DOCSLIB.ORG

Willapa NWR Phase II Ecological Integrity Assessment Pilot Project

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Willapa NWR Phase II Ecological Integrity Assessment Pilot Project PROGRAM HERITAGE NATURAL Willapa NWR Phase II Ecological Integrity Assessment Pilot Project Prepared for U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service WASHINGTON Pacific Region, Portland, OR Prepared by Rex C. Crawford and F. Joseph Rocchio October 31, 2013 Natural Heritage Report 2013-10 Willapa NWR Phase II Ecological Integrity Assessment Pilot Project October 31, 2013 Prepared for: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Pacific Region, Portland Office. Agreement F12AC00449 Prepared by: Rex C. Crawford and F. Joseph Rocchio Natural Heritage Program Washington Department of Natural Rescources Olympia, Washington 98503-1749 ii Table of Contents Table of Tables and Figures........................................................................................................................... v 1. Introduction .............................................................................................................................................. 1 2. Ecological Integrity Assessment ................................................................................................................ 3 2.1 Purpose of the Ecological Integrity Assessment ................................................................................. 3 2.2 Definition of Ecological Integrity ......................................................................................................... 3 2.3 The Ecological Integrity Assessment Approach .................................................................................. 4 3. Vegetation Classification ........................................................................................................................... 6 3.1 Purpose of Vegetation Classification .................................................................................................. 6 3.2 Utility of Vegetation Classification for Assessing Ecological Condition .............................................. 6 3.2.1 Ecological Systems ....................................................................................................................... 6 3.2.2 U.S. National Vegetation Classification ........................................................................................ 6 4. Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) ................................................................................................. 7 5. Methods .................................................................................................................................................... 8 5.1 Sample Selection ................................................................................................................................. 8 5.2 Field Protocol .................................................................................................................................... 10 5.2.1 Sample Location ......................................................................................................................... 10 5.2.2 Classification .............................................................................................................................. 10 5.2.3 Ecological Integrity Assessment ................................................................................................. 11 5.2.4 Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) .................................................................................. 11 5.3 Office Procedures .............................................................................................................................. 11 5.3.1 Classification .............................................................................................................................. 11 5.3.2 Individual Site EIA Condition Scores .......................................................................................... 11 5.3.3. Comprehensive Conservation Plan ........................................................................................... 12 6. Results and Discussion ............................................................................................................................ 13 6.1 Distribution of Sample Points in the NVC Classification ................................................................... 13 6.2 Ecological Integrity Assessment and NVC Groups ............................................................................ 17 6.3 Comprehensive Conservation Plan Objectives (CCP)........................................................................ 32 6. Conclusions ............................................................................................................................................. 36 iii 6.1 Classification ..................................................................................................................................... 36 6.2 Ecological Integrity Assessment ........................................................................................................ 37 7. Lessons Learned for Future Work ........................................................................................................... 37 7. Literature Cited ....................................................................................................................................... 39 8. Appendices .............................................................................................................................................. 41 Appendix A. Ecological Systems and Metric used in Ecological Integrity Assessments ......................... 41 Appendix B. Key to Vegetation at Willapa NWR, Leadbetter Point and South Bay Units. ..................... 43 Appendix C. Group and Alliance Descriptions ........................................................................................ 49 iv Table of Tables and Figures Table 1.Basic Ecological Integrity Ranks ..................................................................................................... 5 Table 2. Ecological Integrity Rank Descriptions .......................................................................................... 5 Table 3. Attributes of Comprehensive Conservation Plan Goal Objectives selected for sampling. ............. 7 Table 4. NVC Classification and number of sites with EIA scores. ........................................................... 13 Table 5. Summary of Overall Ecological Integrity Assessment Rank and Rank Factors for Groups. ....... 25 Table 6. Summary of Overall Ecological Integrity Assessment Rank for Alliances. ................................. 26 Table 7. Summary of Overall Vegetation Condition Rank for Alliances. .................................................. 27 Table 8. Summary of Overall Physiochemical Condition Rank for Alliances. .......................................... 28 Table 9. Summary of Overall Hydrological Condition Rank for Alliances (wetland types only) .............. 30 Table 10. Number of Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) Attribute Assessments per NVC Group. .................................................................................................................................................................... 32 Table 11 . Results of Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) Attribute Assessments.. ......................... 34 Figure 1. Location of Willapa National Wildlife Refuge and Management Units, ...................................... 2 Figure 2. General conceptual model for Ecological Integrity Assessments (EIA). ...................................... 3 Figure 3. Location of EIA Points Sampled at Leadbetter Point. ................................................................... 9 Figure 4. Location of EIA Points Sampled at South Bay ........................................................................... 10 Figure 5. Overall EIA Rank of All Groups. (n= 94) ................................................................................... 17 Figure 6. Overall EIA Rank of G205-Vancouverian Dry Coastal & Lowland (Douglas-Fir, Shore Pine, Madrone) Forest & Woodland Group. (n= 15) ........................................................................................... 18 Figure 7. Overall EIA Rank of G238-North Pacific Maritime Western Redcedar-Western Hemlock Forest Group. (n=4) ............................................................................................................................................... 19 Figure 8. Overall EIA Rank of G239-North Pacific Maritime Sitka Spruce Forest Group. (n=5) ............. 19 Figure 9. Overall EIA Rank of G256-North Pacific Lowland Hardwood-Conifer Swamp Group. (n=8) .. 20 Figure 10. Overall EIA Rank of G322-Vancouverian Lowland Riparian & Wet Slope Shrubland Group. (n=9)) .......................................................................................................................................................... 21 Figure 11. Overall EIA Rank of G498-North Pacific Maritime Coastal Sand Dune Scrub & Herbaceous Vegetation Group (n=7) .............................................................................................................................. 21 Figure 12. Overall EIA Rank of G499-Temperate Pacific Tidal Salt & Brackish Marsh Group. (n=28) .. 22 Figure 13. Overall EIA Rank of G517-Vancouverian Freshwater Coastal Marsh & Meadow Group (n=7) .................................................................................................................................................................... 23 Figure 14. Overall EIA Rank of GNEW-North Pacific Maritime Coastal Sand Dune RUDERAL
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Willows of Interior Alaska
    1 Willows of Interior Alaska Dominique M. Collet US Fish and Wildlife Service 2004 2 Willows of Interior Alaska Acknowledgements The development of this willow guide has been made possible thanks to funding from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service- Yukon Flats National Wildlife Refuge - order 70181-12-M692. Funding for printing was made available through a collaborative partnership of Natural Resources, U.S. Army Alaska, Department of Defense; Pacific North- west Research Station, U.S. Forest Service, Department of Agriculture; National Park Service, and Fairbanks Fish and Wildlife Field Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of the Interior; and Bonanza Creek Long Term Ecological Research Program, University of Alaska Fairbanks. The data for the distribution maps were provided by George Argus, Al Batten, Garry Davies, Rob deVelice, and Carolyn Parker. Carol Griswold, George Argus, Les Viereck and Delia Person provided much improvement to the manuscript by their careful editing and suggestions. I want to thank Delia Person, of the Yukon Flats National Wildlife Refuge, for initiating and following through with the development and printing of this guide. Most of all, I am especially grateful to Pamela Houston whose support made the writing of this guide possible. Any errors or omissions are solely the responsibility of the author. Disclaimer This publication is designed to provide accurate information on willows from interior Alaska. If expert knowledge is required, services of an experienced botanist should be sought. Contents
    [Show full text]
  • Final Report
    Final Report Final pre-release investigations of the gorse thrips (Sericothrips staphylinus) as a biocontrol agent for gorse (Ulex europaeus) in North America Date: August 31, 2012 Award Number: 10-CA-11420004-184 Report Period: June 1, 2010– May 31, 2012 Project Period: June 1, 2010– May 31, 2012 Recipient: Oregon State University Recipient Contact Person: Fritzi Grevstad Principal Investigator/ Project Director: Fritzi Grevstad Introduction Gorse (Ulex europaeus) is an environmental weed classified as noxious in the states of Washington, Oregon, California, and Hawaii. A classical biological control program has been applied in Hawaii with the introduction of 4 gorse-feeding arthropods, but only two of these (a mite and a seed weevil) have been introduced to the mainland U.S. The two insects that have not yet been introduced include the gorse thrips, Sericothips staphylinus (Thysanoptera: Thripidae), and the moth Agonopterix umbellana (Lepidoptera: Oecophoridae). With prior support from the U.S. Forest Service (joint venture agreement # 07-JV-281), we were able to complete host specificity testing of S. staphylinus on 44 North American plant species that were on the original test plant list. However, following review of the proposed Test Plant List, the Technical Advisory Group on Biocontrol of Weeds (TAG) recommended that we include an additional 18 plant species for testing. In this report, we present host specificity testing and related objectives necessary to bring the program to the implementation stage. Objectives (1) Acquire and grow the additional 18 species of plants recommended by the TAG. (2) Complete host specificity trials for the gorse thrips on the 18 plant species.
    [Show full text]
  • APPENDIX a FRPA Regulation Species Recommended for FSP
    APPENDIX A FRPA Regulation Species Recommended for FSP Inclusion by Former Coastal Forest District & BEC Zone FRPA Species of Concern / Applicable BEC Zone Former Forest District (and specific areas of concern within BEC zone) B Campbell River 1. Dalmatian toadflax Linaria dalmatica / CDF B 2. Diffuse knapweed Centaurea diffusa / CDF 3. Giant knotweed Polygonum sachalinense / CDF, CWH, MH 4. Gorse Ulex europaeus / CDF 5. Hoary alyssum Berteroa incana / CDF 6. Japanese knotweed Polygonum cuspidatum / CDF, CWH, MH 7. Leafy spurgeB Euphorbia esula / CDF 8. Meadow hawkweed Hieracium pilosella / CDF 9. Meadow knapweedB Centaurea pratensis / CDF & CWH (near Comox) 10. Orange hawkweed Hieracium aurantiacum / CWH 11. Purple loosestrifeB Lythrum salicaria / CDF & CWH (near Comox & Campbell River) 12. Scotch broom Cytisus scoparius / CDF, CWH & MH 13. Spotted knapweedB Centaurea maculosa / CDF 14. Sulphur cinquefoil Potentilla recta / CDF 15. Tansy ragwortBSenecio jacobaea / CDF & CWH (near Sayward) 16.Yellow Iris Iris pseudacorus / CDF & CWH (near Comox and Campbell River) Chilliwack 1. Baby's breath Gypsophila paniculata / IDF (between Lillooet & Boston Bar) 2. Blueweed Echium vulgare / IDF & CWH 3. Dalmatian toadflaxBLinaria dalmatica / IDF 4. Diffuse knapweedB Centaurea diffusa / IDF 5. Giant knotweed Polygonum sachalinense / CWH, MH 6. Hoary alyssum Berteroa incana / IDF 7. Hound's-tongueB Cynoglossum officinale / IDF (between Lytton & Boston Bar) 8. Japanese knotweed Polygonum cuspidatum / CWH, MH 9. Leafy spurgeB Euphorbia esula / IDF 10. Meadow hawkweed Hieracium pilosella / IDF & CWH 11. Orange hawkweed Hieracium aurantiacum / IDF & CWH 12. Purple loosestrifeB Lythrum salicaria / CDF & CWH (near Fraser Valley) 13. Scotch broom Cytisus scoparius / CWH & MH 14. Spotted knapweedB Centaurea maculosa / IDF 15. Sulphur cinquefoil Potentilla recta / IDF 16.
    [Show full text]
  • The Vascular Plants of Massachusetts
    The Vascular Plants of Massachusetts: The Vascular Plants of Massachusetts: A County Checklist • First Revision Melissa Dow Cullina, Bryan Connolly, Bruce Sorrie and Paul Somers Somers Bruce Sorrie and Paul Connolly, Bryan Cullina, Melissa Dow Revision • First A County Checklist Plants of Massachusetts: Vascular The A County Checklist First Revision Melissa Dow Cullina, Bryan Connolly, Bruce Sorrie and Paul Somers Massachusetts Natural Heritage & Endangered Species Program Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Wildlife Natural Heritage & Endangered Species Program The Natural Heritage & Endangered Species Program (NHESP), part of the Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Wildlife, is one of the programs forming the Natural Heritage network. NHESP is responsible for the conservation and protection of hundreds of species that are not hunted, fished, trapped, or commercially harvested in the state. The Program's highest priority is protecting the 176 species of vertebrate and invertebrate animals and 259 species of native plants that are officially listed as Endangered, Threatened or of Special Concern in Massachusetts. Endangered species conservation in Massachusetts depends on you! A major source of funding for the protection of rare and endangered species comes from voluntary donations on state income tax forms. Contributions go to the Natural Heritage & Endangered Species Fund, which provides a portion of the operating budget for the Natural Heritage & Endangered Species Program. NHESP protects rare species through biological inventory,
    [Show full text]
  • Bulletin / New York State Museum
    Juncaceae (Rush Family) of New York State Steven E. Clemants New York Natural Heritage Program LIBRARY JUL 2 3 1990 NEW YORK BOTANICAL GARDEN Contributions to a Flora of New York State VII Richard S. Mitchell, Editor Bulletin No. 475 New York State Museum The University of the State of New York THE STATE EDUCATION DEPARTMENT Albany, New York 12230 NEW YORK THE STATE OF LEARNING Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2017 with funding from IMLS LG-70-15-0138-15 https://archive.org/details/bulletinnewyorks4751 newy Juncaceae (Rush Family) of New York State Steven E. Clemants New York Natural Heritage Program Contributions to a Flora of New York State VII Richard S. Mitchell, Editor 1990 Bulletin No. 475 New York State Museum The University of the State of New York THE STATE EDUCATION DEPARTMENT Albany, New York 12230 THE UNIVERSITY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Regents of The University Martin C. Barell, Chancellor, B.A., I. A., LL.B Muttontown R. Carlos Carballada, Vice Chancellor , B.S Rochester Willard A. Genrich, LL.B Buffalo Emlyn 1. Griffith, A. B., J.D Rome Jorge L. Batista, B. A., J.D Bronx Laura Bradley Chodos, B.A., M.A Vischer Ferry Louise P. Matteoni, B.A., M.A., Ph.D Bayside J. Edward Meyer, B.A., LL.B Chappaqua Floyd S. Linton, A.B., M.A., M.P.A Miller Place Mimi Levin Lieber, B.A., M.A Manhattan Shirley C. Brown, B.A., M.A., Ph.D Albany Norma Gluck, B.A., M.S.W Manhattan James W.
    [Show full text]
  • Heathland 700 the Park & Poor's Allotment Species List
    The Park & Poor's Allotment Bioblitz 25th - 26th July 2015 Common Name Scientific Name [if known] Site recorded Fungus Xylaria polymorpha Dead Man's Fingers Both Amanita excelsa var. excelsa Grey Spotted Amanita Poor's Allotment Panaeolus sp. Poor's Allotment Phallus impudicus var. impudicus Stinkhorn The Park Mosses Sphagnum denticulatum Cow-horn Bog-moss Both Sphagnum fimbriatum Fringed Bog-moss The Park Sphagnum papillosum Papillose Bog-moss The Park Sphagnum squarrosum Spiky Bog-moss The Park Sphagnum palustre Blunt-leaved Bog-moss Poor's Allotment Atrichum undulatum Common Smoothcap Both Polytrichum commune Common Haircap The Park Polytrichum formosum Bank Haircap Both Polytrichum juniperinum Juniper Haircap The Park Tetraphis pellucida Pellucid Four-tooth Moss The Park Schistidium crassipilum Thickpoint Grimmia Poor's Allotment Fissidens taxifolius Common Pocket-moss The Park Ceratodon purpureus Redshank The Park Dicranoweisia cirrata Common Pincushion Both Dicranella heteromalla Silky Forklet-moss Both Dicranella varia Variable Forklet-moss The Park Dicranum scoparium Broom Fork-moss Both Campylopus flexuosus Rusty Swan-neck Moss Poor's Allotment Campylopus introflexus Heath Star Moss Both Campylopus pyriformis Dwarf Swan-neck Moss The Park Bryoerythrophyllum Red Beard-moss Poor's Allotment Barbula convoluta Lesser Bird's-claw Beard-moss The Park Didymodon fallax Fallacious Beard-moss The Park Didymodon insulanus Cylindric Beard-moss Poor's Allotment Zygodon conoideus Lesser Yoke-moss The Park Zygodon viridissimus Green Yoke-moss
    [Show full text]
  • Ornithocoprophilous Plants of Mount Desert Rock, a Remote Bird-Nesting Island in the Gulf of Maine, U.S.A
    RHODORA, Vol. 111, No. 948, pp. 417–447, 2009 E Copyright 2009 by the New England Botanical Club ORNITHOCOPROPHILOUS PLANTS OF MOUNT DESERT ROCK, A REMOTE BIRD-NESTING ISLAND IN THE GULF OF MAINE, U.S.A. NISHANTA RAJAKARUNA Department of Biological Sciences, San Jose´ State University, One Washington Square, San Jose´, CA 95192-0100 e-mail: [email protected] NATHANIEL POPE AND JOSE PEREZ-OROZCO College of the Atlantic, 105 Eden Street, Bar Harbor, ME 04609 TANNER B. HARRIS University of Massachusetts, Fernald Hall, 270 Stockbridge Road, Amherst, MA 01003 ABSTRACT. Plants growing on seabird-nesting islands are uniquely adapted to deal with guano-derived soils high in N and P. Such ornithocoprophilous plants found in isolated, oceanic settings provide useful models for ecological and evolutionary investigations. The current study explored the plants foundon Mount Desert Rock (MDR), a small seabird-nesting, oceanic island 44 km south of Mount Desert Island (MDI), Hancock County, Maine, U.S.A. Twenty-seven species of vascular plants from ten families were recorded. Analyses of guano- derived soils from the rhizosphere of the three most abundant species from bird- 2 nesting sites of MDR showed significantly higher (P , 0.05) NO3 , available P, extractable Cd, Cu, Pb, and Zn, and significantly lower Mn compared to soils from the rhizosphere of conspecifics on non-bird nesting coastal bluffs from nearby MDI. Bio-available Pb was several-fold higher in guano soils than for background levels for Maine. Leaf tissue elemental analyses from conspecifics on and off guano soils showed significant differences with respect to N, Ca, K, Mg, Fe, Mn, Zn, and Pb, although trends were not always consistent.
    [Show full text]
  • Coastal Landscaping in Massachusetts Plant List
    Coastal Landscaping in Massachusetts Plant List This PDF document provides additional information to supplement the Massachusetts Office of Coastal Zone Management (CZM) Coastal Landscaping website. The plants listed below are good choices for the rugged coastal conditions of Massachusetts. The Coastal Beach Plant List, Coastal Dune Plant List, and Coastal Bank Plant List give recommended species for each specified location (some species overlap because they thrive in various conditions). Photos and descriptions of selected species can be found on the following pages: • Grasses and Perennials • Shrubs and Groundcovers • Trees CZM recommends using native plants wherever possible. The vast majority of the plants listed below are native (which, for purposes of this fact sheet, means they occur naturally in eastern Massachusetts). Certain non-native species with specific coastal landscaping advantages that are not known to be invasive have also been listed. These plants are labeled “not native,” and their state or country of origin is provided. (See definitions for native plant species and non-native plant species at the end of this fact sheet.) Coastal Beach Plant List Plant List for Sheltered Intertidal Areas Sheltered intertidal areas (between the low-tide and high-tide line) of beach, marsh, and even rocky environments are home to particular plant species that can tolerate extreme fluctuations in water, salinity, and temperature. The following plants are appropriate for these conditions along the Massachusetts coast. Black Grass (Juncus gerardii) native Marsh Elder (Iva frutescens) native Saltmarsh Cordgrass (Spartina alterniflora) native Saltmeadow Cordgrass (Spartina patens) native Sea Lavender (Limonium carolinianum or nashii) native Spike Grass (Distichlis spicata) native Switchgrass (Panicum virgatum) native Plant List for a Dry Beach Dry beach areas are home to plants that can tolerate wind, wind-blown sand, salt spray, and regular interaction with waves and flood waters.
    [Show full text]
  • Guide Alaska Trees
    x5 Aá24ftL GUIDE TO ALASKA TREES %r\ UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE FOREST SERVICE Agriculture Handbook No. 472 GUIDE TO ALASKA TREES by Leslie A. Viereck, Principal Plant Ecologist Institute of Northern Forestry Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station ÜSDA Forest Service, Fairbanks, Alaska and Elbert L. Little, Jr., Chief Dendrologist Timber Management Research USD A Forest Service, Washington, D.C. Agriculture Handbook No. 472 Supersedes Agriculture Handbook No. 5 Pocket Guide to Alaska Trees United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service Washington, D.C. December 1974 VIERECK, LESLIE A., and LITTLE, ELBERT L., JR. 1974. Guide to Alaska trees. U.S. Dep. Agrie., Agrie. Handb. 472, 98 p. Alaska's native trees, 32 species, are described in nontechnical terms and illustrated by drawings for identification. Six species of shrubs rarely reaching tree size are mentioned briefly. There are notes on occurrence and uses, also small maps showing distribution within the State. Keys are provided for both summer and winter, and the sum- mary of the vegetation has a map. This new Guide supersedes *Tocket Guide to Alaska Trees'' (1950) and is condensed and slightly revised from ''Alaska Trees and Shrubs" (1972) by the same authors. OXFORD: 174 (798). KEY WORDS: trees (Alaska) ; Alaska (trees). Library of Congress Catalog Card Number î 74—600104 Cover: Sitka Spruce (Picea sitchensis)., the State tree and largest in Alaska, also one of the most valuable. For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Washington, D.C. 20402—Price $1.35 Stock Number 0100-03308 11 CONTENTS Page List of species iii Introduction 1 Studies of Alaska trees 2 Plan 2 Acknowledgments [ 3 Statistical summary .
    [Show full text]
  • Introduction to Common Native & Invasive Freshwater Plants in Alaska
    Introduction to Common Native & Potential Invasive Freshwater Plants in Alaska Cover photographs by (top to bottom, left to right): Tara Chestnut/Hannah E. Anderson, Jamie Fenneman, Vanessa Morgan, Dana Visalli, Jamie Fenneman, Lynda K. Moore and Denny Lassuy. Introduction to Common Native & Potential Invasive Freshwater Plants in Alaska This document is based on An Aquatic Plant Identification Manual for Washington’s Freshwater Plants, which was modified with permission from the Washington State Department of Ecology, by the Center for Lakes and Reservoirs at Portland State University for Alaska Department of Fish and Game US Fish & Wildlife Service - Coastal Program US Fish & Wildlife Service - Aquatic Invasive Species Program December 2009 TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS Acknowledgments ............................................................................ x Introduction Overview ............................................................................. xvi How to Use This Manual .................................................... xvi Categories of Special Interest Imperiled, Rare and Uncommon Aquatic Species ..................... xx Indigenous Peoples Use of Aquatic Plants .............................. xxi Invasive Aquatic Plants Impacts ................................................................................. xxi Vectors ................................................................................. xxii Prevention Tips .................................................... xxii Early Detection and Reporting
    [Show full text]
  • Jason Giessow Testimony
    Raszka Shelley From: Gallagher Chuck Sent: Friday, March 27, 2015 9:50 AM To: Raszka Shelley Subject: FW: testimony on HB 2183 Attachments: Cal-IPCNews_Winter2015.pdf From: Jason Giessow [ mailto:[email protected] ] Sent: Friday, March 27, 2015 9:49 AM To: Gallagher Chuck Subject: testimony on HB 2183 Hi Chuck- I was the primary author on this Impact Assessment for CA. It is posted at this web site: http://www.cal-ipc.org/ip/research/arundo/index.php Basically- no one should be growing Arundo, it is destroying riverine systems in CA and Texas. There are entire conferences about how to control Arundo and tamarisk (the Deadly Duo). In the report is a CBA for coastal watersheds in CA and estimates $380 million dollars in damage . It destroys habitat- but also severely impacts flooding, fire, and water (the impact report has a chapter on each). That is why folks from both sides of the isle work on eradicating this plant. Planting it for commercial use is exceedingly dangerous, should be banned, or bonded at very high levels. CA has spent about $100 million dollars dealing with Arundo and its impacts (mostly state bond funds dealing with water: conservation, conveyance, and improvement). New state funding (Proposition 1) for water conservation and river conveyance will likely increase state funding for Arundo control to over $200 million dollars. Don’t let Oregon follow this trajectory. This recent article (attached- page 10) on the Salinas River Arundo program is one example of the impacts caused by Arundo, the complicated regulatory approval required to work on the issue, the high cost of the program, and most important- the farmers and landowners who pay the price for the impacts caused by Arundo (flooding, less water, fire, etc….).
    [Show full text]
  • Aquatic Vascular Plant Species Distribution Maps
    Appendix 11.5.1: Aquatic Vascular Plant Species Distribution Maps These distribution maps are for 116 aquatic vascular macrophyte species (Table 1). Aquatic designation follows habitat descriptions in Haines and Vining (1998), and includes submergent, floating and some emergent species. See Appendix 11.4 for list of species. Also included in Appendix 11.4 is the number of HUC-10 watersheds from which each taxon has been recorded, and the county-level distributions. Data are from nine sources, as compiled in the MABP database (plus a few additional records derived from ancilliary information contained in reports from two fisheries surveys in the Upper St. John basin organized by The Nature Conservancy). With the exception of the University of Maine herbarium records, most locations represent point samples (coordinates were provided in data sources or derived by MABP from site descriptions in data sources). The herbarium data are identified only to township. In the species distribution maps, town-level records are indicated by center-points (centroids). Figure 1 on this page shows as polygons the towns where taxon records are identified only at the town level. Data Sources: MABP ID MABP DataSet Name Provider 7 Rare taxa from MNAP lake plant surveys D. Cameron, MNAP 8 Lake plant surveys D. Cameron, MNAP 35 Acadia National Park plant survey C. Greene et al. 63 Lake plant surveys A. Dieffenbacher-Krall 71 Natural Heritage Database (rare plants) MNAP 91 University of Maine herbarium database C. Campbell 183 Natural Heritage Database (delisted species) MNAP 194 Rapid bioassessment surveys D. Cameron, MNAP 207 Invasive aquatic plant records MDEP Maps are in alphabetical order by species name.
    [Show full text]