DOCSLIB.ORG

Biological Evaluation for Sensitive Plants and Other Botanical Resources

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Biological Evaluation for Sensitive Plants and Other Botanical Resources BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION FOR SENSITIVE PLANTS AND OTHER BOTANICAL RESOURCES Public Wheeled Motorized Travel Management Plan Stanislaus National Forest Pacific Southwest Region November 2009 Prepared by: _______________________________________________ Terri Walsh Botanical Resource Analyst Recreation Solutions Enterprise Team Washington Office Reviewed by: Sue Warren Travel Management ID Team Leader Approved by: Crispin Holland Forest Wildlife, Aquatics, and Botany Program Coordinator This biological evaluation has been prepared in accordance with direction in FSM 2672.4. It complies with 36 CFR 219.19 and 36 CFR 241.1. Table of Contents Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 5 Purpose and Need .......................................................................................................... 5 Analysis Framework- Statutes, Regulations, Forest Plan, and other direction........ 5 Stanislaus National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP) Standards and Guidelines 2005. ..................................................................................................................... 5 The Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 USC 1531 et seq.) ................................................ 5 E.O. 13112 Invasive Species 64 FR 6183 (February 8, 1999................................................. 6 Forest Service Manual and Handbooks (FSM/H 2670).......................................................... 6 Monitoring ....................................................................................................................... 8 Mitigation and Other Requirements Common to All Action Alternatives.................. 8 Mitigation Measures ............................................................................................................... 8 Consultation to Date....................................................................................................... 9 Description of Project................................................................................................... 10 Alternatives Analysis.................................................................................................... 11 Alternative 1 (Proposed Action) ........................................................................................... 11 Alternative 2 (No Action) ..................................................................................................... 11 Alternative 5 (Resources) ..................................................................................................... 12 Analysis Area ................................................................................................................ 12 Existing Environment ................................................................................................... 15 Sensitive Plant Review ................................................................................................. 15 Sensitive Plant Species................................................................................................ 18 Species Accounts and Habitats ............................................................................................. 20 Upland and Midslope habitats .............................................................................................. 20 Moist Habitats – Meadows, Boggs, and Riparian areas: ...................................................... 23 Sensitive Plant Species Known or Expected to occur in Moist Habitat ............................... 23 Moist Habitat Descriptions for Sensitive Species:................................................................ 24 Lower Montane, Chaparral, and Woodland Habitats: .......................................................... 27 Watchlist Plant Species................................................................................................ 29 Effects to Watch List Species ............................................................................................... 29 Noxious and Invasive Weed Species .......................................................................... 30 Introduction........................................................................................................................... 30 Noxious Weed Management................................................................................................. 30 Habitat Vulnerability and Vector Methods........................................................................... 31 ISSUES AND INDICATOR MEASURES USED TO MEASURE EFFECTS .................. 34 Indicators Measures .............................................................................................................. 35 Measures used to determine effects to sensitive plant and sensitive plant habitats:............. 36 ASSUMPTIONS.............................................................................................................. 37 EFFECTS OF THE ALTERNATIVES............................................................................. 37 Impacts to Sensitive Plants ......................................................................................... 38 Effects to Sensitive Plants Common to All Alternatives........................................... 38 2 Sensitive Plant Biological Evaluation Stanislaus National Forest Motorized Travel Management Direct Effects ........................................................................................................................ 39 Indirect Effects...................................................................................................................... 39 Meadows............................................................................................................................... 40 Weed Infested Routes ........................................................................................................... 40 Cumulative Effects................................................................................................................ 41 Past Management Activities: ................................................................................................ 41 Present and Foreseeable Management Activities: ................................................................ 42 Alternative 1 (Proposed Action) .................................................................................. 43 Alternative 2 (No Action) .............................................................................................. 47 Alternative 3 (Cross Country Prohibited) ................................................................... 50 Alternative 4 (Recreation – Action Alternative).......................................................... 52 Alternative 5 (Resources)............................................................................................. 56 MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS ....................................................................... 59 Monitoring ............................................................................................................................ 59 Maintenance of Transportation Facilities ............................................................................. 59 Recommended Mitigations ................................................................................................... 60 Monitoring ............................................................................................................................ 61 MITIGATION FOR NOXIOUS/INVASIVE WEEDS......................................................... 63 EFFECTS SUMMARY .................................................................................................... 63 Determination of Effects....................................................................................................... 66 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................... 67 Appendix A Alternative 1 Additions to the NFTS with Direct Impacts to Sensitive Plants ........................................................................................................................................ 72 Appendix B Alternative 1 Additions to the NFTS with weed occurrences ............ 73 Appendix C Alternative 4 Additions to the NFTS with associated Direct Impacts to Sensitive Plants ............................................................................................................ 74 Appendix D Alternative 4 Additions with weed occurrences and associated Direct Impacts to sensitive plants .......................................................................................... 75 Appendix E Tables of Effects Alternative 5............................................................... 76 Appendix F Sensitive Plant and Watchlist Occurrences.......................................... 77 Appendix G Acres of Weed Infestation...................................................................... 78 Appendix H Comparison of Miles of Road Infested with Invasive Weed Species .79 List of Tables Table 1: Wheeled Over Snow Routes.....................................................................................11 Table 2 Sensitive Plant Species and Habitat Description .....................................................18 Table 3-Watchlist species ........................................................................................................29 Table 4 Noxious Weeds and Non-native
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Terr–3 Special-Status Plant Populations
    TERR–3 SPECIAL-STATUS PLANT POPULATIONS 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY During 2001 and 2002, the review of existing information, agency consultation, vegetation community mapping, and focused special-status plant surveys were completed. Based on California Native Plant Society’s (CNPS) Electronic Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California (CNPS 2001a), CDFG’s Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB; CDFG 2003), USDA-FS Regional Forester’s List of Sensitive Plant and Animal Species for Region 5 (USDA-FS 1998), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Species List (USFWS 2003), and Sierra National Forest (SNF) Sensitive Plant List (Clines 2002), there were 100 special-status plant species initially identified as potentially occurring within the Study Area. Known occurrences of these species were mapped. Vegetation communities were evaluated to locate areas that could potentially support special-status plant species. Each community was determined to have the potential to support at least one special-status plant species. During the spring and summer of 2002, special-status plant surveys were conducted. For each special-status plant species or population identified, a CNDDB form was completed, and photographs were taken. The locations were mapped and incorporated into a confidential GIS database. Vascular plant species observed during surveys were recorded. No state or federally listed special-status plant species were identified during special- status plant surveys. Seven special-status plant species, totaling 60 populations, were identified during surveys. There were 22 populations of Mono Hot Springs evening-primrose (Camissonia sierrae ssp. alticola) identified. Two populations are located near Mammoth Pool, one at Bear Forebay, and the rest are in the Florence Lake area.
    [Show full text]
  • Special Status Vascular Plant Surveys and Habitat Modeling in Yosemite National Park, 2003–2004
    National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior Natural Resource Program Center Special Status Vascular Plant Surveys and Habitat Modeling in Yosemite National Park, 2003–2004 Natural Resource Technical Report NPS/SIEN/NRTR—2010/389 ON THE COVER USGS and NPS joint survey for Tompkins’ sedge (Carex tompkinsii), south side Merced River, El Portal, Mariposa County, California (upper left); Yosemite onion (Allium yosemitense) (upper right); Yosemite lewisia (Lewisia disepala) (lower left); habitat model for mountain lady’s slipper (Cypripedium montanum) in Yosemite National Park, California (lower right). Photographs by: Peggy E. Moore. Special Status Vascular Plant Surveys and Habitat Modeling in Yosemite National Park, 2003–2004 Natural Resource Technical Report NPS/SIEN/NRTR—2010/389 Peggy E. Moore, Alison E. L. Colwell, and Charlotte L. Coulter U.S. Geological Survey Western Ecological Research Center 5083 Foresta Road El Portal, California 95318 October 2010 U.S. Department of the Interior National Park Service Natural Resource Program Center Fort Collins, Colorado The National Park Service, Natural Resource Program Center publishes a range of reports that address natural resource topics of interest and applicability to a broad audience in the National Park Service and others in natural resource management, including scientists, conservation and environmental constituencies, and the public. The Natural Resource Technical Report Series is used to disseminate results of scientific studies in the physical, biological, and social sciences for both the advancement of science and the achievement of the National Park Service mission. The series provides contributors with a forum for displaying comprehensive data that are often deleted from journals because of page limitations.
    [Show full text]
  • Rare Plant Surveys and Vegetation Mapping For
    Appendix A Rare Plant and Vegetation Surveys 2002 and 2003 Santa Ysabel Ranch Open Space Preserve Prepared For The Nature Conservancy San Diego County Field Office The County of San Diego Department of Parks and Recreation By Virginia Moran, M.S. Botany Sole Proprietor Ecological Outreach Services P.O. Box 2858 Grass Valley, California 95945 Southeast view from the northern portion of the West Ranch with snow-frosted Volcan Mountain in the background. Information contained in this report is that of Ecological Outreach Services and all rights thereof reserved. Santa Ysabel Ranch Botanical Surveys 2 Contents I. Summary ……………………………………………………………… ……………. 4 II. Introduction and Methods……………………………..……………… …………… 5 III Results…………………………………………………………………...…………… 6 III.A. East Ranch Species of Interest Plant Communities III.B. West Ranch Species of Interest Plant Communities III.C. Sensitive Resources of the Santa Ysabel Ranch IV. Discussion……………………………………………………………….……………. 14 V. Conclusion…………………………………………….……………….……………… 18 VI. Management Recommendations…………………….……………………… …….. 19 VII. Suggested Future Projects………………….…….……………………… …………26 VIII. Acknowledgements…………………………………………………………… …….. 28 IX. References Cited / Consulted ……………………..……………………………….. 29 X. Maps and Figures ………………………….……………………………… ……... 30 Appendices 1 - 6 …………………………….…………………………………………….…44 Santa Ysabel Ranch Botanical Surveys 3 I. Summary The Santa Ysabel Ranch Open Space Preserve was established in 2001 from a purchase by The Nature Conservancy from the Edwards Family; the Ranch is now owned by the County of San Diego and managed as a Department of Parks and Recreation Open Space Preserve. It totals nearly 5,400 acres and is comprised of two parcels; an "East Ranch” and a "West Ranch". The East Ranch is east of the town of Santa Ysabel (and Highway 79 running north) and is bordered on the east by Farmer's Road in Julian.
    [Show full text]
  • Natural Environment Study
    Newtown Road Bridge (25C-0033) at South Fork Weber Creek Replacement Project NES Natural Environment Study Discussions of Environmental Setting, Biological Resources, Impacts and Mitigation El Dorado County, CA Caltrans District 3 Federal Aid Number: BRLS 5925 (086) November 2017 [This page intentionally blank] [This page intentionally blank] BRLS 5925 (086) Newtown Road Bridge at South Fork Weber Creek NES iv Summary Summary The El Dorado County Department of Transportation in conjunction with the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), intends to replace the existing Newtown Road Bridge at South Fork Weber Creek (25C-0033). The Project is located along Newtown Road, approximately two miles south of the community of Camino in the western Sierra Nevada in unincorporated El Dorado County. The Project is the replacement of the existing 26.9-ft wide, 26.9-ft long, single span bridge. The existing bridge, constructed in 1929, has a span of approximately 26.9 feet. In 1950, the east face of the original structure was removed and the bridge was widened upstream with a 10.7-ft by 7.5-ft corrugated metal pipe arch (CMPA) culvert. The bridge has a sufficiency rating of 80.2, and has been classified as functionally obsolete because the size of the bridge is not considered adequate for the amount of traffic using the bridge. The Biological Study Area (BSA) for the Project occupies 5.752 acres. Two bridge replacement designs are under consideration: a precast open-bottom arch structure (Alternative 1) or a cast-in-place post-tensioned box girder bridge (Alternative 2).
    [Show full text]
  • Lake Tahoe Watershed Assessment: Volume II
    LakeLake TahoeTahoe WatershedWatershed AssessmentAssessment Volume II United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service March 2000 The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, gender, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation and marital or family status. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’s TARGET Center at 202-720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write: USDA, Director Office of Civil Rights Room 326-W, Whitten Building 14th and Independence Avenue, SW Washington, DC 20250-9410 Or call: (202) 720-2600 (voice or TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. Abstract: Murphy, Dennis D.; Knopp, Christopher M., technical editors. 2000. Lake Tahoe Watershed Assessment: Volume II. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-175. Albany, CA: Pacific Southwest Research Station, Forest Service, US Department of Agriculture; 753 p. The Lake Tahoe Basin has been the subject of decades of research and monitoring efforts. However, the Lake Tahoe Watershed Assessment is the first attempt to collate, synthesize, and interpret available scientific information with a comprehensive view toward management and policy outcomes. The seven-chapter assessment presents new and existing information in subject areas pertinent to policy development and land and resource management in the basin, including environmental history, air quality, watershed dynamics and water quality, biological integrity, and socioeconomic conditions. Volume II is supporting documentation for several of the discussions in Volume I.
    [Show full text]
  • Negative Declaration
    NEGATIVE DECLARATION FILE: P20-0002 PROJECT NAME Sand Ridge Tentative Parcel Map NAME OF APPLICANT: Jacque Robinson ASSESSOR’S PARCEL NO.: 046-410-014 SECTION: 13 T: 9N R: 11E LOCATION: The project is located on the south side of Sand Ridge Road, 2-miles west of the intersection with Bucks Bar Road in the Somerset area. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT: FROM: TO: REZONING: FROM: TO: TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP To create two parcels of 5-acres each from a 10-acre parent parcel. SUBDIVISION: SUBDIVISION (NAME): SPECIAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW: OTHER: REASONS THE PROJECT WILL NOT HAVE A SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT: NO SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS WERE IDENTIFIED DURING THE REVISED INITIAL STUDY. MITIGATION HAS BEEN IDENTIFIED WHICH WOULD REDUCE POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS. OTHER: In accordance with the authority and criteria contained in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), State Guidelines, and El Dorado County Guidelines for the Implementation of CEQA, the County Environmental Agent analyzed the project and determined that the project will not have a significant impact on the environment. Based on this finding, the Planning Department hereby prepares this NEGATIVE DECLARATION. A period of twenty (20) days from the date of filing this mitigated negative declaration will be provided to enable public review of the project specifications and this document prior to action on the project by COUNTY OF EL DORADO. A copy of the project specifications is on file at the County of El Dorado Planning Services, 2850 Fairlane Court, Placerville,
    [Show full text]
  • PROJECT: City of Berkeley Tuolumne Camp Permit (46690)
    BOTANY REPORT TUOLUMNE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA PROJECT: City of Berkeley Tuolumne Camp Permit (46690) RANGER DISTRICT: Groveland Ranger District, Stanislaus National Forest PREPARED BY: DATE: March 8, 2018 Wendy C. Fisher, Botanist/Plant Ecologist Live Oak Associates, Inc. PO Box 2697 Oakhurst, CA 93644 (559) 642-4880 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 PRIMARY PROJECT PURPOSES ................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 PROPOSED ACTION ....................................................................................................................................... 1 2.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS ..................................................................................................................................... 5 2.1 BIOTIC HABITATS ........................................................................................................................................... 7 3.0 METHODS ........................................................................................................................................................... 10 4.0 RESULTS ............................................................................................................................................................. 12 4.1 RARE FLORA .................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Special Status Plant Species in the Merced River Corridor Within Yosemite National Park on the COVER: Vernal Slab-Seep Community Near Merced Lake
    National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior Natural Resource Program Center Special Status Plant Species in the Merced River Corridor within Yosemite National Park ON THE COVER: Vernal slab-seep community near Merced Lake. Credits: Photo by Dean Taylor Special Status Plant Species of the Merced River Corridor within Yosemite National Park Alison E.L. Colwell, PhD Botanist Resources Management and Science Yosemite National Park 5083 Foresta Road El Portal, CA 95318 and Dean W. Taylor, PhD Consulting Botanist 3212 Redwood Drive Aptos, CA 95003 May 2011 U.S. Department of the Interior National Park Service Yosemite National Park El Portal, California Special Status Plant Species in the Merced River Corridor The National Park Service, Natural Resource Program Center publishes a range of reports that address natu- ral resource topics of interest and applicability to a broad audience in the National Park Service and others in natural resource management, including scientists, conservation and environmental constituencies, and the public. [include one of the following two paragraphs, depending on whether it is an NRR or NRTR report] The Natural Resource Report Series is used to disseminate high-priority, current natural resource management information with managerial application. The series targets a general, diverse audience, and may contain NPS policy considerations or address sensitive issues of management applicability. Or The Natural Resource Technical Report Series is used to disseminate results of scientific studies in the physi- cal, biological, and social sciences for both the advancement of science and the achievement of the National Park Service mission. The series provides contributors with a forum for displaying comprehensive data that are often deleted from journals because of page limitations.
    [Show full text]