MONTANA
STATE

This <H:oveff" pag« added by th« Intarnat Archive for formatting purposes

S83.81
■ llpUfa
1993

DEMOGRAPHIC MONITORING OF PENSTEMON LEMHIENSIS

BEAVERHEAD NATIONAL FOREST

1992 PROGRESS REPORT

by

J. Slepben Shelly

USD A Forest Service. Region 1 , and

MooUna Natunl Heritage Program

P.O. Box 7669

Missoula. Montana S9807

and

Bonnie L. Heidel

Montana Natural Heritage Program

1515 E. Suth Avenue

Helena. Montana S9620

for

Beaverfaead National Forest
420 Barrett Street
DiUon. MT 59725

August 1993

i\Li

CT-.-'Tf-

EHL^^uimi

■" ■* a. . ».

MONTANA STATE LIRRapv

1615 East Gti.Atenue MAY i 6 1994

Cad No 5ni onn

Cap No. 201800
H*l«n*, MT 59520-1800

* 1993 Mootana Natunl Hehtage Program

This document should be cited as follows: Shelly. J. S. and B. L. Heidel. 1993. Demographic
monitoring of Penstcmon lemhiensis in the Beaverhead Natiooal Forest., 1992 Progress Report.
Montana Natural Heritage Program, Helena. IS pp.

»

I. INTRODUCTION

This report summarizes the results from four yean of demographic mooitoring studies in populations of
Penstemon lemhiensis. a sensitive plant species that occurs on the Beaverhead and Bitterroot National
Forests in Montana. Three permanent transects were established in 1989 on the Beaverhead National
Forest. The monitoring results from 1989 through 1991 are disaissed in earlier reports (Shelly 1990,
Achuff and Shelly 1991, SheUy and Achuff 1992).

n. SPECIES INFORMATION

A. REVIEW OF PRESENT STATUS

1. FEDERAL STATUS: Penstemon lemhjgysj^ is currently designated as a
Category 2 candidate for federal listing by the U.S. Fish and Wildhfe Service (U.S.
Department of Interior 1993). Category 2 taxa are those 'for which there is some
evidence of vulnerability, but for which there are not enough data to support listing
proposals at this time. * .

Penstemon iftnhiflffi} is also currently oo the U.S. Forest Service Region 1 sensitive
species list (U.S. Department of Agriculture 1991). Sensitive species are 'plant and
animal species identified by the Regional Forester for which population viability is a
concern, as evidenced by: a.) significant current or predicted downward trends m
population numbers or density, aod/or b.) significant current or predicted downward
trends in habiut capability that would reduce a species' existing distribution' (U.S.
Forest Service Manual. Ch. 2670).

2. STATE STATUS: In Montana, Pwwlwnina IfwAignK^y is currently ranked as
S2 ('very rare and local throughout iu range*) by the Montana Nattiral HehUge
Program (Heidel and Poole 1993). It is also currently categorized as 'threatened' in
a recent evaluation of rare plants in Montana (Lesica and Shelly 1991). A
'threatened* species is one which is 'likely to become endangered throughout all or a
significant part of its range in Montana in the foreseeable future. Specific threats to
known populations of th«e plants have been identified (Lesica and SheUy 1991).
These state rankings do not currently provide any legal protection for £. lemhiensis.

B. UPDATE OF GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION (MONTANA)

Four additional populations of Penstemon lemhiensis were newly discovered in
Montana in 1992. Thus, the total number of known element occurrences in the state
is now 48. Most represent recently discovered or relocated (1983-1992). One recent
report (1987, Medicine Lodge Creek) has not been relocated, and one is an unverified
historical record (1947) (Montana Natural HeriUge Program database, Helena).

C. POPULATION DEMOGRAPHY

The three permanent monitoring transects established in 1989 were re-read on 3-4
August 1992, using the methods described in a previous report (Shelly 1990). The
population and fecundity data are summarized in Table 1. The number of plants and
the number of fruiting individuals for each transect over the four-year study period are
displayed in Figures 1-3, pp. 4-6.

Decrease* in the number of plants from the previous year occurred in two of the three
study tnnsecu ui 1992; the total number of plants in all three transects was 78. This
total reflects a continuing aevere decline, from 240 total planu in 1989. 215 in 1990,
and 1 IS in 1991. The total decrease in the number of planu censused over the four-
year study period has been -67.5%.

The total number of plant* in (be Freoch Craek - Pailc Mine transect decreased by 12
from the 1991 total, nmltinf ia a dadine of 40%. Sixty-nine of the 84 *-*«"-'h^
plaala that were preeeot wbea the moMct was first read have died. The fecoodity
and vigor of the IS eatablisfaed plants that have survived cootimied to be extremely
low in 1992; moe of them flowered or fruited.

The French Creek - Discovery Mine tranaect was the only one in which an increase in
the number of plaaU ocairred in 1992. The total nuoiber of ptanu increased by six
from 1991. reprBeeotiag a gain of 17.1%. Tweoty-etgbt of the 3S established planu
(hat were preaeat wfaee the tranaect was first read have died. There were, however.
21 new planu preaent in (he tranaect in 1992. Additionally, in contrast to (he other
two tiaaaecu, there were three pianU that flowered and fruited in this tnmaect in 1992
(do phms flowered or fruited at Iba other two sitae). The fecundity of theee fruiting
planu was very low, (hough; only 3.3 fraits per iailoreaccoce were produced, and
69.7% of the total nowers produced did DOt yield ftuits. laiereatingly, all four
seedlings that were found in this tranaect ia 1991 aurvived to 1992. One possible
reason fw (he survival of (heee seedlings, and (he appearance of the 21 new planu.
may be that the tmnct lies along a samll dnw. whicfa probably provides for
increased aoistura aad protection from drier waMaac conditions. This may also
partially explain why (he numbers of planu sampled in (his (isaaect have remained
oath won stable over the lad four years than ia etifaer of (be other (ranaecu.
Raprodoctive output has druticaily declined at (his site, howawer, as in the other two
transects.

The total number of plants aaopled in 1992 in the Badger Paaa North transect showed
by far the greatest decliaa coiiparBd (o 1991 levels. This decrease also repre8ea(ed
(he largest one-year decline ia aay transect siiKe the study was begim. The total
number of planu in (his transect decreaaed by 31 from the 1991 total, resulting in a
decline of 62%. One hundred-two of the 104 eetaNishort planu that were present
when the (laasect was first read have died, rtprtaenting a near (oul loss of (he
original population sampled; 17 of (he 19 planU now preaent have been newly
established since 1989. As in the French Creek - Park Mine transect, none of the
planU in (he Badger Pass North (ransect flowered or fruited in 1992. compared to
nine planu that flowered in the latter tranaect in 1991. No fruiting planU were found
in the vicinity of (his transect either, so no daU on seed production are available for
1992.

In all three transecU. the rosettes of the surviving planu were again much reduced in
vigor in 1992. Unlesa conditions quickly and dramatically improve in future yean, it
is likely that continued loss of these individuals will continue.

A5 in the past, no evidence of severe surf^e or vegetation disturbance was noted at
any study site in 1992, once again suggesting that the severe declines are due to
climatic and/or other unknown environmental conditions. Although precipiution
occurred in the spring and early summer over much of western Montana, the latter
part of the summer was once again hot and dry.

n

E
U
4)
■P
I

D»
C
0

(0

•H

(A

C
0)

E
0)

c
o
e
o
•jj
tf)
c

a

CM

o\

H
I

o\

CO

0\

4J

0)

u o

O Cb
It-I

«5 C

T3 4J

3 -'^

•I: >

n
<o

c

(0 >
Ul

*J

0
0)
U)

>1

4J
•H
(0

c

T3

c
n
u

C D>
O C

•H -H
10 O

rH V

3 -H

a c

0 0

CU E

H

1

o

o

o

o

:

:

CO

o

o

1

o
in

o

»

<0

a

M

o.

o

CO

o

o

in

,r S

1A
O

•- • K( .» o

o

I O I

^.-fV) >#»-«^»

« ^ CO « « •-

^. • . Ki • • . .

<« <#

o m (M •

O W CO •-.
r\t s rvj *l

r<j lO (^ «| <o »-

>r o •

o • ra

K> m 1^ ♦! »-

* g . ^

•- Kl ^ o o o

"5 ic 1^ *■

„•-•« — rM

O

X w

« o

K» (M r« ^ rn

4 . J* ^

lA in o o

•- <0 M

«» O •- -O • * »

'■ Ki in •- ©• •- S»

lu m B >r

M rg 9 in r« IM nj

lfcw»- »o ^ « » IM »-

N.
«0

•- o

<M K O K

•# > A •!

IM

— O

M
Ui
UJ

U w
O

UJ in
at CM

I

<M «- •-

O <M

S m >»

S :S o

CM

<0 m

V 3

at CM c^ eg

b %^ ^ 2

CM

RCO CM <0 '-
>r Ki »- ^

r^ CO

S :8

in

Kl ♦! Kl K(

CM ^
Kl *l

^

«

a

I

•1

•^

2

u

V

*•«

£

I

<«

w

w

w

»

«

o

W

CI

w

u

t.

V

M

3

c

*■*

w

M

o

ID

O

a

c«_

■^

0

L.

M

o

E

?

u

I

3

c

h.

c

a

o

lA

V

A

a

CI ^

<9

w

^

M

^

^

^

w —

i

g

"5

i

*5

«

£

*«

£
**

Q.

« 3
CI 1-

C

^

u

c

u

.^

•■>

«

« H-

*rf

a.

"^

•»•

3

3

3

X

*«

0

•^

N^

^

1.

k

w

(.£

M

*JI

tf)

•A

<^

10

«l

«

» *rf

^

>■

^

*^

w

«^

0)

S

I

"3

1

»

«

§

c
a

o

w*5

Q.

<A

Q.

Q.

%

g

a.

a

i

«

«

«

«

X

l

1

it

»«

K

X

2

r I "

Arf U «

: i

a

M

8

M

CI
Vt

S5L

g»

I!

M >
«l I.

3

O Kl

in

CM •

*4

lA

>r M

i

■1

y

m

O

f>

o

a

CM

-»

♦

o

M

•

*^

,

,

•t

^.

o

«

m

•»

■*

«

K»

o

»»

<»

n

s

Kl

?.

O

CM

;

*

CM

•*
•-

O

K>

8

-

»

O

in

«

o

o

«l

? s

>

> £

«

Ol

o
u
«i

ONIiindd SlNVId # 1ViOi

CO

^?

-1- jc

LU Q.
_J ■

2|
OS?

^^
UJ^

I— c

C/) 2

LU
Q.

c

I

(0

,5

I

SlNVId dO # 1VlOi

m

(f)

Q)

0)

c

z

2

LU

^

X

Q)
>

O

LU

o

(0

_J

Q

z

1

o

0)

^

LUO

1-

r

C/)

o

z

c

LU

ONiiiriHd siNvnd # 1V101

oir^oinoinoino
Ln^^cococjc\ji-T-ir)o

c

I

03

o

o in o
in -"t -^

LO O LD O ID o
CO CO C\J C\J -.- T-

SlNNHcJ dO # nvioi

vA

ONiiindd siNVHd # nviOi

CO
CO

z

ZQ-
O 5)
2 <="

LU 0}
h-CQ
CO

z

UJ

O)

c

S

I

(0

I

siNvnd do # nvioi

ra. ASSESSMENT AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The continuing declines in population numbers ind/or fecundity, including the nearly complete loss of
established plants in the Badger Pass North transect, indicate an ongoing demographic 'bottleneck' in
these, and probably many other, £. lemhiawis populations in southwestern Montana. As the declines
have continued, the viability of these reduced populations, and that of the species' meUpopulation as a
whole, has undoubtedly been compromised. As noted earlier (Shelly and Achuff 1992), this raises the
importance of conserving all populatioos that occui in native habitats, and especially the larger ones;
the latter, 'core' populatiooa will be those that provide seed sources for establishment or
reestablishment of populations in the future (<■ the 'rescue effect* of the metapopulation as a whole).
Similar nranitohng studies simultaneously being conducted on BLM lands in southwestern Montana
have shown much more stable population numben at the two study sites involved (Heidel and Shelly
1993). This suggests that in other parts of the species' range populations will persist and hopefully
provide such seed sotirces in the future.

The ongoing declines in the Forest Service transects indicate that Peostemon Ifntfli'^^Fit should remain
on the sensitive species list for Region 1 of the U.S. Forest Service.

Preparation of a rangewide conservation strategy for this species is planned for federal fiscal year
1994. This strategy will include management and cooservatioo guidelines for all extant populations of
£. lemhiensis.

The three Forest Service transects should be read for at least one more year (1993). If population
recovery begins, future readings at intervals to be determined should take place. If little or no recovery
is noted in 1993, the transects could be read at longer intervals in the future (i.e.. every 3-5 years), in
order to periodically assess whether recovery ever begins. It would be appropriate to analyze dau
from the Forest Service transects and the Bureau of Land Management transects in a single document
in the upcoming report to syntbestxe all Montana monitoring results for the £. Ismhifilfiil-

IV. LITERATURE CITED

AcbufT, P. L. lod J. S. Shelly. 1991. Demographic moaitohng of Pemtemon Imrtlifllfif Beaverhead
Natioaal Foreit, 1990 progrcM report. MooUni Natunl HenUge Prognm, Helena. 34 [^.

Heidet. B. L. and J. M. Poole. 1993. Plaat ^wdea of specul oaoceni. Moetana Natural Heriuge
Program. Helcaa (mimeo).

Heidel. B. L. and J. S. Shelly. 1993. Demographic moailoriDg of issuSaSBBn kobiSBBf. Dilloa
Resource Area, Bureau of Land Managemeot, 1992 pro^ni report Mootaaa Naomi
Heritage Program. Hekoa. 18 pp.

Lesica. P. and J. S. Shelly. 1991. Seuitive, Threateoed and Eadangerad Vaacular Plants of Montana.
Montana Natural Heritage Program. Orwional Pubbcation No. 1. Hdeoa, Montana. 88 pp.

Shelly. J. S. 1990. Statm review updala and wublirtmnnt of demographic monitoring itodier

Pemtemon In^hifr^ Report to U.S. Foiwl Scrvioa - Region 1. Deaverbead and Bitterroot
National Foreeta. Montana. Montana Natural Heritage Program, Helena. 61 pp.

Shelly. J. S. and P. L. Achuff. 1992. Demographic monitoring of PfmHtmnn ]gBhaBBf< Beaverhead
National Foreat, 1991 progreaa report. Montana NaoinJ Heritage Program. Helena. 19 pp.

U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1991. U.S. For«at Serviee. Region 1 aanaitive tpeam liat.
Miiaoula. Montana.

U.S. Department of Interior. 1993. Endangered and threateoed vnldlife and planu; review of plant
taxa for listing as endangered or threatened qiecier. notice of review. Federal Register 58
(188).

V. APPENDIX - DEMOGSAPHIC MONITORING TRANSECT DATA

The performance of individual Pen5te«non leirhiensis plants in the permanent monitoring transects, from 1989 to
1991, is detailed beloy. The following codes are used:

A - aborted flowers (no fruit development apparent)

B - browsed flowering stem

C - established immature plants (rosette with <A leaves)

D - dead

f • fruit

I - inflorescence (flowering stem)

P - predated fruit

R - rosette (basal tuft of leaves on mature plant)

S • seedlings (cotyledons evident or rosette <15 ni in dia«eter).

The codes form a fornuls describing the state of each plant. For example, R5-I2-F17-A25 is a plant with S basal
rosettes. 2 inflorescences. 17 fruits, and 2S aborted flotiers.

FRENCH CREEK - PARK NINE

PLANT

1969

1990

1991

1992

1 a

R2

R1

R1

R3-n-f7

2

no plants

3 a

R1

b

R1

S

R1

R1

R1-M-F2

R1

i> a

S

R1

R3

R1

R2

5 a

R2

R1

6 a

R6

R1

S

R1-I1-F2

--

7 a

R1

R1

R1

R1

8 a

S

R2

R1

9 a

R3-12-F5

R6

R10-M-F11

10 a

R10-H-F35-B1

C2
C2

RA-B1

Rt

0

no plants

R2
R2

D

R1

0

0

R2

0
R3

0
D
R1

D
0

R1

0

0

0

S

D
0
0
R2

C
D
R1

0
R3

0

D
0
0
0

no plants

D
0

0
D
R2

CI

R3

D

D

no plants

R1 (new)

R1

R1-C2

R3-I1-F11
«3-I3-f13
*3
FtEHCH CtEEK - PMK NIHC (cant.)

t2

R1

•5-I1-F6

t1

11

R6-I2-FS1

11

12

IS
U

15

16
17

18

19

20
21
22

23

R6-l1-r5
R2
t6
RS

R8-t1-F20-i1
R1

R12-l1-n8
R«-l2-n9

R2-I2-F3$
R4

Rtl2r39
R5-I1-M3
R3-M-r7

R7-l2-n7

R2

t5-M-F12

RS

R7-l2-f22

R1 «^<ng)
R3

R2-Mf7
RS

R5-n-M6
R7-l3-f29
R3

R7
RS

R4-I1-F21
R4

R10-11-F13-B5
R8-U-F61

R4-B1

R2

R1

R6-B1-F1

R1-M-F3

R1
R1
D
R3

0
R1

D
R2

0

0

0

R1

R«-IS-F8-M-A8

D

RS-l2F4ri-A2«

R1

R3

0 (burtfld)

0

0

R4-l2-ni-A28
t

R3-I2-F5-A11

R3

D
0
R2-I1-F2AA

R3
R3
R3

SI •«

RSI1F1SA12

RS-I2F16-A16

R1-M-F1-A8

R4-I1-F7-A12

R13-I4-F60-A108

R6-l2F4eA29

*1

R6

R2

R1
R3
R2

0
RS

C2

0
t1

u

0
12

II
IS

0

CI

M

0
D
CI

C2
t1

0

IS

IS

CI

II

u

0

12

IS

0
0

R1-C3
R3

»

1 (ntw)

1-C2

0
R4

R1
R1

R1-C1
0

0
0

11

d

R1

e

R3

f

R4-B1

9

83

h

--

i

--

R2 CI D

R1 0

R4-n-F3-P1-Al2 R2 R1

R1 D

C2 0

R2 0

FRENCH CREEK - PARK MINE (cent.)

24 no plants no plants no plants no plants

25 a R1 R1

R7-I2-M3-A20 R6 R4

R1

R11

R7-B1

R9-B2

R3

--

FRENCH CREEK - DISCOVERT MIME

PLAMT

1989

1 a

R4-B3

R3-B2

R4-B1

R8-B2

R4B2F2

R4-B1

2 a

R6-B4

R6-n-F1

3-«

no plants

5

no plants

6 a

R4-B1

R4-I1-F6

--

-•

-•

--

7 a

R1

R2-I1-F20

R1

R5-B1-F1

no

plants

•C2

•CI

R4-I1-F6-A6 R4 R3

R7 R4-C2 CI

R1 R1 0

R3 R1-C1 0

1990 1991 1992

RSI2-F24-A40 CI 0

R1-M-F7-A24 0

R3I1-F3-A19 R3-C2 0

R411-F9-A37 R4 0

R3-B1-A3 CI R1-C1

R4-i1-F9-A28 0

R2-I2-F13-A41 0

R2 C3 0

R4-I1-F6-A9-B1-F3-A11 R6-C1 R2

R2F2A7-B1 R3 0

R3I1-F5-A21 0

R1-I1-F10-A21 0

R612-F21-A55-B3 0

R3-I2-F29-AS4 R2 0

0 -- -

R5-I3F32A72 RS R5

SI CI 0

R1 CI CI

$1 D

SI SI

R3 R3 0

RS-n-F4-AU R8 R4-C2-I1-F4-A10

R4-I3-F23-A51-B1 R2 0

C1 R1 R1

CI CI R1

SI 0 R1

SI (new)

no plants no plants no plants

no plants no plants C1 (new)

R1M1-f5-A37 R8 R2-I1-F1-A7

R6 R1 0

51 CI D
S3 C2 C2

52 0

S1 SI

RS R5 R1

R1 R2 R2-C1

R1 R2 R1-I1-F5-A6

R4-I1-F5-A12 R4 0

12

* •

• •

11

SI
SI

SI

11

0
CI
0
SI

t1

FREMCN

CtEEK - OlSaMEIT MIK

(cent.)

8

no ptantt

no plant!

no plantt

9 ■

b

«6-I4-r7-»2

l1-l6-r75-*215-|1-M-A16

9

10 ■
b

11-15

no plants

no plant*

no plant*

16 a
b

R8-U-F29

«2-n-r5-*12
0

11

17-22

no plant!

no plant*

no plant*

23 •

«3-l1-r31

I2-I3-M8-A26I1

0

2« •

M

M-l2-r24-A11

0

2S •

b

c
d
t
f

R2
U
KS

t1
«5-«1

■2 (lOM vigor)

*s-ii-no-«u

t5-lS-r29-A51
12

a6-iS-f21-A28-l1-A11

s

0
17

0

R2

IS

CI

II

SI

SI

SI (nm)

SI (now)

no plant*

SI (naw)

SI (ntw)
SI (neM)

no plant*

0

no plants

ti-a

C3

0

■1

13

BADGER PASS NORTH

PLANT

1989

1 a

R3

b

R6-I2-f17-A64

(unknown if

the 64 fruits

developed)

R1

S9

R3-I1-f11-A11

R3

R3

S

R5

R6

2 a

S

S

S

R2

R5

R2

R2

R2

R1

R2

C

R2

C

R8

3 a

R2

R7

R1

R5-l1-f8-A19

R5-I2-F17-A25

4-27

no plants

28 a

R7-I3-F27-A15

R3

29 a

R2

30 a

R4-n-F3-A23

R2

31 a

R3-11-F8-A16

R7-I1-F23-A11

C

R5-I1-F27-A10

32 a

no plants

33 a

R3-n-F9-A6-B1

V,

no plants

35 a

R1

b

RS

c

--

1990

R4-I1-F15-A9
R1

C4.

S5(0)

D

R1-

11-

F1-A15

R3-

11-

F11-A25

D

R1-

11-

F16-A20

R8

S

c

SCO)

S(0)

R1

t1

0

R1-

11

■FO-AU

D

R3-

11

■F4-A20

0

R1

R«

R3

R4-

13

•F0-A78

S

R3-

11

•F4-A19

R5

R1

RS

R7-

K

•F17-A36

S

no

pt

mts

R6-

12

•F29-A29

R4

R2-

M

•FU-A20

R«

R2

R3

R11

•I3-F45-A46

R1

0

no

plants

R8-

11

-F27-A10

no

plants

R2

R1M2-F46-A13-B1

1991

D
0

CI

0
0

R7-I1-P1-A17
R1

R1
0

0

R1

CI
R«
R2

R1
S

CI

R1
0
D
RS

R2

0

no plants

RIO

0

. R2

R2
R4

R6-11-A2

RK

R1

no plants

R2-I1-F1-P4-A9

no plants

R4

R8-I1-F2-A5-B1

R1

1992

1-C1

0
0

R1-C2
0
0
0

R2

D

no plants
CI

R2
R4

0
R8

R1

R2-C1 (new)
D

no plants

R2

D

CI

36 a

R8

R14-n-F11-A8

R12-I1-P5-A8

14

b >2

R2

c C

R2

d R7

RIO

MMZI PASS HORTM (cant.)

37* U

R2

b RS

R4-l2-f15-A25

e t6

R5-lir32An

d 13

R7-I2-»25-Al6

t R7

R7

f R3

RS

• M

RS

h

S

38 a R1

R1

b t9

R5l2-nA90

C R1

R1

d R6

R5l2r9A5»

• R4

t2

f R4

R4I4f59-A35

a Rii

R7

h R9-l1-n2-Al2

R«-l4f21Aa8

1

R2l2-rO-Ml

39* R«

RS

b R2

0

e R1

R2

d R2

R4I1

• R3

R3Iir2A$

f R3

R5-13-r20-A115

9 RM1-rU-A22

RS

h RS*

R3I1

i R2

R(-isr8-uo

j RS-t2-n6-*M

0

k Ri-n-nj-*i7

R4M-n6-A22

I R7-n-f2«A12

R7

■ R6

R7-Mr33-A23

n U

R2t2-F20-A31

0

R2Mf9A14

40 • R1

R8-I1-F7-A3S

b R2-n-F0A34

RS

e RS-ii-n8Ais

R1

d R4

RS-IS-FSAW

t RS

0

f «3

RI-tlFOASS

• ■ B1

0

h R4-l2-f11A15

0

i R6I2-F31-A16

0

i RS

R1I1f7-A22

k R13

R13-I4-f16-A70

I R6

R9-l4-f19-A127

■ R2

R1

11 RS

R7I3-FU-A72

0 RS

R3-I2-F5-A29-R1

P R3

R1-n-F0-A18

q R2

R2-nF4-A15

r

R2-M-F1-A40

\

R1

41 a R3

«6-n-F25-A8

b R4-n-f25-A27

R12-12F89-A22

C R4

R6

d R15*

R10-I5-F11-A129

t R16~

R23IJ-F62-A33

f (part of d)

R5n-F5-A34

9

SI

R2-I1-n-P11-A18

R2

0

RS

D

R4-|1*r9-Al0

R9

R1

R2-n-n-P6-At6

R2

0

D
0

0

»

0

0

R1-C5

D

0

0

D

0

0

II

0

0

0

12

M

0

R2

0

CI

0

0

0

R1
0

0
0

0

0
0
D
D
0
0
0
0
0
0

R2-I1-A8-I1

R12-I2-F1A8-82

R12

D

R12-I2-F8-P5-A13

CI

0

SI (naw)
SI (naw)

0

R1

0

D

0

15

h
i

a •

SI

1.2 •
b

R4
R5-I2-F41-A20

R4-I2-F37-A49
aiM1-F23-A7

BADGER

PASS MORTH (cent.)

i.Z a
b

c
d

t
f

R8

R1

R6-I1-F29-A3

R9-I2-F30-A18

R4

(part of a)

R5-I2-F9-A55
R3-I3-F47-A43
R5-n-F15-A10
R4-I1-F13-A33

44 a
b

RIO
R8

R11-I2-F19-A15
K3

c

-•

•-

4S a

--

■1

46-47

no plants

no plants

48 a

b

c

R1
R2
R8-n-F22-A10

R3
R3

R8t3-F48-AVV

49

no plants

no plants

50 a

R4

U

CI (new)

R5-n-F1-P4-A7

to F

D

0

D

R3

R6

R4

R3-I1-F4-An

s

no plants

0
R3

0

no plants
0

no plants

D

no plants