DOCSLIB.ORG

Botany Monitoring Report - 2010

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Botany Monitoring Report - 2010 Herger-Feinstein Quincy Library Group Botany Monitoring Report - 2010 Colin Dillingham, HFQLG Monitoring Team Leader Jan 28, 2011 Kyle Merriam, Province Ecologist Michelle Coppoletta, Botanist, Mt Hough Ranger District, Plumas National Forest Jim Belsher-Howe, Botanist, Mt Hough Ranger District, Plumas National Forest Lynée Crawford, Botanist, Beckwourth Ranger District, Plumas National Forest Chris Christofferson, Botanist, Feather River Ranger District, Plumas National Forest Jessica Pijoan, Botanist, Lassen National Forest Allison Sanger, Botanist, Lassen National Forest Susan Urie, Botanist, Tahoe National Forest PURPOSE The purpose of this report is to document findings of the cumulative monitoring efforts accomplished from 2002 through 2010 by the Lassen, Plumas and Tahoe National Forest botanists. Monitoring in 2010 included both Implementation and Effectiveness monitoring. Implementation monitoring of units treated in 2009 was conducted to determine if recommended mitigations and treatments were accomplished as planned. Effectiveness monitoring was completed to determine what response Threatened, Endangered or Sensitive (TES) or noxious weed species had to mitigations and treatments or if new occurrences were found in project areas after treatment. The intent of the monitoring was to identify what worked, what needs improvement for future projects, and to provide documentation for internal Forest Service review as well as to the public. This annual monitoring is required under the Herger-Feinstein Quincy Library Group Forest Recovery Act (HFQLG). METHODS The monitoring methodology described in the May 10, 2004 version of the HFQLG Monitoring Plan was used for implementation monitoring. A new comprehensive effectiveness monitoring plan to assess whether HFQLG activities impact TES or special interest plant species was prepared on July 28, 2009. The following questions are addressed. Implementation Monitoring Questions Question 7: Were Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive (TES) plants surveyed and protected? Question 8: Were noxious weed introductions prevented and existing infestations suppressed? Effectiveness Monitoring Questions Question 28: How do TES plant species respond to resource management activities? Did new occurrences of TES plant species occur during or following project implementation? Question 29: Were existing infestations of noxious weeds eliminated or contained? Question 30: Were all new infestations of noxious weeds eliminated or did some become established? Question 31: Did new infestations of noxious weeds occur during or following project implementation? Sample Sizes 1 Page 2 February 4, 2011 Linnea Hanson, Plumas National Forest Botanist, working with PSW Statistician in 1999, came up with a TES Plant Implementation Monitoring scheme to achieve 90% compliance rate and 3.4 % precision level using a sample size of 300 units in pool # 2 (to answer questions 7 and 8). The sampling scheme was amended in 2008 by Jim Baldwin and Colin Dillingham and is filed http://cdb.fs.usda.gov/content/dav/fs/NFS/Plumas/Program/HFQLG/Monitoring/Statistics/Compliance_ precision_20080512.xls. Linnea suggested that the sample size should be small enough so that we can implement the program. An annual sample pool size of 60 units was determined (30 for TES and 30 for weeds, see below for more information). Statistical analyses of the monitoring data have been limited to effectiveness monitoring results. We have evaluated observational data to formulate general assessments of HFQLG Implementation and Effectiveness and to provide feedback to the public and ourselves. Sample Pools The 2010 HFQLG Botany Monitoring program included both implementation and effectiveness monitoring. In 2010, four sample pools were developed to answer both the implementation monitoring questions as well as the effectiveness monitoring questions. Each sample pool had up to 30 project treatment units included. Table 1. Number of HFQLG project sites (i.e. timber sale harvest units) sampled to answer each monitoring question on an annual basis. The total number of units does not count units sampled in separate years to answer the same question. Monitoring Question 7 8 28a* 28b* 29/30* 31* 2002 9 1 - - - - 2003 29 5 - 5 - 5 2004 26 11 - 1 8 1 2005 31 17 31 23 12 23 2006 28 9 7 5 8 5 2007 30 22 12 8 17 8 2008 16 27 6 47 16 47 2009 15 11 6 22 42 22 2010 15 19 7 15 10 15 Total Number Units Sampled 199 122 69 126 113 126 * - Number of units sampled for effectiveness monitoring only includes post-treatment sampling. Additional pre-treatment sampling efforts have been completed and will be included in the sample pool after post-treatment sampling is completed. Questions 28b and 31 utilize Treated Stand Structure Monitoring (TSSM) data. In addition, 19 randomly selected units were monitored in 2005 that were not part of the TSSM data set. Question 7 – Were TES plants surveyed and protected? Our sample pool to answer this question was developed by reviewing the entire list of units treated in 2009 and determining which of these Page 3 February 4, 2011 treated units had mitigations for TES plants. All 15 units available were sampled under the HFQLG monitoring protocol in 2010. Question 8 – Were noxious weed introductions prevented and existing infestations suppressed? The sample pool to answer this question was developed in a similar method to Question 7; by reviewing the entire list of units treated in 2009 and determining which of these treated units had mitigations for noxious weeds. There were 19 units with noxious weed control areas/mitigations; and all 19 units were sampled under the protocol. Question 28a – How do TES plant species respond to resource management activities? Pre- treatment data was collected for 3 species (closed-lip penstemon, Carex petasata, Stenotus lanuginosa) in 2010 in 10 treatment units. Post-treatment effects were evaluated for closed-lip penstemon (10 units), Follett’s wild mint (2), long-stiped campion (2), Layne’s Butterwort (2) and lens-pod milkvetch (4) in 20 HFQLG treatment and control units in 2010. Most of these evaluations remeasured areas previously monitored; however, 7 were new post-treatment measurements and only new unit evaluations are shown in Table 2. In addition, an extensive analysis was completed on historical closed-lip penstemon monitoring data collected from 27 treatment units and two controls. Question 28b - Did new occurrences of TES species become established during or following project implementation? Data from the ongoing Treated Stand Structure Monitoring (TSSM) was used to answer this question. Fifteen additional units (107 total TSSM units) were monitored for post-treatment data in 2010. One hundred and seven randomly selected units that previously didn’t have TES plants occurrences were examined after harvest to determine if any new TES plant occurrences had occurred in response to management activities. Question 29/30 – Were existing infestations of noxious weeds eliminated or contained? Were all new infestations of noxious weeds eliminated or did some become established? Units that had previous noxious weed implementation monitoring and/or units that had treatments to noxious weed species were included in the sample pool to answer questions 29 and 30. Twelve populations were monitored in 2010, ten of these were new in the sample pool and two were remeasured. The two remeasured units are not included in Table 1. Question 31 – Did new infestations of noxious weeds occur during or following project implementation? Data from the ongoing Treated Stand Structure Monitoring (TSSM) was used to answer this question. Sixteen additional units (107 total TSSM units) were monitored for post-treatment data in 2010. Data on shrub, grass and forb cover were recorded at 15 sampling plots per unit during TSSM field monitoring. TSSM field data collection protocols specify that percent cover data for noxious weeds are recorded. Cover values on an individual plot are generally rounded to the nearest 10% cover. Plot-level percent cover data for each species were divided by the total number of plots in a unit to calculate a weighted percent cover. The weighted percent cover data were then totaled for each species at each unit. These calculations gave an average percent cover per species per unit for both the pre- and post- treatment monitoring data. Page 4 February 4, 2011 RESULTS Implementation Monitoring Questions Question 7: Were Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive (TES) plants surveyed and protected? The specific questions that were addressed included the following: 1) Were protection measures adequately documented and flagged on the ground, 2) Were control areas printed on contract maps and 3) Did protection measures get implemented at plant occurrences? Table 2 below presents a summary of the data collected to address question 2) “Were the protection measures implemented at the plant occurrences?” which is considered the most critical element. Summary tables for individual unit monitoring during the 2009 sampling effort are presented in Appendix 1. Table 2. Monitoring results of botany control areas in the HFQLG Pilot Project Number Control Areas Percent of Control Areas Year monitored successfully protected 2002 9 89% 2003 29 59% 2004 26 88% 2005 31 77% 2006 28 100% 2007 30 93% 2008 16 81% 2009 15 93% 2010 15 93% Summary, Question 7 Out of the 15 TES protection/control areas monitored in 2010, 14 (93%) were protected as planned. The minimum level of protection considered successful would be to have
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Draft SPI Botany Program
    Botany Policy A Planning Document for Protecting Sensitive Plant Species on SPI Land By Cajun James Principal Research Scientist Revised January 1, 2003 Botany Research Paper No. 1 Sierra Pacific Industries Post Office Box 496014 Redding, California 96049-6014 a 2003 Sierra Pacific Industries SI ERRA PACI FI C R ESEARCH & MONI T ORI NG SI ERRA PACI FI C I NDU ST RI ES SPI Botany Program Planning Document Contents DOCUMENT SUMMARY .............................................................................................. 1 POLICY OBJECTIVE..................................................................................................... 1 INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................. 3 BACKGROUND ON SPI’S TIMBER HARVEST OPERATIONS ............................ 4 FRESHWATER WETLANDS................................................................................................ 4 ROCK OUTCROPS ............................................................................................................. 5 DESCRIPTION OF BOTANY POLICY........................................................................ 5 BOTANY POLICY PLANT SPECIES AND THE BOTANY POLICY PLANT LIST ................................................................................................................................... 6 GROUPS............................................................................................................................ 6 PLANT PROTECTION MEASURES...........................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Asters of Yesteryear (Updated April 2018)
    Asters of Yesteryear (Updated April 2018) About this Update: The document was originally posted in a shorter version, to accompany the brief article "Where Have all our Asters Gone?" in the Fall 2017 issue of Sego Lily. In that version it consisted simply of photos of a number of plants that had at some time been included in Aster but that no longer are, as per Flora of North America. In this version I have added names to the photos to indicate how they have changed since their original publication: Date and original name as published (Basionym) IF name used in Intermountain Flora (1994) UF name used in A Utah Flora (1983-2016) FNA name used in Flora of North America (2006) I have also added tables to show the renaming of two groups of species in the Astereae tribe as organized in Intermountain Flora. Color coding shows how splitting of the major genera largely follows fault lines already in place No color Renamed Bright Green Conserved Various Natural groupings $ Plant not in Utah It is noteworthy how few species retain the names used in 1994, but also how the renaming often follows patterns already observed. Asters of Yesteryear (Updated April 2018) Here are larger photos (16 inches wide or tall at normal screen resolution of 72 dpi) of the plants shown in Sego Lily of Fall 2017, arranged by date of original publication. None of them (except Aster amellus on this page) are now regarded as true asters – but they all were at one stage in their history. Now all are in different genera, most of them using names that were published over 100 years ago.
    [Show full text]
  • Efficient Vouchering with Identification Through Morphology and DNA Analysis
    Dugan & al. • Vouchering with identification through morphology and DNA TAXON 56 (4) • November 2007: 1238–1244 METHODS AND TECHNIQUES A large scale plant survey: efficient vouchering with identification through morphology and DNA analysis Laura E. Dugan1,3, Martin F. Wojciechowski2 & Leslie R. Landrum2 1 Global Institute of Sustainability, Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona 85287, U.S.A. 2 School of Life Sciences, Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona 85287, U.S.A. [email protected] (author for correspondence) 3 Current address: Integrative Biology, University of Texas at Austin, 1 University Station C0930, Austin, Texas 78712, U.S.A. A large-scale survey of the Central Arizona-Phoenix Long-Term Ecological Research study area was conducted in which many kinds of samples were collected (e.g., plant, insect, soil). The plant samples were of a smaller size than typical herbarium accessions due to limitations in personnel, storage space, available plant materials, and time. The vouchers were identified in the field if possible. The vast majority of the rest were identified in the herbarium morphologically after the survey; less than 5% of the vouchers remained unidentified. Of these, a subset were subjected to molecular analysis using sequences of the nuclear ribosomal ITS region and to a BLAST search of sequences in GenBank to find closely related taxa. The close relatives along with the unknown specimens were subjected to maximum parsimony analysis to identify the potential phylogenetic relationships of the unknown specimens. Through this analysis nine unknown plant accessions were identified to family, tribe, genus, and species. Once this level of identification was established, some specimens were re- examined morphologically and compared with potentially related taxa in the herbarium to confirm or improve identifications.
    [Show full text]
  • Washington Flora Checklist a Checklist of the Vascular Plants of Washington State Hosted by the University of Washington Herbarium
    Washington Flora Checklist A checklist of the Vascular Plants of Washington State Hosted by the University of Washington Herbarium The Washington Flora Checklist aims to be a complete list of the native and naturalized vascular plants of Washington State, with current classifications, nomenclature and synonymy. The checklist currently contains 3,929 terminal taxa (species, subspecies, and varieties). Taxa included in the checklist: * Native taxa whether extant, extirpated, or extinct. * Exotic taxa that are naturalized, escaped from cultivation, or persisting wild. * Waifs (e.g., ballast plants, escaped crop plants) and other scarcely collected exotics. * Interspecific hybrids that are frequent or self-maintaining. * Some unnamed taxa in the process of being described. Family classifications follow APG IV for angiosperms, PPG I (J. Syst. Evol. 54:563?603. 2016.) for pteridophytes, and Christenhusz et al. (Phytotaxa 19:55?70. 2011.) for gymnosperms, with a few exceptions. Nomenclature and synonymy at the rank of genus and below follows the 2nd Edition of the Flora of the Pacific Northwest except where superceded by new information. Accepted names are indicated with blue font; synonyms with black font. Native species and infraspecies are marked with boldface font. Please note: This is a working checklist, continuously updated. Use it at your discretion. Created from the Washington Flora Checklist Database on September 17th, 2018 at 9:47pm PST. Available online at http://biology.burke.washington.edu/waflora/checklist.php Comments and questions should be addressed to the checklist administrators: David Giblin ([email protected]) Peter Zika ([email protected]) Suggested citation: Weinmann, F., P.F. Zika, D.E. Giblin, B.
    [Show full text]
  • Phylogeny of Ericameria, Chrysothamnus and Related Genera (Asteraceae : Astereae) Based on Nuclear Ribosomal DNA Sequence Data Roland P
    Louisiana State University LSU Digital Commons LSU Doctoral Dissertations Graduate School 2002 Phylogeny of Ericameria, Chrysothamnus and related genera (Asteraceae : Astereae) based on nuclear ribosomal DNA sequence data Roland P. Roberts Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.lsu.edu/gradschool_dissertations Recommended Citation Roberts, Roland P., "Phylogeny of Ericameria, Chrysothamnus and related genera (Asteraceae : Astereae) based on nuclear ribosomal DNA sequence data" (2002). LSU Doctoral Dissertations. 3881. https://digitalcommons.lsu.edu/gradschool_dissertations/3881 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at LSU Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in LSU Doctoral Dissertations by an authorized graduate school editor of LSU Digital Commons. For more information, please [email protected]. PHYLOGENY OF ERICAMERIA, CHRYSOTHAMNUS AND RELATED GENERA (ASTERACEAE: ASTEREAE) BASED ON NUCLEAR RIBOSOMAL DNA SEQUENCE DATA A Dissertation Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of the Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy In The Department of Biological Sciences by Roland P. Roberts B.S.Ed., Southwest Texas State University, 1991 M.S., Southwest Texas State University, 1996 December, 2002 DEDICATION I dedicate this dissertation to my son Roland H. Roberts, my mother Rosetta Roberts and my niece Colleen Roberts, for being a continued source of mutual love and respect. ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This dissertation was developed under the direction of my advisor, Dr. Lowell E. Urbatsch, Director of the Louisiana State University Herbarium and Associate Professor in the Department of Biological Sciences.
    [Show full text]
  • Clark County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Amendment Covered Species Analysis Report
    Clark County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Amendment Covered Species Analysis Report Prepared For: Clark County Department of Air Quality Desert Conservation Program 4701 West Russell Blvd., Suite 200 Las Vegas, NV 89118 WRA Contact: Ken Sanchez (415) 578-3184 [email protected] Patricia Valcarcel (415) 524-7542 [email protected] Date: June 11, 2018 WRA Project: 26346 2169-G East Francisco Blvd., San Rafael, CA 94702 (415) 454-8868 tel [email protected] www.wra-ca.com Draft Covered Species Analysis Report – June 2018 This page intentionally left blank. Draft Covered Species Analysis Report – June 2018 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................................. 1 2.0 SPECIES REVISION PROCESS ......................................................................................... 2 2.1 Species Considered for Coverage ............................................................................ 2 2.2 Criteria for Covered Species ..................................................................................... 3 3.0 ANALYSIS ........................................................................................................................... 4 3.1 Species Range ......................................................................................................... 4 3.2 Species Status.......................................................................................................... 4 3.3 Impacts from Covered Activities ..............................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • 2016 Fall Newsletter
    THE PENSTEMANIAC NEWSLETTER OF THE AMERICAN PENSTEMON SOCIETY Volume No. 10, Issue No. 4—http://penstemons.org—Fall 2016 P. grahamii (Mikel Stevens) Penstemon flowersii, goodrichii, Table of Contents and grahamii Penstemon flowersii, goodrichii, and grahamii three Uinta Basin species ........................2 three Uinta Basin species And On the Third Day: Visiting Big Hole Patricia and Noel Holmgren National Battlefield ...................................7 Mt. Haggin Plant List from 2016 APS/MNPS Please join us! We expect to see the fol- Annual Meeting.......................................11 lowing three Penstemon species on the annual International Round Robin Letters...............13 field trips of the American Penstemon Society New Members .............................................22 Jim Swayne’s Germination Database .........23 near Vernal, Utah, 2-5 June 2017. You will Seed Exchange Deadline: November 30! ...23 learn about conservation of these three spe- American Penstemon Society cies. Membership Form ..................................24 APS Officers................................................25 Penstemon flowersii Neese & S. L. Welsh Penstemon flowersii was named in honor of Seville Flowers by Elizabeth Neese and Stanley Welsh (Neese & Welsh 1983). The type specimen (filed in the Brigham Young Uni- versity Herbarium) was collected by Neese and S. White (8609), 3.5 miles west of Randlett, 5010 feet, Uintah County, Utah, 12 May 1980. The Flowers penstemon grows in clay soils, often mixed with river-rounded gravel and rocks, in shadscale, horsebrush, and rabbitbrush communities, and is endemic to the central Uinta Basin south of Roosevelt between Lake Boreham and Seville Flowers (left) and Walter Pace Cottam (right); courtesy of the Garrett Herbarium, University of Utah, Salt Lake City Randlett on both sides of the Duchesne and Uintah Coun- ty line, Utah, from 4900 to 5250 feet elevation.
    [Show full text]
  • Glide Wildflower Show Locates the Flowers Recent Generic Changes in the Asteraceae: What's in Store for the Oregon Flora Proje
    VOLUME 15 NUMBER 1 OREGON STATE UNIVERSITY FEBRUARY 2009 Glide Wildflower Show Locates the Flowers Recent generic changes in the Asteraceae: by Nacy Tague and Dianne Muscarello what’s in store for the Oregon Flora Project? by Kenton L. Chambers "Where does this flower grow?" The botanists at the annual Glide Wildflower Show hear this question many Part I: Tribes Astereae, Cichorieae, Heliantheae, times every year. Visitors fall in love with the striking Senecioneae beauty of the region's abundant wildflowers and dream Editor’s Note: In the large sunflower family, Asteraceae, of finding them on a local hike or in their own backyard. the strongest evidence supporting the new taxonomy is often The Glide Wildflower Show has found a graphic way of derived from cladistic analysis of data from DNA-based answering this question, thanks to the Oregon Flora Project. molecular research. We thank Dr. Chambers for synthesizing The seed for the idea was planted in 2006. That year a this latest information here for our Newsletter readers. local presenter used Oregon Flora Project Plant Atlas maps The role of the Oregon Flora Project Checklist is to to indicate wildflower locations. A couple of Glide Show present an accepted name and synonyms for each plant volunteers attending the talk observed, "Wouldn't it be cool in the state, based on our current understanding of the if maps like these could be displayed with the plants in our relationships among taxa. This knowledge is derived from show?" experimental science, as well as from the traditional use of The show's Council liked the idea, and the two volunteers field studies and herbarium collections.
    [Show full text]
  • All BLM CALIFORNIA SPECIAL STATUS PLANTS
    All BLM CALIFORNIA SPECIAL STATUS PLANTS Thursday, May 28, 2015 11:00:38 AM CA RARE PLANT RANK RECOVERY PLAN? PALM SPRINGS MOTHER LODE GLOBAL RANK NNPS STATUSNNPS BAKERSFIELD BLM STATUS RIDGECREST STATE RANK FED STATUS EAGLE LAKE NV STATUS EL CENTRO CA STATUS HOLLISTER TYPE BARSTOW SURPRISE REDDING ALTURAS NEEDLES ARCATA OF DATE BISHOP SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME PLANT FAMILY UPDATED COMMENTS UKIAH Abronia umbellata var. pink sand-verbena VASC Nyctaginaceae BLMS 1B.1 G4G5T2 S1 No 29-Apr-13 Formerly subsp. breviflora (Standl.) K breviflora Munz. Abronia villosa var. aurita chaparral sand-verbena VASC Nyctaginaceae BLMS 1B.1 G5T3T4 S2 No 06-Aug-13 CNDDB occurrences 2 and 91 are on S K BLM lands in the Palm Springs Field Office. Acanthomintha ilicifolia San Diego thornmint VASC Lamiaceae FT SE 1B.1 G1 S2 No 12-Mar-15 Status changed from "K" to "S" on S 8/6/2013. Naomi Fraga was unable to find the species on BLM lands when trying to collect seeds in 2012. Although there are several CNDDB occurences close to BLM lands, none of these actually intersect with BLM lands. Acanthoscyphus parishii Cushenberry oxytheca VASC Polygonaceae FE 1B.1 G4?T1 S1 No 06-Aug-13 Formerly Oxytheca parishii var. K var. goodmaniana goodmaniana. Name change based on Reveal, J.L. 2004. Nomenclatural summary of Polygonaceae subfamily Eriogonoideae. Harvard Papers in Botany 9(1):144. A draft Recovery Plan was issued in 1997 but as of 8/6/2013 was not final. Some of the recovery actions in the draft plan have been started and partially implemented.
    [Show full text]
  • Evaluation of Zumwalt Prairie, Wallowa County, Oregon
    Evaluation of Zumwalt Prairie, Wallowa County, Oregon For its Merit in Meeting National Significance Criteria as a National Natural Landmark Representing Plateau Grasslands in the Columbia Plateau Biophysiographic Province Zumwalt Prairie photo © Rick McEwan, courtesy of The Nature Conservancy (TNC). by James S. Kagan June 2012 Institute for Natural Resources, Portland State University PO Box 751, Mailstop: INR Portland, OR 97215 Contact Information: James S. Kagan, Oregon Biodiversity Information Center. Institute for Natural Resources – Portland, Portland State University. Mailstop: INR. P.O. Box 751, Portland, Oregon 97207. Citation: Kagan, J.S. 2012. Evaluation of Zumwalt Prairie, Wallowa County, Oregon for Merit in Meeting National Significance Criteria as a National Natural Landmark to Represent Plateau Grasslands in the Columbia Plateau Biophysiographic Province. National Park Service Technical Report, National Natural Landmarks Program, Fort Collins, CO. Table of Contents Table of Figures ....................................................................................................................................... iv Table of Tables ........................................................................................................................................ iv Executive Summary .................................................................................................................................. 1 Introduction ..............................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • KALMIOPSIS Journal of the Native Plant Society of Oregon
    KALMIOPSIS Journal of the Native Plant Society of Oregon Morton E. Peck, 1871-1959 ISSN 1055-419X Volume 7, 2001 EDITORIAL KALMIOPSIS At long last your journal Kalmiopsis appears. This issue Journal of the Native Plant Society of Oregon, ©2001 celebrates four major projects in Oregon of great interest to NPSO membership. First, a selection by EDITOR Susan Kephart from the upcoming biographical Linda Ann Vorobik, PhD compendium, Plant Hunters of the Pacific Northwest, edited by Art Kruckeberg and Rhoda Love. Second, a ASSISTANT EDITOR summary of the Oregon Flora Project by Ken Cham- bers and Scott Sundberg, with a complete list of name Cindy Roché, PhD changes for Asteraceae. Third, an overview of the Siskiyou Field Project, by Jen Marsden and Eric Jules, EDITORIAL BOARD including a listing of classes for 2001, and finally, a Stuart Garrett, MD sampling of the Carex Working Group’s tome on Susan Kephart, PhD Oregon sedges. Many thanks to the authors for their Rhoda M. Love, PhD contributions, to readers for their patience, and especially to the invaluable help of new assistant editor Cindy Roché. We have implemented many changes NPSO WEB PAGE within Kalmiopsis, and look forward to receiving your http://www.NPSOregon.org comments. MEMBERSHIP Membership in the Native Plant Society of Oregon is open to all. Membership applications, renewals and changes of address (include old address and zip code) should be sent to the NPSO Membership Chair, Jan Dobak, 2584 NW Savier St., Portland, OR 97210-2412 Student $12; Regular $18; Family $24; Sustaining $50; Patron $100; Life Member $500 Subscription Only (Bulletin and Kalmiopsis) $18 CONTACT INFORMATION KALMIOPSIS EDITOR: Linda Ann Vorobik, P.O.
    [Show full text]
  • Zumwalt Prairie Wallowa County, OR
    Zumwalt Prairie Wallowa County, OR Compiled by Paul Slichter from personal records and from the Oregon Plant Atlas. Updated February 6, 2011 Flora Northwest: http://science.halleyhosting.com From observations along public right of way along the Zumwalt-Buckhorn Road between Joseph, OR and Thomason Meadows as well as along the old Imnaha Road and several lesser public road crossing the prairie. Common Name Scientific Name Family Swale Desert Parsley Lomatium ambiguum Apiaceae Cous Lomatium cous Apiaceae Slender-fruit Desert Parsley Lomatium leptocarpum Apiaceae Nineleaf Desert Parsley Lomatium triternatum (v. triternatum ?) Apiaceae Yampah Perideridia sp. Apiaceae Yarrow Achillea millefolium Asteraceae Orange Agoseris Agoseris aurantiaca Asteraceae Large-flowered Agoseris Agoseris grandiflora Asteraceae Flat-top Pussytoes Antennaria corymbosa Asteraceae Woodrush Pussytoes Antennaria luzuloides ssp. luzuloides Asteraceae Rosy Pussytoes Antennaria rosea Asteraceae Twin Arnica Arnica sororia Asteraceae Low Sagebrush Artemisia arbuscula ssp. Asteraceae Gray Sagewort Artemisia ludoviciana ssp. candicans Asteraceae Stiff Sagebrush Artemisia rigida Asteraceae Threetip Sagebrush Artemisia tripartita Asteraceae Hoary Balsamroot Balsamorhiza incana ? Asteraceae Arrowleaf Balsamroot Balsamorhiza sagittata Asteraceae Blepharipappus Blepharipappus scaber Asteraceae Elk Thistle ? Cirsium scariosum v. scariosum ? Asteraceae Wavy-leaf Thistle Cirsium undulatum Asteraceae Bull Thistle Cirsium vulgare Asteraceae Hawksbeard Crepis sp. Asteraceae Long-leaved
    [Show full text]