DOCSLIB.ORG

Plant Species at Risk, Helena-Lewis & Clark National Forest

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Plant Species at Risk, Helena-Lewis & Clark National Forest Botany Supplemental Report – Plant Species At Risk, Helena-Lewis & Clark National Forest Introduction This specialist report provides supporting information to the effects analysis for at-risk plants in the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the revised forest plan on the Helena-Lewis and Clark National Forest and the species of conservation concern selection. The analysis and conclusions in the EIS are based in part on the information provided here. Included below is the complete list of plant species that were evaluated as potential species of conservation concern in the plan area. Habitat, life history, distribution, threats, rare status ranks and pertinent plan components are considered as a part of this supplemental document. At-Risk Species The process for the identification of at-risk species in the plan revision process is outlined in the 2012 planning rule directives (FSH 1909.12, Ch. 10). At-risk species include those federally listed under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), proposed and candidate species under the ESA, and species of conservation concern. All action alternatives considered in the EIS share a common list of at-risk plants. There are no federally listed threatened and endangered plant species currently known to occur in the plan area, but there is one candidate species that is included as a federal at-risk species. The candidate plant species that occurs in the planning area is whitebark pine. A total of 31 species of conservation concern (SCC) and one candidate species are included as at-risk plant species for the Helena-Lewis & Clark National Forest plan revision. The majority are flowering plants, but ferns, mosses, and one conifer are also included on the list. Species of conservation concern and habitat occur in all ecosystem types and in all geographic areas, as shown in the EIS. The species that were considered but not recommended as SCC because they are not known to occur in the Plan Area are shown in Appendix A below. All species that were considered and occurred in the Plan Area are addressed in the body of this supplemental report. Species of conservation concern Compared to Forest Service Sensitive species Under the current Forest plans, rare plants are provided for according to the national manual direction (FSM 2670) for Regional Forester’s Sensitive species (RFSS). There are a total of 35 species previously identified as sensitive in the plan area; 1 species is a federal candidate species (Whitebark pine) that will not be carried over as an SCC; 12 species from the R1SS list will not be designated by the Regional Forester as SCC for the Draft EIS and 9 additional species will be added that were not previously identified as at-risk species. The total proposed SCC species for the HLCNF is 31, excluding whitebark pine. The 12 RFSS were also addressed in this at-risk plant report. Unlike the Regional Forester’s Sensitive species list, the species of conservation concern lists are specific to each Forest, and species of conservation concern designated on a Forest must be known to occur there. For that reason, some at-risk species were identified as species of conservation concern on one Forest, but not another. If Regional Forester’s sensitive species were not carried forward as species of conservation concern, it was for one or more of the following reasons, as documented in the project record: 1) The species does not occur on the Forest. 1 2) Previous occurrence records were determined to be incorrect identifications of the species and/or could not be re-located. 3) Natureserve, Montana Natural Heritage Program (MTNHP), or other local data sources indicated the threats to the species in the plan area were not substantial. 4) Recent surveys indicated the species is more common than originally thought. 5) There was no information about threats to the species. This was a relatively uncommon circumstance, because information about threats could be inferred from threats to the ecosystems upon which the species depend. Lack of information generally only limited species inclusion on the list if the species had not been observed for decades or more, leading to uncertainty about the condition of its specific habitat and occurrences. Procedure and Rationale for Evaluation of Botanical Species of conservation concern Identification of initial list of species to consider The initial list included all known or potential rare plants within or near the administrative boundaries of the three Forests, providing a comprehensive list for evaluation of other criteria. The list was based on a compilation of 1) all Montana Natural Heritage Program, (MTNHP 2017) polygons from the March 2017 dataset that intersect the Forest boundaries, 2) Montana state lists of threatened and endangered species that occur in Counties that intersect the Forest boundaries, 3) plant species documented in the US Forest Service Natural Resource Information System (NRIS) for the Forest, 4) species on previous Region 1 Forest Sensitive species lists, Watch lists, or species recommended as SCC on adjacent Forests 5) Consortium of Pacific Northwest Herbaria records (http://www.pnwherbaria.org/) for species which are in or near the Forest administrative boundaries, and 6) local Forest datasets indicating which species occur in or near the Forests. In addition, we considered species listed by federally recognized Tribes, or which have been petitioned for Federal listing and for which a positive “90-day finding” has been made by a regulatory agency, or those for which the best available scientific information indicates there is a local conservation concern about the species’ capability to persist over the long-term in the Plan Area. No species were identified in the latter categories which were not already identified in the lists under items 1-6 above. This initial list consisted of 127 plant species including flowering plants, conifers, ferns, mosses, and lichens. Creation of spreadsheet (XL) template All species identified above were entered into a spreadsheet format to enable the evaluation of the following criteria, according to FS Directives (see DEIS Ch. 3 Introduction for explanation). The original template is available at the Regional SCC webpage. Verification of species occurrence within planning area Some of the species included from the previous step were based upon over-estimated delineations of map areas. Consortium of Pacific Northwest Herbaria records, Montana Natural Heritage database records, and Helena-Lewis and Clark National Forest (HLC NF) rare plant data files were used to identify which 2 species have positive documentation within Forest administrative boundaries. Only species with reliable documentation for presence within the Plan Area, such as specimen vouchers, were carried forward for further consideration. Assignment of Natureserve ranks The November 2017 Natureserve ranks were entered into the spreadsheet, including G and T ranks, and S ranks for Montana. Conservation categories considered during the SCC evaluation were also entered into the table. All species that met the following criteria were carried forward for further evaluation: Federally threatened, endangered, or candidate species; G/T 1 or 2; G3, S1, or S2. Natureserve data and ranks are available at: http://www.natureserve.org/, with global rank definitions in Table 1. Table 1. Natureserve global rank definitions. Presumed Extinct (species)/Eliminated (ecological communities and systems) — Species not located despite intensive searches and virtually no likelihood of GX rediscovery. Ecological community or system eliminated throughout its range, with no restoration potential. Possibly Extinct (species)/ Eliminated (ecological communities and systems) — Known from only historical occurrences but still some hope of rediscovery. There is GH evidence that the species may be extinct or the ecosystem may be eliminated throughout its range, but not enough to state this with certainty. Critically Imperiled—At very high risk of extinction due to extreme rarity (often G1 5 or fewer populations), very steep declines, or other factors. G2 Imperiled—At high risk of extinction or elimination due to very restricted range, very few populations, steep declines, or other factors. Vulnerable—At moderate risk of extinction or elimination due to a restricted G3 range, relatively few populations, recent and widespread declines, or other factors. Apparently Secure—Uncommon but not rare; some cause for long-term concern G4 due to declines or other factors. G5 Secure—Common; widespread and abundant. G? Unknown – some uncertainty regarding rank Table 2. Conservation Categories Conservation Category Definition 3 G1 See above. G2 See above. G3 See above. MNHP state rank 1: At high risk because of extremely limited S1 and/or rapidly declining population numbers, range and/or habitat, making it highly vulnerable to extirpation in the state. MNHP State rank 2: At risk because of very limited and/or S2 potentially declining population numbers, range and/or habitat, making it vulnerable to extirpation in the state. Adjacent SCC species of conservation concern on an adjacent National Forest unit RFSS regional forester sensitive species Montana Species of Concern: All species with MNHP state ranks of SOC 1, 2 and 3 Delisted (removed) from the Endangered Species Act list within the DM last five years, or delisted and still monitored by the regulatory agency TC Tribal concern LC Local concern The Montana Coefficient of Conservatism (C-) value measures a plant species' tolerance
Load more

Recommended publications
  • RI Equisetopsida and Lycopodiopsida.Indd
    IIntroductionntroduction byby FFrancisrancis UnderwoodUnderwood Rhode Island Equisetopsida, Lycopodiopsida and Isoetopsida Special Th anks to the following for giving permission for the use their images. Robbin Moran New York Botanical Garden George Yatskievych and Ann Larson Missouri Botanical Garden Jan De Laet, plantsystematics.org Th is pdf is a companion publication to Rhode Island Equisetopsida, Lycopodiopsida & Isoetopsida at among-ri-wildfl owers.org Th e Elfi n Press 2016 Introduction Formerly known as fern allies, Horsetails, Club-mosses, Fir-mosses, Spike-mosses and Quillworts are plants that have an alternate generation life-cycle similar to ferns, having both sporophyte and gametophyte stages. Equisetopsida Horsetails date from the Devonian period (416 to 359 million years ago) in earth’s history where they were trees up to 110 feet in height and helped to form the coal deposits of the Carboniferous period. Only one genus has survived to modern times (Equisetum). Horsetails Horsetails (Equisetum) have jointed stems with whorls of thin narrow leaves. In the sporophyte stage, they have a sterile and fertile form. Th ey produce only one type of spore. While the gametophytes produced from the spores appear to be plentiful, the successful reproduction of the sporophyte form is low with most Horsetails reproducing vegetatively. Lycopodiopsida Lycopodiopsida includes the clubmosses (Dendrolycopodium, Diphasiastrum, Lycopodiella, Lycopodium , Spinulum) and Fir-mosses (Huperzia) Clubmosses Clubmosses are evergreen plants that produce only microspores that develop into a gametophyte capable of producing both sperm and egg cells. Club-mosses can produce the spores either in leaf axils or at the top of their stems. Th e spore capsules form in a cone-like structures (strobili) at the top of the plants.
    [Show full text]
  • "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]
  • Porphyry and Other Molybdenum Deposits of Idaho and Montana
    Porphyry and Other Molybdenum Deposits of Idaho and Montana Joseph E. Worthington Idaho Geological Survey University of Idaho Technical Report 07-3 Moscow, Idaho ISBN 1-55765-515-4 CONTENTS Introduction ................................................................................................ 1 Molybdenum Vein Deposits ...................................................................... 2 Tertiary Molybdenum Deposits ................................................................. 2 Little Falls—1 ............................................................................. 3 CUMO—2 .................................................................................. 3 Red Mountain Prospect—45 ...................................................... 3 Rocky Bar District—43 .............................................................. 3 West Eight Mile—37 .................................................................. 3 Devil’s Creek Prospect—46 ....................................................... 3 Walton—8 .................................................................................. 4 Ima—3 ........................................................................................ 4 Liver Peak (a.k.a. Goat Creek)—4 ............................................. 4 Bald Butte—5 ............................................................................. 5 Big Ben—6 ................................................................................. 6 Emigrant Gulch—7 ...................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • US Fish and Wildlife Service
    BARNEBY REED-MUSTARD (S. barnebyi ) CLAY REED-MUSTARD SHRUBBY REED-MUSTARD (S,arguillacea) (S. suffrutescens) .-~ U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service UTAH REED—MUSTARDS: CLAY REED-MUSTARD (SCHOENOCRAMBE ARGILLACEA) BARNEBY REED—MUSTARD (SCHOENOCRAMBE BARNEBYI) SI-IRUBBY REED-MUSTARD (SCHOENOCRAMBE SUFFRUTESCENS) RECOVERY PLAN Prepared by Region 6, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Approved: Date: (~19~- Recovery plans delineate reasonable actions which are believed to be required to recover and/or protect the species. Plans are prepared by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, sometimes with the assistance of recovery teams, contractors, State agencies, and others. Objectives will only be attained and funds expended contingent upon appropriations, priorities, and other budgetary constraints. Recovery plans do not necessarily represent the views or the official positions or approvals of any individuals or agencies, other than the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, involved in the plan formulation. They represent the official position of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service only after they have been signed by the Regional Director or Director as an~roved Approved recovery plans are subject to modification as dictated by new findings, changes in species status, and the completion of recovery tasks. Literature Citation should read as follows: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1994. Utah reed—mustards: clay reed—mustard (Schoenocrambe argillacea), Barneby reed-mustard (Schoenocrambe barnebyl), shrubby reed—mustard (Schoenacranibe suffrutescens) recovery plan. Denver, Colorado. 22 pp. Additional copies may be purchased from: Fish and Wildlife Reference Service 5430 Grosvenor Lane, Suite 110 Bethesda, Maryland 20814 Telephone: 301/492—6403 or 1—800—582—3421 The fee for the plan varies depending on the number of pages of the plan.
    [Show full text]
  • Restoration Handbook for Sagebrush Steppe Ecosystems with Emphasis on Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat— Part 3
    Prepared in cooperation with U.S. Joint Fire Science Program and National Interagency Fire Center, Bureau of Land Management, Great Northern Landscape Conservation, and Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies Restoration Handbook for Sagebrush Steppe Ecosystems with Emphasis on Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat— Part 3. Site Level Restoration Decisions Circular 1426 Version 1.1, March 2018 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey Cover: Photograph showing Wyoming big sagebrush community near Winnemucca, Nevada. (Photograph by David Pyke, U.S. Geological Survey, 2005.) Restoration Handbook for Sagebrush Steppe Ecosystems with Emphasis on Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat— Part 3. Site Level Restoration Decisions By David A. Pyke, Jeanne C. Chambers, Mike Pellant, Richard F. Miller, Jeffrey L. Beck, Paul S. Doescher, Bruce A. Roundy, Eugene W. Schupp, Steven T. Knick, Mark Brunson, and James D. McIver Prepared in cooperation with U.S. Joint Fire Science Program and National Interagency Fire Center, Bureau of Land Management, Great Northern Landscape Conservation, and Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies Circular 1426 Version 1.1, March 2018 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey U.S. Department of the Interior SALLY JEWELL, Secretary U.S. Geological Survey Suzette M. Kimball, Director U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia: 2017 First release: 2017 Revised: March 2018 (ver. 1.1) For more information on the USGS—the Federal source for science about the Earth, its natural and living resources, natural hazards, and the environment—visit http://www.usgs.gov or call 1–888–ASK–USGS. For an overview of USGS information products, including maps, imagery, and publications, visit http://www.usgs.gov/pubprod/.
    [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]
  • Lord Ranch on Trout Creek Philipsburg, Montana
    Lord PHILIRanchPSBURG, on MONTANATrout Creek Lord Ranch on Trout Creek PHILIPSBURG, MONTANA Introduction: The Lord Ranch on Trout Creek enjoys exceptional trout fishing and elk, deer and bird hunting with access to national forest and close proximity to recreation. These 2,691.7 acres are an idyllic mix of pivot- NTRODUCTION I irrigated hay fields, brush-lined creek, riparian zone, rolling grass and timbered mountainside. Ranch improvements include five modern center pivot irrigation systems, two basic homes and assorted barns, RINGS RANCH sheds and outbuildings. Nearby recreational opportunities abound P with winter actives at Discovery Ski Area and summer pursuits at Georgetown Lake. ROCKING CHAIR S Craig Janssen, Montana Managing Broker Jack McInerney, Sales Associate Toll Free 866.734.6100 www.LiveWaterProperties.com Lord Ranch on Trout Creek- Excellent Fishing & Hunting Ranch Location: Located on the scenic byway, Skalkaho Highway, 10 minutes south of the charming mountain town of Philipsburg is the Lord Ranch on Trout Creek. The ranch borders the Deerlodge National Forest and is in the foothills of the Anaconda Mountain Range. Georgetown Lake lies less than a mile east. Philipsburg is the county seat of Granite County and is named for mining engineer Philip Deidesheimer, who platted the town site near gold and silver mines in 1867. Dining, shopping and everyday amenities are available in Phillipsburg. Riddick Field, a public airport with a paved 3,600 foot runway, is nearby for convenience. The cultural center of Missoula, home to the University of Montana, is an hour northwest. Butte, Montana, lies approximately 40 minutes to the east. Both of these communities have a rich history and offer shopping, fine dining and commercial air service.
    [Show full text]
  • Alplains 2013 Seed Catalog P.O
    ALPLAINS 2013 SEED CATALOG P.O. BOX 489, KIOWA, CO 80117-0489, U.S.A. Three ways to contact us: FAX: (303) 621-2864 (24 HRS.) email: [email protected] website: www.alplains.com Dear Growing Friends: Welcome to our 23rd annual seed catalog! The summer of 2012 was long, hot and brutal, with drought afflicting most of the U.S. Most of my botanical explorations were restricted to Idaho, Wash- ington, Oregon and northern California but even there moisture was below average. In a year like this, seeps, swales, springs, vestigial snowbanks and localized rainstorms became much more important in my search for seeding plants. On the Snake River Plains of southern Idaho and the scab- lands of eastern Washington, early bloomers such as Viola beckwithii, V. trinervata, Ranunculus glaberrimus, Ranunculus andersonii, Fritillaria pudica and Primula cusickiana put on quite a show in mid-April but many populations could not set seed. In northern Idaho, Erythronium idahoense flowered extensively, whole meadows were covered with thousands of the creamy, pendant blossoms. One of my most satisfying finds in the Hells Canyon area had to be Sedum valens. The tiny glaucous rosettes, surround- ed by a ring of red leaves, are a succulent connoisseur’s dream. Higher up, the brilliant blue spikes of Synthyris missurica punctuated the canyon walls. In southern Oregon, the brilliant red spikes of Pedicularis densiflora lit up the Siskiyou forest floor. Further north in Oregon, large populations of Erythronium elegans, Erythronium oregonum ssp. leucandrum, Erythro- nium revolutum, trilliums and sedums provided wonderful picture-taking opportunities. Eriogonum species did well despite the drought, many of them true xerics.
    [Show full text]
  • Vascular Plants of Kluane
    26 Blueleaved strawberry Fragaria virginiana 63 Greyleaf willow Salix glauca Kluane National Park and Reserve 27 Bog blueberrry Vaccinium uliginosum 64 Ground cedar, Lycopodium complanatum 28 Bog labrador-tea Ledum groenlandica Creeping jenny 65 Hairy rockcress Arabis hirsuta 29 Boreal aster Aster alpinus 30 Boreal wormwood Artemisia arctica 66 Heart-leaf listera Listera borealis Vascular 31 Bristly stickseed Lappula myosotis 67 Heartleaf arnica Arnica cordifolia 32 Broadglumed wheatgrass Agropyron trachycaulum 68 High bush cranbery Viburnum edule Plants List 33 Broadleaf lupine Lupinus arcticus 69 Holboell's rockcress Arabis holboellii 34 Buffaloberry, Soapberry Sheperdia canadensis 70 Horned dandelion Taraxacum lacerum 35 Canada butterweed Senecio pauperculus 71 Kotzebue's grass-of- Parnassia kotzebuei 36 Chestnut rush Juncus castaneus parnassus 1 Alaska moss heath Cassiope stelleriana 37 Cleft-leaf groundsel Senecio streptanthifolius 72 Kuchei's lupine Lupinus kuschei 2 Alaska willow Salix alaxensis 38 Common horsetail Equisetum arvense 73 Labrador lousewort Pedicularis labradorica 3 Alkali bluegrass Poa juncifolia 39 Common mountain Juniperus communis 74 Lance-leaved draba Draba lanceolata 4 Alkali grass Puccinellia interior juniper 75 Lanceleaved stonecrop Sedum lanceolatum 5 Alpine bluegrass Poa alpina 40 Cow parsnip Heracleum lanatum 76 Lapland cassiope Cassiope tetragona 6 Alpine fescue Festuca ovina 41 Creeping juniper Juniperus horizontalis 77 Leafless pyrola Pyrola asarifolia 7 Alpine milk-vetch Astragalus alpinus 42 Creeping
    [Show full text]
  • CDLT Mountain Home & USFS-Boundry Butte Plant List
    CDLT Mountain Home Preserve- Boundary Butte Plant list CDLT Mountain Home & USFS-Boundry Butte Plant list Type Scientific Name Common Name Fern Pteridium aquilinum bracken fern Forb Achillea millefolium common yarrow Forb Agoseris heterophylla annual agoseris Forb Anemone oregana Oregon anemone Forb Antennaria racemosa raceme pussytoes Forb Boechera pauciflorus rockcress (Formerly Arabis) Forb Arnica cordifolia heart-leaf arnica Forb Balsamorhiza sagittata arrowleaf balsamroot Forb Brickellia oblongifolia Mojave brickellbush Forb Cacaliopsis nardosmia silvercrown (Formerly Luina) Forb Calochortus lyallii Lyall's mariposa lily Forb Camassia quamash common camas Forb Castilleja miniata scarlet Indian paintbrush Forb Claytonia lanceolata springbeauty Forb Collinsia parviflora small-flowered blue-eyed mary Forb Commandra umbellata bastard toadflax Forb Delphinium viridescens Wenatchee larkspur Forb Erythronium grandiflorum glacier lily Forb Erysimum species wallflower Forb Fragaria virginiana Virginia strawberry Forb Fritillaria affinis checker lily, chocolate lily Forb Fritillaria pudica yellow bells Forb Galium sp. bedstraw Forb Heuchera cylindrica roundleaf alumroot Forb Hydrophyllum capitatum ballhead waterleaf Forb Lathyrus pauciflorus few-flowered pea Forb Lithophragma parviflorum small-flowered woodland-star Forb Lithophragma glabrum bulbous woodland-star Forb Lithophragma tenellum slender woodland-star Forb Lomatium nudicaule barestem biscuitroot Forb Lomatium triternatum nineleaf biscuitroot Forb Lonicera ciliosa orange honeysuckle
    [Show full text]
  • Draft Plant Propagation Protocol
    Plant Propagation Protocol for Gentiana glauca ESRM 412 – Native Plant Production Protocol URL: https://courses.washington.edu/esrm412/protocols/GEGL.pdf (2) TAXONOMY Plant Family Scientific Gentianaceae (1) Name Common Name Gentian Family (1) Species Scientific Name Scientific Gentiana glauca Pall. Name Varieties No Varieties Recognized Sub-species No Sub-species Recognized Cultivar Not available Common Dasystephana glauca (Pall.) Rydb. Synonym(s) Entianodes glauca (Pall.) Á. Löve & D. Löve (1) Common Pale Gentian, laucus Gentian, Inky Gentian, Smooth Alpine Gentian Name(s) (5) Species Code GEGL (as per USDA Plants database) GENERAL INFORMATION Geographical range (1) (1) Ecological Western mountains, valleys, and coasts (1) distribution Climate and 1890-2350 m (2) Moist environments and seepage areas (2) elevation range Local habitat They are commonly found in meadows and grow next to Engelmann spruce (Picea and engelmannii), lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta), willow (Salix spp.), mountain heather abundance (Phyllodoce spp., Cassiope tetragona), sedges (Carex spp.), dwarf bilberry, mosses , and lichens (2) Plant strategy Forb/herb (1) type / successional stage Plant Perennial herb (8) doesn’t get higher than 6 in tall. (9) characteristic s PROPAGATION DETAILS Some information listed in this section is from a similar plant, marked as follows, *Sourced from Gentiana andrewsii Griseb ** sources from Gentiana L. spp. Gentian Ecotype Not Available Propagation Plants Goal Propagation Seed Method Container Stock Type Time to Grow Not Provided Target Outplant in early to late spring, mature plants can be out planted during a cold frame Specifications (winter) as long as you cover the plant with a material that diffuses light (10)* Propagule Not Provided Collection Instructions Propagule Single chambered capsules, seeds are flat, a palish tan color, and irregularly wrinkled (2) Processing/Pr opagule Pre-Planting In order for faster germination, treat seeds with gibberellic acid.
    [Show full text]
  • FOH Newsletter 2013
    FRIENDS Of The University Of Montana HERBARIUM Spring 2013 Montana’s Special Status Plants: Thirty Years of Tracking Rare and Threatened Plants in the Treasure State By Scott Mincemoyer, Montana Natural Heritage Program 1980, the Montana Rare Plant Project, based at the tana’s plants built upon the previous work and helped to In University of Montana, was formed with the intent clarify the conservation status of many other plants based of developing the first, comprehensive listing of rare and upon additional information accumulated from field sur- threatened plants for the state (Lesica et al. 1984). Previ- veys and herbaria specimens over the previous seven ous efforts, focused on developing a list of rare plants had years. a regional or national scope, including one for the North- As early as 1987, MTNHP applied the term “Species of ern Region of the U.S. Forest Service (Inman, Hendzel, Conservation Concern” to species that previously were and Schmautz 1971) and several iterations of lists of categorized in one of the various status categories (e.g. plants under consideration for listing as threatened or en- threatened, endangered, rare) used in the preceding publi- dangered after passage of the Federal Endangered Species cations. This was later abbreviated to Species of Concern Act (ESA) in 1973. The Montana Rare Plant Project as- (SOC), terminology that is still used today for those spe- sembled information on the state’s plant species from sev- cies that meet specific criteria of rarity and/or threats to eral herbaria, including the University of Montana, Mon- their viability (MTNHP 2013).
    [Show full text]