Slipper Orchid, Cypripedium fasciculatum 29 • Mountain Lady’s Slipper Orchid, Cypripedium montanum 30 • Starved Daisy, Erigeron miser 31 • Donner Pass Buckwheat, Eriogonum umbellatum var.