DOCSLIB.ORG

Seven Plants in Southern U.S. Proposed for Listing

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Seven Plants in Southern U.S. Proposed for Listing December 1984 Vol. IX No. 12 Department of interior. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Technical Bulletin Endangered Species Program, Washington, D.C. 20240 Seven Plants in Southern U.S. Proposed for Listing Seven plants occurring in the south- ern United States were proposed by the Service during Novennber for listing as Endangered and Threatened species. These plants all face the possibility of extinction, but may benefit from protec- tion authorized by the Endangered Spe- cies Act. Pityopsis ruthii Pityopsis ruthii, a plant endemic to Polk County, Tennessee, was first col- lected In the late 1800s by Albert Ruth, a Knoxville botanist, near the Hlwassee River. Commonly referred to as Ruth's golden aster, this plant is a fibrous- rooted perennial that grows only in the soil-filled cracks of phyllite boulders in and adjacent to the Ocoee and Hlwas- see Rivers. Its stems range from one to three decimeters tall and bear long nar- row leaves covered with silvery hairs. Yellow flowers appear in a paniculate Inflorescence in late August and Sep- tember, and fruits develop a few weeks after the flowers fade. Pityopsis ruthii is being threatened by water quality degradation, toxic chemi- cal spills, and water flow regime manip- ulations. The two known populations of this species occur on short reaches of Pityopsis ruthii (Ruth's golden aster) rivers In which water regimes are con- trolled by upstream dams operated by river result in frequent high flow condi- the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA). tions that naturally would occur only a Natural water flows in the Hlwassee few times per year. Although periodic River, through the area where the high flows appear to be essential for golden aster occurs, have been practi- maintaining suitable habitat, regular cally eliminated since construction of high flows may be exceeding the spe- Pityopsis ruthii is being threatened by the Appalachia Dam In 1943. With the cies' capability to withstand this nor- water quality degradation and water elimination of natural flow cycles, an- mally beneficial action. Better water flow manipulations. nual scouring of the boulders on which management techniques that fall more Pityopsis ruthii grows cannot occur. In line with the needs of Pityopsis ruthii ment of Conservation. This recognition, The result is that more competitive spe- are needed If the species Is to survive in however. Is only a first step toward cies now are able to Invade the boul- this location. The U.S. Forest Service ensuring the survival of this species. ders, and encroach and overshadow the and the TVA have jurisdiction over this With only two populations known to ex- riverbanks. Pityopsis ruthii has little plant's habitat or essential habitat com- ist, Ruth's golden aster would definitely shade tolerance, and Is replaced by ponents. Federal activities that could benefit from the protection of the En- other species when sunlight Is reduced have an impact on the species include dangered Species Act If the proposal to by 50 percent. If current trends con- certain water flow management prac- list it as Endangered (F.R. 11/20/84) Is tinue, it would appear that this species tices, timber harvesting, and recrea- made final. will eventually be displaced from the tional development. Comments on this proposal are in- Hlwassee River. Although'there Is no legislation In the vited and should be sent by January 22, The Ocoee River population of fewer State of Tennessee that provides pro- 1985, to Mr. Warren T. Parker, Field Su- than 500 plants appears to be subject to tection for Pityopsis ruthii, the Commit- pervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, detrimental impacts of artificially high tee for Tennessee Rare Plants recog- 100 Otis Street, Room 224, Ashevllle, flows during the growing season. Pres- nizes the species as an endangered North Carolina 28801. ent water management practices on the plant, as does the Tennessee Depart- continued on page 6 1 ENDANGERED SPECIES TECHNICAL BULLETIN Vol. IX No. 12 (1984) able for public distribution from the Regional (Vlanager, Region 4, California Department of Fish and Game, 1234 E. Shaw Avenue, Fresno, California 93710. * * * Peregrine falcons {Faico peregrinus) have been released in Idaho for the third consecutive year. Of the 13 re- leased at 3 hack sites, 12 fledged suc- cessfully and were still at their respec- tive sites after one month. An experiment was conducted re- cently to see if a one year-old peregrine would adopt a hack site where other fal- cons of the year had been released. The Peregrine Fund of Ft. Collins, Colo- rado, provided a male peregrine to Rich Howard, an FWS biologist. This bird ini- tially had been released in 1983 at an Endangered Species Program re- aguabonita whitei) was recently revised Idaho hack site and retrapped after it gional staffers hiave reported the fol- and approved by the Fish and Wildlife was observed with a broken leg. The lowing activities for the month of Service (FWS), the California Depart- leg was subsequently repaired and the November: ment of Fish and Game, the Sequoia bird was held at Ft. Collins until Febru- National Forest, and the Sequoia Na- ary 1984. Howard then worked with the Region 1—The management plan for tional Park. It set forth a program to re- bird until it gained enough strength to fly the Little Kern golden trout (Salmo cover this Threatened fish, and is avail- and hunt for itself. It was released about 2 weeks after four falcons-of-the-year had been released at the hack site. Dur- U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service James Johnson, Endangered Species ing this hacking effort, another male fal- Washington, D.C. 20240 Specialist. con appeared at the hack site. With six Robert A. Jantzen. Director Region 3, Federal BIdg., Fort Snelling peregrines then at the site, there was (202-343-4717) Twin Cities, MN 55111 (612-725-3500) some concern that one older male Robert E. Gilmore Harvey Nelson, Regional Director would drive the other male away. At the Associate Director and John S. Popowski, Assistant Regiona end of August 1984, however, all six Endangered Species Program Manager Director: James M. Engel, Endangered Species Specialist. birds remained in the area. (202-343-4646) * * * John L. Spinks, Chief, Region 4, Richard B. Russell Federal The American Peregrine Falcon Re- Office of Endangered Species BIdg., 75 Spring St., S.W., Atlanta, GA (703-235-2771) 30303 (404-221-3583): James W.Pulliam, covery Team for the Pacific Coast re- Thomas J. Parisot, Chief. Regional Director: John I. Christian, cently reported that the number of ac- Federal Wildlife Permit Office Assistant Regional Director: Alex B. tive eyries observed during the 1984 (703-235-1937) Montgomery, Endangered Species Spe- breeding season was 64 in California Clark R. Bavin, Chief. cialist. and 4 in Washington. No active eyries Division of Law Enforcement were observed in Idaho, Nevada, or (202-343-9242) Region 5, Suite 700, One Gateway Center, TECHNICAL BULLETIN STAFF Newton Corner, MA 02158 (617-965- Oregon in 1984. 5100): Howard Larsen, Regional Direc- * * « Michael Bender, Editor tor: Stephen W. Parry, Assistant Regional Denise Henne, Assistant Editor A 1984 census conducted by the Director: Paul Nickerson, Endangered (703-235-2407) California Department of Fish and Species Specialist. Game revealed 277 pairs of light-footed Regional Offices Region 6, P.O. Box 25486, Denver Federal clapper rails {Rallus longirostris Region 1, Suite 1692, Lloyd 500 BIdg., Center, Denver, CO 80225 (303-234- levipes) using 19 marshes; 931 to 1,001 500 N.E. Multnomah St. Portland. OR 2209): Galen Buterbaugh, Regional breeding pairs (42 percent fewer than 97232 (503-231-6118): Richard J. My- Director: John D Green, Assistant 1983 levels) of California least terns shak. Regional Director-. William F. Regional Director: Barry S. Mulder, Endan- {Sterna antillarum browni) that pro- Shake. Assistant Regional Director. gered Species Specialist. Wayne 8. White, Endangered Species duced 510 to 527 fledglings (20 percent Region 7, 1101 E. Tudor Rd., Anchorage, fewer than 1983 levels); 848 breeding Specialist. AK 99503 (907-786-3542): Robert E pairs of California brown pelicans Region 2, P.O. Box 1306. Albuquerque, Putz, Regional Director: Jon Nelson, (Pelecanus occidentalis) in the South- NM 87103 (505-766-2321): Michael J. Assistant Regional Director: Dennis Spear. Regional Director: Conrad A, Money, Endangered Species Special- ern Bight that produced 584 fledglings Fjetland. Assistant Regional Director: ist. with a productivity rate of 0.69; and 1,535 southern sea otters (Enhydra lutris nereis). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Regions Region 1: California. Hawaii. Idaho. Nevada. Oregon. Washinglon, and Pacific Trust Territories Region 2: Arizona. Region 2—Gerald Burton, an FWS New Mexico. Oklahoma, and Texas Region 3: Illinois. Indiana. Iowa, Michigan. Minnesota, Missouri, Ohio, and Wisconsin Region 4: Alabanna, Arkansas. Florida. Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana. Mississippi, North Carolina. South Endangered Species Biologist, repre- Carolina, Tennessee, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands Region 5: Connecticut, Delaware, Maine. Maryland, Massa- sented the Service at the 16th Annual chusetts, New Hampshire New Jersey. New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island. Vermont. Virginia, and West Virginia Desert Fishes Council (DFC) meeting Region 6: Colorado. Kansas. Montana. Nebraska. North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah, and Wyoming Region 7: Alaska held recently in San Luis Potosi, The ENDANGERED SPECIES TECHNICAL BULLETIN is published monthly by the Mexico. Numerous papers were pre- U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Department of the Interior. Washington, D.C. 20240. sented on the status of Endangered and continued on page 10 2 ENDANGERED SPECIES TECHNICAL BULLETIN Vol. IX No. 12 (1984) Listing Proposed for Four Animals Two Flying Squirrels Two subspecies of the northern flying squirrel {Glaucomys sabrinus), which survive on a few mountain tops in the southern Appalactiian Mountains, have been proposed by the Service for listing as Endangered (F.R, 11/21/84).
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Natural Heritage Program List of Rare Plant Species of North Carolina 2016
    Natural Heritage Program List of Rare Plant Species of North Carolina 2016 Revised February 24, 2017 Compiled by Laura Gadd Robinson, Botanist John T. Finnegan, Information Systems Manager North Carolina Natural Heritage Program N.C. Department of Natural and Cultural Resources Raleigh, NC 27699-1651 www.ncnhp.org C ur Alleghany rit Ashe Northampton Gates C uc Surry am k Stokes P d Rockingham Caswell Person Vance Warren a e P s n Hertford e qu Chowan r Granville q ot ui a Mountains Watauga Halifax m nk an Wilkes Yadkin s Mitchell Avery Forsyth Orange Guilford Franklin Bertie Alamance Durham Nash Yancey Alexander Madison Caldwell Davie Edgecombe Washington Tyrrell Iredell Martin Dare Burke Davidson Wake McDowell Randolph Chatham Wilson Buncombe Catawba Rowan Beaufort Haywood Pitt Swain Hyde Lee Lincoln Greene Rutherford Johnston Graham Henderson Jackson Cabarrus Montgomery Harnett Cleveland Wayne Polk Gaston Stanly Cherokee Macon Transylvania Lenoir Mecklenburg Moore Clay Pamlico Hoke Union d Cumberland Jones Anson on Sampson hm Duplin ic Craven Piedmont R nd tla Onslow Carteret co S Robeson Bladen Pender Sandhills Columbus New Hanover Tidewater Coastal Plain Brunswick THE COUNTIES AND PHYSIOGRAPHIC PROVINCES OF NORTH CAROLINA Natural Heritage Program List of Rare Plant Species of North Carolina 2016 Compiled by Laura Gadd Robinson, Botanist John T. Finnegan, Information Systems Manager North Carolina Natural Heritage Program N.C. Department of Natural and Cultural Resources Raleigh, NC 27699-1651 www.ncnhp.org This list is dynamic and is revised frequently as new data become available. New species are added to the list, and others are dropped from the list as appropriate.
    [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]
  • October 1983 Vol
    October 1983 Vol. VIII No. 10 Department of interior. U.S. Fish and wildlife Service Technical Bulletin Endangered Species Program, Washington, D.C. 20240 and announced its intention to propose Two Florida Mammals Listed as listing the two rodents. Endangered in Emergency Rule Reasons for Emergency Action An emergency rule listing as Endan- their range in southern peninsular Flor- In June 1983, the Rural Electrification gered two small mammals known only ida, have been lost to development, and Administration (REA) requested imme- from one area in the Florida Keys was this habitat type is now one of the most diate consultation with the Service on a published by the Service on September limited and jeopardized ecosystems in proposed loan to the Florida Keys Elec- 21 and took effect immediately (F.R. Florida. The hammocks of north Key tric Cooperative for construction of a 9/21/83). The Key Largo woodrat (A/eo- Largo represent some of the best remain- substation that would provide increased toma floridana smalli) and Key L^rgo ing tracts, but they are the proposed site delivery of electricity to northern Key cotton mouse (Peromyscus gossypinus for a large number of residential tracts. A Largo. Such consultation is required allapaticola) are jeopardized by the loss section of new water pipeline now under Section 7 of the Endangered Spe- of their forest habitat to residential and extends into the area, and is expected to cies Act because the REA is a Federal commercial development. An emergency accelerate the pace of residential, com- Continued on page 4 determination was necessary to allow mercial, and recreational development.
    [Show full text]
  • State of New York City's Plants 2018
    STATE OF NEW YORK CITY’S PLANTS 2018 Daniel Atha & Brian Boom © 2018 The New York Botanical Garden All rights reserved ISBN 978-0-89327-955-4 Center for Conservation Strategy The New York Botanical Garden 2900 Southern Boulevard Bronx, NY 10458 All photos NYBG staff Citation: Atha, D. and B. Boom. 2018. State of New York City’s Plants 2018. Center for Conservation Strategy. The New York Botanical Garden, Bronx, NY. 132 pp. STATE OF NEW YORK CITY’S PLANTS 2018 4 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 6 INTRODUCTION 10 DOCUMENTING THE CITY’S PLANTS 10 The Flora of New York City 11 Rare Species 14 Focus on Specific Area 16 Botanical Spectacle: Summer Snow 18 CITIZEN SCIENCE 20 THREATS TO THE CITY’S PLANTS 24 NEW YORK STATE PROHIBITED AND REGULATED INVASIVE SPECIES FOUND IN NEW YORK CITY 26 LOOKING AHEAD 27 CONTRIBUTORS AND ACKNOWLEGMENTS 30 LITERATURE CITED 31 APPENDIX Checklist of the Spontaneous Vascular Plants of New York City 32 Ferns and Fern Allies 35 Gymnosperms 36 Nymphaeales and Magnoliids 37 Monocots 67 Dicots 3 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This report, State of New York City’s Plants 2018, is the first rankings of rare, threatened, endangered, and extinct species of what is envisioned by the Center for Conservation Strategy known from New York City, and based on this compilation of The New York Botanical Garden as annual updates thirteen percent of the City’s flora is imperiled or extinct in New summarizing the status of the spontaneous plant species of the York City. five boroughs of New York City. This year’s report deals with the City’s vascular plants (ferns and fern allies, gymnosperms, We have begun the process of assessing conservation status and flowering plants), but in the future it is planned to phase in at the local level for all species.
    [Show full text]
  • Natural Heritage Program List of Rare Plant Species of North Carolina 2012
    Natural Heritage Program List of Rare Plant Species of North Carolina 2012 Edited by Laura E. Gadd, Botanist John T. Finnegan, Information Systems Manager North Carolina Natural Heritage Program Office of Conservation, Planning, and Community Affairs N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources 1601 MSC, Raleigh, NC 27699-1601 Natural Heritage Program List of Rare Plant Species of North Carolina 2012 Edited by Laura E. Gadd, Botanist John T. Finnegan, Information Systems Manager North Carolina Natural Heritage Program Office of Conservation, Planning, and Community Affairs N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources 1601 MSC, Raleigh, NC 27699-1601 www.ncnhp.org NATURAL HERITAGE PROGRAM LIST OF THE RARE PLANTS OF NORTH CAROLINA 2012 Edition Edited by Laura E. Gadd, Botanist and John Finnegan, Information Systems Manager North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Office of Conservation, Planning, and Community Affairs Department of Environment and Natural Resources, 1601 MSC, Raleigh, NC 27699-1601 www.ncnhp.org Table of Contents LIST FORMAT ......................................................................................................................................................................... 3 NORTH CAROLINA RARE PLANT LIST ......................................................................................................................... 10 NORTH CAROLINA PLANT WATCH LIST ..................................................................................................................... 71 Watch Category
    [Show full text]
  • A Landscape-Based Assessment of Climate Change Vulnerability for All Native Hawaiian Plants
    Technical Report HCSU-044 A LANDscape-bASED ASSESSMENT OF CLIMatE CHANGE VULNEraBILITY FOR ALL NatIVE HAWAIIAN PLANts Lucas Fortini1,2, Jonathan Price3, James Jacobi2, Adam Vorsino4, Jeff Burgett1,4, Kevin Brinck5, Fred Amidon4, Steve Miller4, Sam `Ohukani`ohi`a Gon III6, Gregory Koob7, and Eben Paxton2 1 Pacific Islands Climate Change Cooperative, Honolulu, HI 96813 2 U.S. Geological Survey, Pacific Island Ecosystems Research Center, Hawaii National Park, HI 96718 3 Department of Geography & Environmental Studies, University of Hawai‘i at Hilo, Hilo, HI 96720 4 U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service —Ecological Services, Division of Climate Change and Strategic Habitat Management, Honolulu, HI 96850 5 Hawai‘i Cooperative Studies Unit, Pacific Island Ecosystems Research Center, Hawai‘i National Park, HI 96718 6 The Nature Conservancy, Hawai‘i Chapter, Honolulu, HI 96817 7 USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service, Hawaii/Pacific Islands Area State Office, Honolulu, HI 96850 Hawai‘i Cooperative Studies Unit University of Hawai‘i at Hilo 200 W. Kawili St. Hilo, HI 96720 (808) 933-0706 November 2013 This product was prepared under Cooperative Agreement CAG09AC00070 for the Pacific Island Ecosystems Research Center of the U.S. Geological Survey. Technical Report HCSU-044 A LANDSCAPE-BASED ASSESSMENT OF CLIMATE CHANGE VULNERABILITY FOR ALL NATIVE HAWAIIAN PLANTS LUCAS FORTINI1,2, JONATHAN PRICE3, JAMES JACOBI2, ADAM VORSINO4, JEFF BURGETT1,4, KEVIN BRINCK5, FRED AMIDON4, STEVE MILLER4, SAM ʽOHUKANIʽOHIʽA GON III 6, GREGORY KOOB7, AND EBEN PAXTON2 1 Pacific Islands Climate Change Cooperative, Honolulu, HI 96813 2 U.S. Geological Survey, Pacific Island Ecosystems Research Center, Hawaiʽi National Park, HI 96718 3 Department of Geography & Environmental Studies, University of Hawaiʽi at Hilo, Hilo, HI 96720 4 U.
    [Show full text]
  • Propagation for the Conservation of Pityopsis Ruthii, an Endangered
    HORTSCIENCE 49(2):194–200. 2014. species listed under the ESA, has outlined recovery criteria for Ruth’s golden aster that highlight the most critical data gaps and Propagation for the Conservation of research needs [U.S. Fish and Wildlife Ser- vice (USFWS), 1992]. The most recent re- Pityopsis ruthii, an Endangered Species view of the species status cites a continuing need for better ex situ conservation efforts from the Southeastern United States and additional research focused on restora- tion of Ruth’s golden aster in suitable habitat Phillip A. Wadl1 (USFWS, 2012). Department of Entomology and Plant Pathology, University of Tennessee, Previous ex situ conservation efforts for 2505 E.J. Chapman Drive, 370 Plant Biotechnology Building, Knoxville, Ruth’s golden aster have been focused en- tirely on long-term seed storage (USFWS, TN 37996 2012). Provided seeds are available and Timothy A. Rinehart germinate readily, seed-based methods are often the most efficient means for ex situ Thad Cochran Southern Horticulture Research Laboratory, U.S. Department conservation (Pence, 2011). However, wild- of Agriculture–Agricultural Research Service (USDA-ARS), 810 Highway 26 collected Ruth’s golden aster seeds often West, Poplarville, MS 39470 exhibit poor germination and produce seed- lings with low vigor (Clebsch and Sloan, Adam J. Dattilo 1993; Cruzan, 2001; Farmer, 1977; White, Biological Compliance, Tennessee Valley Authority, West Tower 11C-K, 400 1977). To overcome the limitations of prop- West Summit Hill Drive, Knoxville, TN 37902 agating solely with seed and to provide increased flexibility in ex situ conservation Mark Pistrang efforts, an in vitro propagation protocol was Cherokee National Forest, U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • November 2009 an Analysis of Possible Risk To
    Project Title An Analysis of Possible Risk to Threatened and Endangered Plant Species Associated with Glyphosate Use in Alfalfa: A County-Level Analysis Authors Thomas Priester, Ph.D. Rick Kemman, M.S. Ashlea Rives Frank, M.Ent. Larry Turner, Ph.D. Bernalyn McGaughey David Howes, Ph.D. Jeffrey Giddings, Ph.D. Stephanie Dressel Data Requirements Pesticide Assessment Guidelines Subdivision E—Hazard Evaluation: Wildlife and Aquatic Organisms Guideline Number 70-1-SS: Special Studies—Effects on Endangered Species Date Completed August 22, 2007 Prepared by Compliance Services International 7501 Bridgeport Way West Lakewood, WA 98499-2423 (253) 473-9007 Sponsor Monsanto Company 800 N. Lindbergh Blvd. Saint Louis, MO 63167 Project Identification Compliance Services International Study 06711 Monsanto Study ID CS-2005-125 RD 1695 Volume 3 of 18 Page 1 of 258 Threatened & Endangered Plant Species Analysis CSI 06711 Glyphosate/Alfalfa Monsanto Study ID CS-2005-125 Page 2 of 258 STATEMENT OF NO DATA CONFIDENTIALITY CLAIMS The text below applies only to use of the data by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) in connection with the provisions of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) No claim of confidentiality is made for any information contained in this study on the basis of its falling within the scope of FIFRA §10(d)(1)(A), (B), or (C). We submit this material to the United States Environmental Protection Agency specifically under the requirements set forth in FIFRA as amended, and consent to the use and disclosure of this material by EPA strictly in accordance with FIFRA. By submitting this material to EPA in accordance with the method and format requirements contained in PR Notice 86-5, we reserve and do not waive any rights involving this material that are or can be claimed by the company notwithstanding this submission to EPA.
    [Show full text]
  • Illustrated Flora of East Texas Illustrated Flora of East Texas
    ILLUSTRATED FLORA OF EAST TEXAS ILLUSTRATED FLORA OF EAST TEXAS IS PUBLISHED WITH THE SUPPORT OF: MAJOR BENEFACTORS: DAVID GIBSON AND WILL CRENSHAW DISCOVERY FUND U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE FOUNDATION (NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, USDA FOREST SERVICE) TEXAS PARKS AND WILDLIFE DEPARTMENT SCOTT AND STUART GENTLING BENEFACTORS: NEW DOROTHEA L. LEONHARDT FOUNDATION (ANDREA C. HARKINS) TEMPLE-INLAND FOUNDATION SUMMERLEE FOUNDATION AMON G. CARTER FOUNDATION ROBERT J. O’KENNON PEG & BEN KEITH DORA & GORDON SYLVESTER DAVID & SUE NIVENS NATIVE PLANT SOCIETY OF TEXAS DAVID & MARGARET BAMBERGER GORDON MAY & KAREN WILLIAMSON JACOB & TERESE HERSHEY FOUNDATION INSTITUTIONAL SUPPORT: AUSTIN COLLEGE BOTANICAL RESEARCH INSTITUTE OF TEXAS SID RICHARDSON CAREER DEVELOPMENT FUND OF AUSTIN COLLEGE II OTHER CONTRIBUTORS: ALLDREDGE, LINDA & JACK HOLLEMAN, W.B. PETRUS, ELAINE J. BATTERBAE, SUSAN ROBERTS HOLT, JEAN & DUNCAN PRITCHETT, MARY H. BECK, NELL HUBER, MARY MAUD PRICE, DIANE BECKELMAN, SARA HUDSON, JIM & YONIE PRUESS, WARREN W. BENDER, LYNNE HULTMARK, GORDON & SARAH ROACH, ELIZABETH M. & ALLEN BIBB, NATHAN & BETTIE HUSTON, MELIA ROEBUCK, RICK & VICKI BOSWORTH, TONY JACOBS, BONNIE & LOUIS ROGNLIE, GLORIA & ERIC BOTTONE, LAURA BURKS JAMES, ROI & DEANNA ROUSH, LUCY BROWN, LARRY E. JEFFORDS, RUSSELL M. ROWE, BRIAN BRUSER, III, MR. & MRS. HENRY JOHN, SUE & PHIL ROZELL, JIMMY BURT, HELEN W. JONES, MARY LOU SANDLIN, MIKE CAMPBELL, KATHERINE & CHARLES KAHLE, GAIL SANDLIN, MR. & MRS. WILLIAM CARR, WILLIAM R. KARGES, JOANN SATTERWHITE, BEN CLARY, KAREN KEITH, ELIZABETH & ERIC SCHOENFELD, CARL COCHRAN, JOYCE LANEY, ELEANOR W. SCHULTZE, BETTY DAHLBERG, WALTER G. LAUGHLIN, DR. JAMES E. SCHULZE, PETER & HELEN DALLAS CHAPTER-NPSOT LECHE, BEVERLY SENNHAUSER, KELLY S. DAMEWOOD, LOGAN & ELEANOR LEWIS, PATRICIA SERLING, STEVEN DAMUTH, STEVEN LIGGIO, JOE SHANNON, LEILA HOUSEMAN DAVIS, ELLEN D.
    [Show full text]
  • Coastal Grasslands
    LONG ISLAND SOUND HABITAT RESTORATION INITIATIVE SECTION 4: COASTAL GRASSLANDS Technical Support for Coastal Habitat Restoration SECTION 4 TABLE OF CONTENTS COASTAL GRASSLANDS ..........................................................4-1 DESCRIPTION ............................................................................................. 4-1 Maritime Grasses..............................................................................................4-1 Sand Plains ......................................................................................................4-1 Hempstead Plains ............................................................................................4-2 Old Field Grasslands ........................................................................................4-3 VALUES AND FUNCTIONS ........................................................................... 4-3 STATUS AND TRENDS ................................................................................. 4-4 DEGRADED GRASSLANDS AND RESTORATION METHODS.............................. 4-6 SPECIFIC RESTORATION OBJECTIVES ........................................................... 4-7 RESTORATION SUCCESS AND MONITORING................................................. 4-8 LITERATURE CITED ..................................................................................... 4-9 LIST OF FIGURES SECTION 4 FIGURE 4-1. Newly Seeded Little Bluestem .......................................................4-1 FIGURE 4-2. Farm Field with Common Reed, Shrubs, and Invasive
    [Show full text]
  • *Wagner Et Al. --Intro
    NUMBER 60, 58 pages 15 September 1999 BISHOP MUSEUM OCCASIONAL PAPERS HAWAIIAN VASCULAR PLANTS AT RISK: 1999 WARREN L. WAGNER, MARIE M. BRUEGMANN, DERRAL M. HERBST, AND JOEL Q.C. LAU BISHOP MUSEUM PRESS HONOLULU Printed on recycled paper Cover illustration: Lobelia gloria-montis Rock, an endemic lobeliad from Maui. [From Wagner et al., 1990, Manual of flowering plants of Hawai‘i, pl. 57.] A SPECIAL PUBLICATION OF THE RECORDS OF THE HAWAII BIOLOGICAL SURVEY FOR 1998 Research publications of Bishop Museum are issued irregularly in the RESEARCH following active series: • Bishop Museum Occasional Papers. A series of short papers PUBLICATIONS OF describing original research in the natural and cultural sciences. Publications containing larger, monographic works are issued in BISHOP MUSEUM four areas: • Bishop Museum Bulletins in Anthropology • Bishop Museum Bulletins in Botany • Bishop Museum Bulletins in Entomology • Bishop Museum Bulletins in Zoology Numbering by volume of Occasional Papers ceased with volume 31. Each Occasional Paper now has its own individual number starting with Number 32. Each paper is separately paginated. The Museum also publishes Bishop Museum Technical Reports, a series containing information relative to scholarly research and collections activities. Issue is authorized by the Museum’s Scientific Publications Committee, but manuscripts do not necessarily receive peer review and are not intended as formal publications. Institutions and individuals may subscribe to any of the above or pur- chase separate publications from Bishop Museum Press, 1525 Bernice Street, Honolulu, Hawai‘i 96817-0916, USA. Phone: (808) 848-4135; fax: (808) 841-8968; email: [email protected]. Institutional libraries interested in exchanging publications should write to: Library Exchange Program, Bishop Museum Library, 1525 Bernice Street, Honolulu, Hawai‘i 96817-0916, USA; fax: (808) 848-4133; email: [email protected].
    [Show full text]
  • Threatened and Endangered Species List
    Effective April 15, 2009 - List is subject to revision For a complete list of Tennessee's Rare and Endangered Species, visit the Natural Areas website at http://tennessee.gov/environment/na/ Aquatic and Semi-aquatic Plants and Aquatic Animals with Protected Status State Federal Type Class Order Scientific Name Common Name Status Status Habit Amphibian Amphibia Anura Gyrinophilus gulolineatus Berry Cave Salamander T Amphibian Amphibia Anura Gyrinophilus palleucus Tennessee Cave Salamander T Crustacean Malacostraca Decapoda Cambarus bouchardi Big South Fork Crayfish E Crustacean Malacostraca Decapoda Cambarus cymatilis A Crayfish E Crustacean Malacostraca Decapoda Cambarus deweesae Valley Flame Crayfish E Crustacean Malacostraca Decapoda Cambarus extraneus Chickamauga Crayfish T Crustacean Malacostraca Decapoda Cambarus obeyensis Obey Crayfish T Crustacean Malacostraca Decapoda Cambarus pristinus A Crayfish E Crustacean Malacostraca Decapoda Cambarus williami "Brawley's Fork Crayfish" E Crustacean Malacostraca Decapoda Fallicambarus hortoni Hatchie Burrowing Crayfish E Crustacean Malocostraca Decapoda Orconectes incomptus Tennessee Cave Crayfish E Crustacean Malocostraca Decapoda Orconectes shoupi Nashville Crayfish E LE Crustacean Malocostraca Decapoda Orconectes wrighti A Crayfish E Fern and Fern Ally Filicopsida Polypodiales Dryopteris carthusiana Spinulose Shield Fern T Bogs Fern and Fern Ally Filicopsida Polypodiales Dryopteris cristata Crested Shield-Fern T FACW, OBL, Bogs Fern and Fern Ally Filicopsida Polypodiales Trichomanes boschianum
    [Show full text]