DOCSLIB.ORG

United States Department of Agriculture BE 04-14-03

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
United States Department of Agriculture BE 04-14-03 Biological Evaluation United States Department of Agriculture BE 04-14-03 Forest Service Southern Pine Beetle Suppression in Wilderness Areas National Forests & Grasslands in Texas January 2014 INTRODUCTION Purpose The purpose of this proposal is to take suppression action against Southern Pine Beetle (SPB) infestations in wilderness areas should they threaten endangered species habitat on National Forest land or pine forest on private land. The proposed activities will help to accomplish the objectives in the 1996 Revised Land and Resource Management Plan for the National Forests and Grasslands in Texas (Forest Plan; USFS 1996). This document is a site-specific Biological Evaluation (BE) to identify and evaluate the effects of proposed Forest Service actions on Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive (TES) species, and to ensure that these actions do not adversely affect any threatened or endangered species or cause a trend to federal listing or loss of viability for any sensitive species. This BE will provide biological information to ensure USDA Forest Service and National Forests and Grasslands in Texas (NFGT) compliance with the National Forest Management Act (NFMA), National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), Forest Service Manual 2670, Endangered Species Act (as amended), and 1996 Revised Land and Resource Management Plan for the NFGT. This document complies with the requirements of the Endangered Species Act to disclose effects on listed species and their habitats. Additionally, this document provides a standard process to provide full consideration of federally threatened or endangered, and sensitive species, and their habitats in the decision-making process. Objectives The objectives of this biological evaluation are to: 1) Ensure that Forest Service actions do not contribute to loss of viability of any native or desired non-native plant or animal or contribute to trends toward federal listing of any species. 2) Comply with the requirement of the Endangered Species Act, as amended, that actions of Federal Agencies not jeopardize or adversely modify critical habitat of federally listed species. 3) Provide a process and standard by which to ensure that threatened, endangered and proposed species receive full consideration in the decision making process (FSM 2672.41). 4) Identify the need for any additional mitigation measures to protect TES species, habitat, or potential habitat from negative effects of the proposed management actions. Area Description This proposal covers all five wilderness areas in Texas: Little Lake Creek, Big Slough, Turkey Hill, Indian Mounds, and Upland Island. The proposed treatment areas are the areas within each wilderness within ¼ mile of the wilderness borders where there is RCW habitat or private land immediately adjacent to the wilderness. PROPOSED MANAGEMENT ACTIONS Wilderness SPB EA 04-14-03 1 The Forest Service proposes to treat SPB infestations using cut-and-leave inside the five wilderness areas. Only infestations within ¼ mile of wilderness boundaries would be treated, and only if they are forecast to impact limited foraging habitat for essential RCW clusters, or pine forest on private lands, within 30 days. EXPECTED LANDSCAPE CONDITIONS It is difficult to predict the number of acres that might be affected by the proposed control actions, or where these impacts might occur, because beetle infestations do not occur on a regular or annual basis. In recent years they have not occurred even on a regular cycle. Acres directly affected by the actions proposed under this project would be devoid of standing pines. Hardwoods would remain standing, except where they were broken off or felled by falling pines. There would be a significant accumulation of downed pines on the ground, which would decay over time. Hardwood saplings and shrubs would sprout, along with vines and other understory species, and create dense thickets in many of these areas. SPECIES CONSIDERED AND EVALUATED The species considered in this document are categorized into the following groups: A) federally listed species which appear on the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) county list; and B) those species listed for the DCNF as Sensitive, on the Regional Forester (R8) approved list, updated Jan. 2010. Those species or their habitat(s) that may be affected by the proposed project are evaluated in this BE (See Appendix I for a listing of those species that were considered, but eliminated from detailed evaluation and the rationale for elimination). A. Federally Listed Threatened or Endangered Species The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) has determined that these species are threatened or endangered. Species in this category are protected under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). B. Sensitive Species These are species identified by the Regional Forester for which there is concern for population viability across their range, and all occurrences contribute significantly to the conservation of the species. EVALUATED SPECIES SURVEY INFORMATION The need to conduct project-level inventories of Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive species was assessed using the 1989 Record of Decision for Vegetation Management in the Coastal Plain. See Appendix A for a list of those species addressed in this evaluation and those that were considered but eliminated from detailed evaluation and the rationale for elimination. For those species not discussed in detail, this project will have no effect (Proposed, Endangered, or Threatened species) or no impact (Sensitive species). Wilderness SPB EA 04-14-03 2 Available inventory information is adequate because inventories of high potential habitat within proposed treatment areas are current enough to guide project design, support determination of effects, and meet requirements for conservation of these species. EFFECTS ANALYSIS CONSIDERATIONS An assessment of the direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of the proposed beetle control and associated actions on selected species is presented in this document. The analysis area is the five wilderness areas included in this project. The treatment area is defined as land on which management actions would take place, while the cumulative effects analysis area includes those areas where direct and indirect effects may occur, not merely those areas on which actions would take place. The cumulative effects analysis area, unless otherwise noted, includes national forest in or near the treatment area and adjacent compartments and private land. Determinations of effect in this document represent the overall expected effect of the proposed management actions on TES species. The evaluation is based upon: 1. Review of the literature related to the ecology of TES species - see “Literature Cited” at the end of this document. 2. Review of the following documents: Red-cockaded Woodpecker Recovery Plan, second revision (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2003) Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Management of the Red-cockaded Woodpecker and its Habitat on National Forests in the Southern Region (USDA Forest Service, Southern Region, 1995) Revised Land and Resource Management Plan (USDA Forest Service, NFGT, 1996) National Bald Eagle Management Guidelines (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2007) 3. Review of National Forest TES species records. 4. Evaluation of habitat conditions in and near the analysis area. 5. This Biological Evaluation is based upon the best available science, including peer-reviewed scientific literature, state and federal agency reports and management input, discussions with scientists and other professionals, and ground-based observations. ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE This proposal encompasses the five wilderness areas on the National Forests in Texas. All compartments adjacent to these wilderness areas are within Management Area (MA)-2, Red- Cockaded Woodpecker Emphasis, except for those adjacent to Indian Mounds on the Sabine;; those compartments are in MA-1 (Upland Forest Ecosystems). A goal of MA-2 is to “provide the best possible habitat for the recovery of RCW populations and sub-populations” (USFS 1996, p.102). Wilderness SPB EA 04-14-03 3 Management in MA-2 is directed toward developing future conditions consisting of “open pine forests mixed with some hardwood species” (USFS 1996, p.98). This includes a frequent fire regime that would create an “open, grass-like understory.” Protecting limited RCW foraging habitat from loss is an integral part of recovering the species. The five wilderness areas are in MA-7 (Wilderness). A goal of MA-7 is to maintain a natural condition by allowing physical and biological processes to operate without human intervention. An overstory of loblolly and shortleaf pine dominates most of the stands in these compartments. Longleaf pine predominates in Upland Island. Hardwood tree species occurring in the overstory and midstory include post oak, southern red oak, sweetgum, and hickory. Understories range from dense thickets of yaupon, wax myrtle, and various small hardwoods to more open in nature, with grasses present in some areas. Riparian areas of various sizes occur in these wildernesses. Hardwoods dominate along some streams, while pines prevail along others. Larger riparian areas are generally dominated by hardwoods with some pines mixed in the overstory. In general, snags are more common in these riparian areas. Dead pines, killed by the 2011 drought, are scattered throughout portions of the five areas. Specific information on the distribution, status, habitat associations, and limiting factors for the
Load more

Recommended publications
  • "National List of Vascular Plant Species That Occur in Wetlands: 1996 National Summary."
    Intro 1996 National List of Vascular Plant Species That Occur in Wetlands The Fish and Wildlife Service has prepared a National List of Vascular Plant Species That Occur in Wetlands: 1996 National Summary (1996 National List). The 1996 National List is a draft revision of the National List of Plant Species That Occur in Wetlands: 1988 National Summary (Reed 1988) (1988 National List). The 1996 National List is provided to encourage additional public review and comments on the draft regional wetland indicator assignments. The 1996 National List reflects a significant amount of new information that has become available since 1988 on the wetland affinity of vascular plants. This new information has resulted from the extensive use of the 1988 National List in the field by individuals involved in wetland and other resource inventories, wetland identification and delineation, and wetland research. Interim Regional Interagency Review Panel (Regional Panel) changes in indicator status as well as additions and deletions to the 1988 National List were documented in Regional supplements. The National List was originally developed as an appendix to the Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States (Cowardin et al.1979) to aid in the consistent application of this classification system for wetlands in the field.. The 1996 National List also was developed to aid in determining the presence of hydrophytic vegetation in the Clean Water Act Section 404 wetland regulatory program and in the implementation of the swampbuster provisions of the Food Security Act. While not required by law or regulation, the Fish and Wildlife Service is making the 1996 National List available for review and comment.
    [Show full text]
  • Distinguishing the Neches River Rose Mallow, Hibiscus Dasycalyx, from Its Congeners Using DNA Sequence Data and Niche Modeling Methods Melody P
    University of Texas at Tyler Scholar Works at UT Tyler Biology Theses Biology Spring 2015 Distinguishing the Neches River Rose Mallow, Hibiscus Dasycalyx, from its Congeners Using DNA Sequence Data and Niche Modeling Methods Melody P. Sain Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.uttyler.edu/biology_grad Part of the Biology Commons Recommended Citation Sain, Melody P., "Distinguishing the Neches River Rose Mallow, Hibiscus Dasycalyx, from its Congeners Using DNA Sequence Data and Niche Modeling Methods" (2015). Biology Theses. Paper 26. http://hdl.handle.net/10950/292 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Biology at Scholar Works at UT Tyler. It has been accepted for inclusion in Biology Theses by an authorized administrator of Scholar Works at UT Tyler. For more information, please contact [email protected]. DISTINGUISHING THE NECHES RIVER ROSE MALLOW, HIBISCUS DASYCALYX, FROM ITS CONGENERS USING DNA SEQUENCE DATA AND NICHE MODELING METHODS by MELODY P. SAIN A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science Department of Biology Joshua Banta, Ph.D., Committee Chair College of Arts and Sciences The University of Texas at Tyler June 2015 Acknowledgements I would like to give special thanks to my family for their unconditional support and encouragement throughout my academic career. My parents, Douglas and Bernetrice Sain, have always been at my side anytime that I needed that little extra push when things seemed to be too hard. I would also like to thank my little brother, Cody Sain, in always giving me an extra reason to do my best and for always listening to me when I just needed someone to talk to.
    [Show full text]
  • Rain Garden Plant List
    Rain Garden Plant List This is by no means a complete list of the many plants suitable for your rain garden: Native or Botanical Name Common Name Category Naturalized Wet Zone Acer rubrum var. drummondii Southern Swamp Maple Tree Any Acorus calamus Sweet Flag Grass Any Adiantum capillus-veneris Southern Maidenhair Fern Fern Median Aesculus pavia Scarlet Buckeye Tree Yes Any Alstromeria pulchella Peruvian Lily Perennial Any Amorpha fruticosa False Indigo Wildflower Yes Any Andropogon gerardi Big Bluestem Grass Yes Median Andropogon scoparius Little Bluestem Grass Yes Median Aniscanthus wrightii Flame Acanthus Shrub Yes Median Aquilegia canadensis Columbine, Red Wildflower Yes Median Aquilegia ciliata Texas Blue Star Wildflower Yes Median Aquilegia hinckleyana Columbine, Hinckley's Perennial Median, Margin Aquilegia longissima Columbine, Longspur Wildflower Yes Center Asclepias tuberosa Butterfly Weed Wildflower Yes Margin Asimina triloba Pawpaw Tree Any Betula nigra River Birch Tree Yes Any Bignonia capreolata Crossvine Vine Yes Any Callicarpa americana American Beautyberry Shrub Yes Any Canna spp. Canna Lily Perennial No Any Catalpa bignonioides Catalpa Tree Yes Any Cephalanthus occidentalis Buttonbush Shrub Yes Any Chasmanthus latifolium Inland Sea Oats Grass Yes Median, Margin Cyrilla recemiflora Leatherwood or Titi Tree Tree Yes Median, Margin Clematis pitcheri Leatherflower Vine Yes Any Crataegus reverchonii Hawthorn Tree Yes Any Crinum spp. Crinum Perennial Any Delphinium virescens Prairie Larkspur Wildflower Yes Any Dryoptera normalis
    [Show full text]
  • Melody P. Sain1*, Julia Norrell-Tober*, Katherine Barthel, Megan Seawright, Alyssa Blanton, Kate L
    MULTIPLE COMPLEMENTARY STUDIES CLARIFY WHICH CO-OCCURRING CONGENER PRESENTS THE GREATEST HYBRIDIZATION THREAT TO A RARE TEXAS ENDEMIC WILDFLOWER (HIBISCUS DASYCALYX: MALVACEAE) Melody P. Sain1*, Julia Norrell-Tober*, Katherine Barthel, Megan Seawright, Alyssa Blanton, Kate L. Hertweck2, John S. Placyk, Jr.3 Department of Biology and Center for Environment, Biodiversity, and Conservation University of Texas at Tyler 3900 University Blvd., Tyler, Texas 75799, U.S.A. Randall Small Department of Ecology & Evolutionary Biology University of Tennessee-Knoxville Dabney Hall, 1416 Circle Dr., Knoxville, Tennessee 37996, U.S.A. [email protected] Lance R. Williams, Marsha G. Williams, Joshua A. Banta Department of Biology and Center for Environment, Biodiversity, and Conservation University of Texas at Tyler 3900 University Blvd., Tyler, Texas 75799, U.S.A. [email protected], [email protected], [email protected] *The two authors contributed equally to this work. 1Current address: Department of Botany, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Madison, Wisconsin 53706, U.S.A., [email protected] 2Current address: Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, 1100 Fairview Ave. N, Seattle, Washington 98109, U.S.A., [email protected] 3Current address: Trinity Valley Community College, 100 Cardinal Dr., Athens, Texas 75751, U.S.A., [email protected] ABSTRACT The Neches River Rose Mallow (Hibiscus dasycalyx) is a rare wildflower endemic to Texas that is federally protected in the U.S.A. While previous work suggests that H. dasycalyx may be hybridizing with its widespread congeners, the Halberd-leaved Rose Mallow (H. laevis) and the Woolly Rose Mallow (H. moscheutos), this has not been studied in detail. We evaluated the relative threats to H.
    [Show full text]
  • C6 Noncarice Sedge
    CYPERACEAE etal Got Sedge? Part Two revised 24 May 2015. Draft from Designs On Nature; Up Your C 25 SEDGES, FOINS COUPANTS, LAÎCHES, ROUCHES, ROUCHETTES, & some mostly wet things in the sedge family. Because Bill Gates has been shown to eat footnotes (burp!, & enjoy it), footnotes are (italicized in the body of the text) for their protection. Someone who can spell caespitose only won way has know imagination. Much of the following is taken verbatim from other works, & often not credited. There is often not a way to paraphrase or rewrite habitat or descriptive information without changing the meaning. I am responsible for any mistakes in quoting or otherwise. This is a learning tool, & a continuation of an idea of my friend & former employer, Jock Ingels, LaFayette Home Nursery, who hoped to present more available information about a plant in one easily accessible place, instead of scattered though numerous sources. This is a work in perpetual progress, a personal learning tool, full uv misstakes, & written as a personal means instead of a public end. Redundant, repetitive, superfluous, & contradictory information is present. It is being consolidated. CYPERACEAE Sauergrasgewächse SEDGES, aka BIESIES, SEGGEN Formally described in 1789 by De Jussieu. The family name is derived from the genus name Cyperus, from the Greek kupeiros, meaning sedge. Many species are grass-like, being tufted, with long, thin, narrow leaves, jointed stems, & branched inflorescence of small flowers, & are horticulturally lumped with grasses as graminoids. Archer (2005) suggests the term graminoid be used for true grasses, & cyperoid be used for sedges. (If physical anthropologists have hominoids & hominids, why don’t we have graminoids & graminids?) There are approximately 104 genera, 4 subfamilies, 14 tribes, & about 5000 species worldwide, with 27 genera & 843 species in North America (Ball et al 2002).
    [Show full text]
  • Illustrated Flora of East Texas Illustrated Flora of East Texas
    ILLUSTRATED FLORA OF EAST TEXAS ILLUSTRATED FLORA OF EAST TEXAS IS PUBLISHED WITH THE SUPPORT OF: MAJOR BENEFACTORS: DAVID GIBSON AND WILL CRENSHAW DISCOVERY FUND U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE FOUNDATION (NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, USDA FOREST SERVICE) TEXAS PARKS AND WILDLIFE DEPARTMENT SCOTT AND STUART GENTLING BENEFACTORS: NEW DOROTHEA L. LEONHARDT FOUNDATION (ANDREA C. HARKINS) TEMPLE-INLAND FOUNDATION SUMMERLEE FOUNDATION AMON G. CARTER FOUNDATION ROBERT J. O’KENNON PEG & BEN KEITH DORA & GORDON SYLVESTER DAVID & SUE NIVENS NATIVE PLANT SOCIETY OF TEXAS DAVID & MARGARET BAMBERGER GORDON MAY & KAREN WILLIAMSON JACOB & TERESE HERSHEY FOUNDATION INSTITUTIONAL SUPPORT: AUSTIN COLLEGE BOTANICAL RESEARCH INSTITUTE OF TEXAS SID RICHARDSON CAREER DEVELOPMENT FUND OF AUSTIN COLLEGE II OTHER CONTRIBUTORS: ALLDREDGE, LINDA & JACK HOLLEMAN, W.B. PETRUS, ELAINE J. BATTERBAE, SUSAN ROBERTS HOLT, JEAN & DUNCAN PRITCHETT, MARY H. BECK, NELL HUBER, MARY MAUD PRICE, DIANE BECKELMAN, SARA HUDSON, JIM & YONIE PRUESS, WARREN W. BENDER, LYNNE HULTMARK, GORDON & SARAH ROACH, ELIZABETH M. & ALLEN BIBB, NATHAN & BETTIE HUSTON, MELIA ROEBUCK, RICK & VICKI BOSWORTH, TONY JACOBS, BONNIE & LOUIS ROGNLIE, GLORIA & ERIC BOTTONE, LAURA BURKS JAMES, ROI & DEANNA ROUSH, LUCY BROWN, LARRY E. JEFFORDS, RUSSELL M. ROWE, BRIAN BRUSER, III, MR. & MRS. HENRY JOHN, SUE & PHIL ROZELL, JIMMY BURT, HELEN W. JONES, MARY LOU SANDLIN, MIKE CAMPBELL, KATHERINE & CHARLES KAHLE, GAIL SANDLIN, MR. & MRS. WILLIAM CARR, WILLIAM R. KARGES, JOANN SATTERWHITE, BEN CLARY, KAREN KEITH, ELIZABETH & ERIC SCHOENFELD, CARL COCHRAN, JOYCE LANEY, ELEANOR W. SCHULTZE, BETTY DAHLBERG, WALTER G. LAUGHLIN, DR. JAMES E. SCHULZE, PETER & HELEN DALLAS CHAPTER-NPSOT LECHE, BEVERLY SENNHAUSER, KELLY S. DAMEWOOD, LOGAN & ELEANOR LEWIS, PATRICIA SERLING, STEVEN DAMUTH, STEVEN LIGGIO, JOE SHANNON, LEILA HOUSEMAN DAVIS, ELLEN D.
    [Show full text]
  • United States Department of the Interior
    United States Department of the Interior FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE Ecological Services do TAMU-Cc' Campus Box 338 6300 Ocean Drive Corpus Christi. Texas 78412 September 14,2012 Honorable Joe English Nacogdoches County Judge 101 West Main, Suite 170 Nacogdoches, Texas 75961 Dear Honorable English: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) is proposing to list the Texas golden gladecress (Leavenworthia texana) as endangered and the Neches River rose-mallow (Hibiscus dasycalyx) as threatened under the Endangered Species Act (Act). In addition we are proposing to designate critical habitat for both plants. A 60-day period oftime is allotted for the public to review and comment on this proposal; beginning on September 11, 2012, the day ofpublication ofthe proposal in the Federal Register, and ending on November 13,2012. The Texas golden gladecress is a winter annual plant that is known to occur naturally in San Augustine and Sabine counties in East Texas. There are only eight documented Texas golden gladecress occurrences, including four historic sites where the plants have been eliminated. The Texas golden gladecress is a habitat specialist, occurring only on isolated outcrops ofthe Weches Geologic Formation (a specific type of soil). Populations are found on private land, and in two instances extend onto State highway right-of-ways. The species is threatened by glauconite quarrying activities; oil and gas development, including pipeline construction; competition from native and nonnative species; herbicide spraying; and conversion ofpastures or forest with native prairie patches to pine plantations. The Neches River rose-mallow is a non-woody perennial plant that is known to occur naturally in Cherokee, Houston, and Trinity counties in East Texas.
    [Show full text]
  • Critical Habitat-Plants
    U.S. Fish and Wildlife Serv., Interior § 17.96(a), Nt. § 17.96 Critical habitat—plants. aqueducts, runways, well pads, metering sta- tions, roads and the filled areas immediately * * * * * adjacent to pavement, and other paved areas) and the land on which they are lo- (a) Flowering plants. cated existing within the legal boundaries on October 11, 2013. * * * * * (4) Critical habitat map units. Soil Survey Geographic Dataset (SSURGO) was used as a Family Brassicaceae: Leavenworthia texana base map layer. The SSURGO is an updated (Texas golden gladecress) digital version of the Natural Resources Con- (1) Critical habitat units are depicted for servation Service county soil surveys. The San Augustine and Sabine Counties, Texas, SSURGO uses recent digital orthophotos and on the maps below. fieldwork to update the original printed sur- (2) Within these areas, the primary con- veys. Data layers defining map units were stituent elements of the physical or biologi- created using the Texas golden gladecress’ cal features essential to the conservation of restriction to the Weches Formation and its Leavenworthia texana consist of the three pri- tight association with the three soil map mary constituent elements identified for the units: Nacogdoches clay loam 1–5 percent species: slope, Trawick gravelly clay loam 5–15 per- (i) Exposed outcrops of the Weches Forma- cent slope, or Bub clay loam 2–5 percent tion within Weches prairies. Within the slope. In San Augustine and Sabine Counties, outcrop sites, there must be bare, exposed these soil types are restricted to the Weches bedrock on top-level surfaces or rocky ledges Formation. Locations of all known with small depressions where rainwater or gladecress populations, as well as potential seepage can collect.
    [Show full text]
  • Distinguishing the Neches River Rose Mallow (Hibiscus Dasycalyx) from Its Congeners Using Genetic and Niche Modeling Methods
    FINAL PERFORMANCE REPORT As Required by THE ENDANGERED SPECIES PROGRAM TEXAS Grant No. TX E-161-R (F13AP00690) Endangered and Threatened Species Conservation Distinguishing the Neches River Rose Mallow (Hibiscus dasycalyx) from its congeners using genetic and niche modeling methods Prepared by: Dr. Josh Banta Carter Smith Executive Director Clayton Wolf Director, Wildlife 8 September 2017 INTERIM REPORT STATE: ____Texas_______________ GRANT NUMBER: ___ TX E-161-R-1__ GRANT TITLE: Distinguishing the Neches River Rose Mallow (Hibiscus dasycalyx) from its congeners using genetic and niche modeling methods. REPORTING PERIOD: ____1 September 2013 to 31 Auguts 2017_ OBJECTIVE(S). To resolve the taxonomic relationships among Hibiscus dasycalyx and its congeners (H. laevis and H. moscheutos), quantify the hybridization threat posed by H. laevis and H. moscheutos to H. dasycalyx, and create ground-truthed, geo-referenced maps of East Texas, showing the areas of suitable habitat for H. dasycalyx versus its congeners. Segment Objectives: Task #1. August 2013 – October 2013: Intensive (non-destructive) leaf sampling of H. dasycalyx and its congeners in the field. Task #2. October 2013 – August 2015: Phylogenetic and population genetic analysis of H. dasycalyx and its congeners using modern molecular methods. Task #3. October 2014 – July 2015: Creation of ecological niche models. Task #4. July – August 2015: Refinement of the ecological niche models and analysis of niche separation among species. Significant Deviations: None. Summary Of Progress: Please see Attachment A. Location: Angelina, Trinity, and Neches river watersheds in Cherokee, Harrison, Houston, Trinity, Angelina, Anderson, and Neches counties, Texas. Cost: ___Costs were not available at time of this report, they will be available upon completion of the Final Report and conclusion of the project.__ Prepared by: _Craig Farquhar_____________ Date: 8 September 2017 Approved by: ______________________________ Date:_____8 September 2017 C.
    [Show full text]
  • Literature Cited for Final Rule – 2 Texas Plants
    Literature Cited for Final Rule – 2 Texas Plants Adams, J. 2005. Letter from Jennifer Adams, Texas Department of Transportation, to Edith Erfling, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, regarding a realignment project on Farm-to- Market 230, Houston County, Texas. February 17, 2005. 29 pp. Adams, J. 2011b. Telephone conversation between Jennifer Adams, Texas Department of Transportation, and Robyn Cobb, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, regarding highway department maintenance operations in East Texas. December 1, 2011. 2 pp. Adams, J. 2011c. Telephone conversation between Jennifer Adams, Texas Department of Transportation, and Amber Miller, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, regarding expansion along right-of-ways, specifically Hwy 94, and use of “no mow” signs as management. December 8, 2011. 1 p. Adams, J. 2013a. Electronic mail communication from Jennifer Adams, Texas Department of Transportation, to Amber Miller and Robyn Cobb, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, regarding excluding “Fill” areas along highway right-of-ways as critical habitat. May 3, 2013. 1 p. Adams, J. 2013b. Telephone conversation between Jennifer Adams, Texas Department of Transportation, and Amber Miller, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, regarding sedimentation minimization measures (silt fencing) in highway right-of-ways. May 7, 2013. 1 p. Adams, J. 2013c. Electronic mail communication from Jennifer Adams, Texas Department of Transportation, with Amber Miller, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, regarding highway right-of-way re-seed mixtures that include invasive grasses. May 8, 2013. 2 pp. Adler, L. S., R. Karban, and S. Y. Strauss. 2001. Direct and indirect effects of alkaloids on plant fitness via herbivory and pollination.
    [Show full text]
  • Ecological Checklist of the Missouri Flora for Floristic Quality Assessment
    Ladd, D. and J.R. Thomas. 2015. Ecological checklist of the Missouri flora for Floristic Quality Assessment. Phytoneuron 2015-12: 1–274. Published 12 February 2015. ISSN 2153 733X ECOLOGICAL CHECKLIST OF THE MISSOURI FLORA FOR FLORISTIC QUALITY ASSESSMENT DOUGLAS LADD The Nature Conservancy 2800 S. Brentwood Blvd. St. Louis, Missouri 63144 [email protected] JUSTIN R. THOMAS Institute of Botanical Training, LLC 111 County Road 3260 Salem, Missouri 65560 [email protected] ABSTRACT An annotated checklist of the 2,961 vascular taxa comprising the flora of Missouri is presented, with conservatism rankings for Floristic Quality Assessment. The list also provides standardized acronyms for each taxon and information on nativity, physiognomy, and wetness ratings. Annotated comments for selected taxa provide taxonomic, floristic, and ecological information, particularly for taxa not recognized in recent treatments of the Missouri flora. Synonymy crosswalks are provided for three references commonly used in Missouri. A discussion of the concept and application of Floristic Quality Assessment is presented. To accurately reflect ecological and taxonomic relationships, new combinations are validated for two distinct taxa, Dichanthelium ashei and D. werneri , and problems in application of infraspecific taxon names within Quercus shumardii are clarified. CONTENTS Introduction Species conservatism and floristic quality Application of Floristic Quality Assessment Checklist: Rationale and methods Nomenclature and taxonomic concepts Synonymy Acronyms Physiognomy, nativity, and wetness Summary of the Missouri flora Conclusion Annotated comments for checklist taxa Acknowledgements Literature Cited Ecological checklist of the Missouri flora Table 1. C values, physiognomy, and common names Table 2. Synonymy crosswalk Table 3. Wetness ratings and plant families INTRODUCTION This list was developed as part of a revised and expanded system for Floristic Quality Assessment (FQA) in Missouri.
    [Show full text]
  • Appendices, Glossary
    APPENDIX ONE ILLUSTRATION SOURCES REF. CODE ABR Abrams, L. 1923–1960. Illustrated flora of the Pacific states. Stanford University Press, Stanford, CA. ADD Addisonia. 1916–1964. New York Botanical Garden, New York. Reprinted with permission from Addisonia, vol. 18, plate 579, Copyright © 1933, The New York Botanical Garden. ANDAnderson, E. and Woodson, R.E. 1935. The species of Tradescantia indigenous to the United States. Arnold Arboretum of Harvard University, Cambridge, MA. Reprinted with permission of the Arnold Arboretum of Harvard University. ANN Hollingworth A. 2005. Original illustrations. Published herein by the Botanical Research Institute of Texas, Fort Worth. Artist: Anne Hollingworth. ANO Anonymous. 1821. Medical botany. E. Cox and Sons, London. ARM Annual Rep. Missouri Bot. Gard. 1889–1912. Missouri Botanical Garden, St. Louis. BA1 Bailey, L.H. 1914–1917. The standard cyclopedia of horticulture. The Macmillan Company, New York. BA2 Bailey, L.H. and Bailey, E.Z. 1976. Hortus third: A concise dictionary of plants cultivated in the United States and Canada. Revised and expanded by the staff of the Liberty Hyde Bailey Hortorium. Cornell University. Macmillan Publishing Company, New York. Reprinted with permission from William Crepet and the L.H. Bailey Hortorium. Cornell University. BA3 Bailey, L.H. 1900–1902. Cyclopedia of American horticulture. Macmillan Publishing Company, New York. BB2 Britton, N.L. and Brown, A. 1913. An illustrated flora of the northern United States, Canada and the British posses- sions. Charles Scribner’s Sons, New York. BEA Beal, E.O. and Thieret, J.W. 1986. Aquatic and wetland plants of Kentucky. Kentucky Nature Preserves Commission, Frankfort. Reprinted with permission of Kentucky State Nature Preserves Commission.
    [Show full text]