DOCSLIB.ORG

Threatened, Endangered, and Forest Service Sensitive Species of The

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Threatened, Endangered, and Forest Service Sensitive Species of The THREATENED, ENDANGERED, AND FOREST SERVICE SENSITIVE SPECIES ON THE PIKE AND SAN ISABEL NATIONAL FORESTS UPDATED JUNE 2012 COMPILED BY MIKE WRIGLEY MATTHEW COMER STEVE OLSON JENI WINDORSKI WILDLIFE BIOLOGIST WILDLIFE BIOLOGIST BOTANIST WILDLIFE BIOLOGIST MONICA WHITE RON TORRETTA KRISTEN MEYER FELIX QUESADA WILDLIFE BIOLOGIST WILDLIFE BIOLOGIST WILDLIFE BIOLOGIST WILDLIFE BIOLOGIST BRIAN ELLIOTT PHILLIP GAINES MIKELE PAINTER MIKE WELKER BOTANIST FISH BIOLOGIST WILDLIFE BIOLOGIST FISH BIOLOGIST How to cite this document: Wrigley, M.J., M. White, B. Elliott, M. Comer, R.E. Torretta, P. Gaines, S. Olson, K. Meyer, M. Painter, J. Windorski, F. Quesada, and M. Welker. 2012. Threatened, endangered, and Forest Service sensitive species on the Pike and San Isabel National Forests (updated June 2012). Unpubl. Rpt. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. Pike and San Isabel National Forests and Comanche and Cimarron National Grasslands. Salida, Colorado. 115pp + appendices. PIKE AND SAN ISABEL NATIONAL FOREST JUNE 2012 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................ 1 1.1 PURPOSE OF THIS DOCUMENT ................................................................................................................ 1 1.1.1 Background .............................................................................................................................................. 1 1.2 REGULATORY FRAMEWORK ................................................................................................................... 3 1.3 THREATENED, ENDANGERED, AND PROPOSED/CANDIDATE SPECIES .......................................... 3 1.4 REGIONAL FORESTER’S SENSITIVE SPECIES ....................................................................................... 4 2.0 TEPS SPECIES REVIEW ............................................................................................................................... 6 2.1 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE COUNTY SPECIES LIST ............................................................... 6 2.1.1 FWS LISTED, PROPOSED, AND CANDIDATE SPECIES NOT EXPECTED ON THE FOREST ......... 7 PLANTS EXCLUDED ..................................................................................................................................................... 7 INVERTEBRATES EXCLUDED .................................................................................................................................... 8 FISH EXCLUDED ........................................................................................................................................................... 8 AMPHIBIANS AND REPTILES EXCLUDED ............................................................................................................... 9 BIRDS EXCLUDED ........................................................................................................................................................ 9 MAMMALS EXCLUDED ............................................................................................................................................. 10 2.1.2 FWS LISTED, PROPOSED, AND CANDIDATE SPECIES POTENTIALLY OCCURRING ON THE FOREST (SPECIES THAT ARE CARRIED FORWARD FOR ANALYSIS) ....................................................... 10 PLANTS INCLUDED .................................................................................................................................................... 10 INVERTEBRATES INCLUDED ................................................................................................................................... 11 FISH INCLUDED .......................................................................................................................................................... 12 AMPHIBIANS AND REPTILES INCLUDED .............................................................................................................. 13 BIRDS INCLUDED ....................................................................................................................................................... 14 MAMMALS INCLUDED .............................................................................................................................................. 18 2.2 FEDERALLY DESIGNATED AND PROPOSED CRITICAL HABITAT ...................................................................... 25 2.3 FOREST SERVICE SENSITIVE LIST......................................................................................................... 27 2.3.1 R2 SENSITIVE SPECIES NOT EXPECTED ON THE FOREST ........................................................... 32 PLANTS EXCLUDED ................................................................................................................................................... 33 INVERTEBRATES EXCLUDED .................................................................................................................................. 39 FISH EXCLUDED ......................................................................................................................................................... 40 AMPHIBIANS AND REPTILES EXCLUDED ............................................................................................................. 45 BIRDS EXCLUDED ...................................................................................................................................................... 45 MAMMALS EXCLUDED ............................................................................................................................................. 49 2.3.2 R2 SENSITIVE SPECIES EXPECTED ON THE FOREST (SPECIES THAT ARE CARRIED FORWARD FOR ANALYSIS) ............................................................................................................................ 51 PLANTS INCLUDED .................................................................................................................................................... 51 INVERTEBRATES INCLUDED ................................................................................................................................... 60 FISH INCLUDED .......................................................................................................................................................... 62 AMPHIBIANS AND REPTILES INCLUDED .............................................................................................................. 62 BIRDS INCLUDED ....................................................................................................................................................... 66 MAMMALS INCLUDED .............................................................................................................................................. 73 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE ................................................................................................................. 79 3.1 PAST AND CURRENT ACTIVITIES OCCURRING ON THE FOREST ................................................... 80 3.1.1 MINING ................................................................................................................................................. 80 3.1.2 RECREATION ........................................................................................................................................ 82 3.1.3 ROADS ................................................................................................................................................... 88 3.1.4 SPECIAL USE PERMITS ....................................................................................................................... 90 3.1.5 WILDFIRES AND PRESCRIBED FIRES .............................................................................................. 90 3.1.6 TIMBER HARVEST ................................................................................................................................ 92 3.1.7 LIVESTOCK GRAZING ......................................................................................................................... 95 3.1.8 HUMAN DEVELOPMENT .................................................................................................................... 96 3.1.9 CLIMATE CHANGE .............................................................................................................................. 97 4.0 LITERATURE CITED ................................................................................................................................ 101 5.0 APPENDICES ............................................................................................................................................... 117 THREATENED, ENDANGERED, AND FOREST SERVICE R2 SENSITIVE SPECIES ii PIKE AND SAN ISABEL NATIONAL FOREST JUNE 2012 LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Federally listed, proposed, and candidate species for the counties on the six ranger districts of the PSI and whether they are known, expected to occur and/or potentially affected by potential management activities. Table 2. Forest Service Sensitive Species in Region 2 and whether they have a potential to occur or be affected on PSI. Table 3. FS developed sites listed in the LRMP on 4 of the 6 ranger districts on the Forest and PAOT. Table 4. Active winter sports areas on the Forest and level of use as listed in the LRMP. Table 5. An example of permitted
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]
  • "National List of Vascular Plant Species That Occur in Wetlands: 1996 National Summary."
    Intro 1996 National List of Vascular Plant Species That Occur in Wetlands The Fish and Wildlife Service has prepared a National List of Vascular Plant Species That Occur in Wetlands: 1996 National Summary (1996 National List). The 1996 National List is a draft revision of the National List of Plant Species That Occur in Wetlands: 1988 National Summary (Reed 1988) (1988 National List). The 1996 National List is provided to encourage additional public review and comments on the draft regional wetland indicator assignments. The 1996 National List reflects a significant amount of new information that has become available since 1988 on the wetland affinity of vascular plants. This new information has resulted from the extensive use of the 1988 National List in the field by individuals involved in wetland and other resource inventories, wetland identification and delineation, and wetland research. Interim Regional Interagency Review Panel (Regional Panel) changes in indicator status as well as additions and deletions to the 1988 National List were documented in Regional supplements. The National List was originally developed as an appendix to the Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States (Cowardin et al.1979) to aid in the consistent application of this classification system for wetlands in the field.. The 1996 National List also was developed to aid in determining the presence of hydrophytic vegetation in the Clean Water Act Section 404 wetland regulatory program and in the implementation of the swampbuster provisions of the Food Security Act. While not required by law or regulation, the Fish and Wildlife Service is making the 1996 National List available for review and comment.
    [Show full text]
  • Colorado Wildlife Action Plan: Proposed Rare Plant Addendum
    Colorado Wildlife Action Plan: Proposed Rare Plant Addendum By Colorado Natural Heritage Program For The Colorado Rare Plant Conservation Initiative June 2011 Colorado Wildlife Action Plan: Proposed Rare Plant Addendum Colorado Rare Plant Conservation Initiative Members David Anderson, Colorado Natural Heritage Program (CNHP) Rob Billerbeck, Colorado Natural Areas Program (CNAP) Leo P. Bruederle, University of Colorado Denver (UCD) Lynn Cleveland, Colorado Federation of Garden Clubs (CFGC) Carol Dawson, Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Michelle DePrenger-Levin, Denver Botanic Gardens (DBG) Brian Elliott, Environmental Consulting Mo Ewing, Colorado Open Lands (COL) Tom Grant, Colorado State University (CSU) Jill Handwerk, Colorado Natural Heritage Program (CNHP) Tim Hogan, University of Colorado Herbarium (COLO) Steve Kettler, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Andrew Kratz, U.S. Forest Service (USFS) Sarada Krishnan, Colorado Native Plant Society (CoNPS), Denver Botanic Gardens Brian Kurzel, Colorado Natural Areas Program Eric Lane, Colorado Department of Agriculture (CDA) Paige Lewis, The Nature Conservancy (TNC) Ellen Mayo, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Mitchell McGlaughlin, University of Northern Colorado (UNC) Jennifer Neale, Denver Botanic Gardens Betsy Neely, The Nature Conservancy Ann Oliver, The Nature Conservancy Steve Olson, U.S. Forest Service Susan Spackman Panjabi, Colorado Natural Heritage Program Jeff Peterson, Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) Josh Pollock, Center for Native Ecosystems (CNE) Nicola Ripley,
    [Show full text]
  • Dragonflies (Odonata) of the Northwest Territories Status Ranking And
    DRAGONFLIES (ODONATA) OF THE NORTHWEST TERRITORIES STATUS RANKING AND PRELIMINARY ATLAS PAUL M. CATLING University of Ottawa 2003 TABLE OF CONTENTS Abstract ....................................................................3 Acknowledgements ...........................................................3 Methods ....................................................................3 The database .................................................................4 History .....................................................................5 Rejected taxa ................................................................5 Possible additions ............................................................5 Additional field inventory ......................................................7 Collection an Inventory of dragonflies .............................................8 Literature Cited .............................................................10 Appendix Table 1 - checklist ...................................................13 Appendix Table 2 - Atlas and ranking notes .......................................15 2 ABSTRACT: occurrences was provided by Dr. Rex Thirty-five species of Odonata are given Kenner, Dr. Donna Giberson, Dr. Nick status ranks in the Northwest Territories Donnelly and Dr. Robert Cannings (some based on number of occurrences and details provided below). General distributional area within the territory. Nine information on contacts and locations of species are ranked as S2, may be at risk, collections provided by Dr. Cannings
    [Show full text]
  • PCA) Report Name Mosquito Range Site Code S.USCOHP*375
    Level 4 Potential Conservation Area (PCA) Report Name Mosquito Range Site Code S.USCOHP*375 IDENTIFIERS Site ID 342 Site Class PCA Site Alias Mosquito Peaks Cirques Macrosite Site Alias Hoosier Ridge Macrosite Site Alias Tenmile Macrosite Site Alias Mosquito Peaks Megasite Network of Conservation Areas (NCA) NCA Site ID NCA Site Code NCA Site Name - No Data County SITE DESCRIPTION Site Description This site incorporates nearly the entire alpine area of the Mosquito Range. The predominant habitats are characterized by alpine meadows, rock outcrops, scree slopes, boulder fields, alpine lakes, willow carrs, snowmelt streamlets, and permanent snow fields. Snow melt flows down the north and south-facing slopes in intermittent drainages from the top of the ridges. The slopes are typified by tufted hairgrass / golden avens (Deschampsia cespitosa / Geum rossii) and kobresia / golden avens (Kobresia myosuroides / Geum rossii) communities, with scattered patches of willows (Salix glauca and Salix brachycarpa) and krummholz Engelmann spruce (Picea engelmannii). Moist areas with mossy ground cover provide the necessary habitat for Penland alpine fen mustard (Eutrema penlandii), which is one of the elements of primary importance in this site. This site supports an extraordinarily high concentration of rare plant species. To date, 20 globally rare plant species and several state rare species have been documented within this site. High elevation outcrops of Leadville Limestone are said to be a predominant factor in setting the stage for such high densities of rare plant species. Many of the rarest plants in this site, including Penland alpine fen mustard, are thought to be restricted to this geologic substrate.
    [Show full text]
  • Hayman Fire Case Study
    Part 8: Effects on Species of remain in isolated patches that escaped severe fire. These remnant patches are important seed sources Concern _______________________ and may serve as animal refugia. In addition, plants Natasha B. Kotliar, Sara Simonson, Geneva are rapidly resprouting in many areas, whereas bare Chong, and Dave Theobald mineral soil is all that remains elsewhere (Kotliar, personal observation). In the area burned by mixed- Temporal and Spatial Scales for severity fire, there is variation among patches in tree Evaluating Fire Effects mortality, resulting in a heterogeneous mixture of live and dead trees. Because of the differences in burn Conclusions about the effects of fire on species of severity, and consequently landscape structure (for concern will depend on the temporal and spatial scales example, size of high-severity patches, distance to of analysis. Populations of some species may decline in unburned forest), we consider the effects of these two abundance immediately postfire due to alteration or fire “landscapes” (that is, severe versus mixed- destruction of habitat, but over larger spatial and serverity) on species of concern separately. temporal scales, fire contributes to a shifting mosaic of habitat conditions across the landscape. Whether or Effects on Species of Concern not a fire results in persistent and significant popula- Species of concern, for this discussion, are those tion changes depends on a number of factors including Federally listed, or proposed, as endangered or threat- fire size and severity, dispersal capabilities and other ened, and species designated as sensitive by Region 2 life history traits, availability of refugia within or of the USDA Forest Service (table 16).
    [Show full text]
  • Interior Columbia Basin Mollusk Species of Special Concern
    Deixis l-4 consultants INTERIOR COLUMl3lA BASIN MOLLUSK SPECIES OF SPECIAL CONCERN cryptomasfix magnidenfata (Pilsbly, 1940), x7.5 FINAL REPORT Contract #43-OEOO-4-9112 Prepared for: INTERIOR COLUMBIA BASIN ECOSYSTEM MANAGEMENT PROJECT 112 East Poplar Street Walla Walla, WA 99362 TERRENCE J. FREST EDWARD J. JOHANNES January 15, 1995 2517 NE 65th Street Seattle, WA 98115-7125 ‘(206) 527-6764 INTERIOR COLUMBIA BASIN MOLLUSK SPECIES OF SPECIAL CONCERN Terrence J. Frest & Edward J. Johannes Deixis Consultants 2517 NE 65th Street Seattle, WA 98115-7125 (206) 527-6764 January 15,1995 i Each shell, each crawling insect holds a rank important in the plan of Him who framed This scale of beings; holds a rank, which lost Would break the chain and leave behind a gap Which Nature’s self wcuid rue. -Stiiiingfieet, quoted in Tryon (1882) The fast word in ignorance is the man who says of an animal or plant: “what good is it?” If the land mechanism as a whole is good, then every part is good, whether we understand it or not. if the biota in the course of eons has built something we like but do not understand, then who but a fool would discard seemingly useless parts? To keep every cog and wheel is the first rule of intelligent tinkering. -Aido Leopold Put the information you have uncovered to beneficial use. -Anonymous: fortune cookie from China Garden restaurant, Seattle, WA in this “business first” society that we have developed (and that we maintain), the promulgators and pragmatic apologists who favor a “single crop” approach, to enable a continuous “harvest” from the natural system that we have decimated in the name of profits, jobs, etc., are fairfy easy to find.
    [Show full text]
  • ROCKY MOUNTAIN National Park CO LO 1^^.00
    ROCKY MOUNTAIN National Park CO LO 1^^.00 UNITED STATES RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION NATIONAL PARK. SERIES Copyright by WiswaU The Village of Estes Park nestles in a quiet little valley, surrounded by mountains Page two An Appreciation of Rocky Mountain National Park By ENOS A. MILLS, Author of "Wild Life on the Rockies," "The Rocky Mountain Wonderland," etc. Written Especially fer the United States Railroad Administration j]HE Rocky Mountain National Park is a marvelous grouping of gentle­ ness and grandeur; an eloquent, wordless hymn, sung in silent, poetic pictures; a wilderness mountain world of groves and grass plots, crags and canyons, rounded lakes with shadow-matted shores that rest in peace within the purple forest. There are wild flowers of every color, and many a silken meadow edged with ferns. Brokenness and beauty, terrace upon terrace, a magnificent hanging wild garden. Over these terraces waters rush and pour. From ice-sculptured, snow-piled peaks, young and eager streams leap in white cascades between crowding cliffs and pines. Through this wildness winds the trail, with its secrets of the centuries, where adventures come and go and where the magic camp fire blossoms in the night. In these primeval scenes the grizzly bear gives to the wilderness its master spell; the mountain ram poses on the cliff; the laughing, varied voice of the coyote echoes when the afterglow falls; the home-loving beaver builds his willow-fringed hut; the birds sing; the cheerful chipmunk frolics and never grows up; and here the world stays young. The Rocky Mountain National Park holds adventure for every visitor.
    [Show full text]
  • December 2012 Number 1
    Calochortiana December 2012 Number 1 December 2012 Number 1 CONTENTS Proceedings of the Fifth South- western Rare and Endangered Plant Conference Calochortiana, a new publication of the Utah Native Plant Society . 3 The Fifth Southwestern Rare and En- dangered Plant Conference, Salt Lake City, Utah, March 2009 . 3 Abstracts of presentations and posters not submitted for the proceedings . 4 Southwestern cienegas: Rare habitats for endangered wetland plants. Robert Sivinski . 17 A new look at ranking plant rarity for conservation purposes, with an em- phasis on the flora of the American Southwest. John R. Spence . 25 The contribution of Cedar Breaks Na- tional Monument to the conservation of vascular plant diversity in Utah. Walter Fertig and Douglas N. Rey- nolds . 35 Studying the seed bank dynamics of rare plants. Susan Meyer . 46 East meets west: Rare desert Alliums in Arizona. John L. Anderson . 56 Calochortus nuttallii (Sego lily), Spatial patterns of endemic plant spe- state flower of Utah. By Kaye cies of the Colorado Plateau. Crystal Thorne. Krause . 63 Continued on page 2 Copyright 2012 Utah Native Plant Society. All Rights Reserved. Utah Native Plant Society Utah Native Plant Society, PO Box 520041, Salt Lake Copyright 2012 Utah Native Plant Society. All Rights City, Utah, 84152-0041. www.unps.org Reserved. Calochortiana is a publication of the Utah Native Plant Society, a 501(c)(3) not-for-profit organi- Editor: Walter Fertig ([email protected]), zation dedicated to conserving and promoting steward- Editorial Committee: Walter Fertig, Mindy Wheeler, ship of our native plants. Leila Shultz, and Susan Meyer CONTENTS, continued Biogeography of rare plants of the Ash Meadows National Wildlife Refuge, Nevada.
    [Show full text]
  • Federal Register/Vol. 85, No. 181/Thursday, September 17, 2020
    58224 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 181 / Thursday, September 17, 2020 / Proposed Rules DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR (2) By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail and proposes critical habitat necessary to: Public Comments Processing, Attn: for the conservation of the species. Fish and Wildlife Service FWS–R6–ES–2018–0055, U.S. Fish and Chapin Mesa milkvetch is a candidate Wildlife Service, MS: BPHC, 5275 species for which we have on file 50 CFR Part 17 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041– sufficient information on biological 3803. vulnerability and threats to support [Docket No. FWS–R6–ES–2018–0055; We request that you send comments preparation of a listing proposal, but for FF09E21000 FXES11110900000 201] only by the methods described above. which development of a listing proposal RIN 1018–BD17 We will post all comments on http:// had been precluded by other higher www.regulations.gov. This generally priority listing activities. This proposed Endangered and Threatened Wildlife means that we will post any personal rule and the associated species status and Plants; Threatened Species Status information you provide us (see Public assessment report (SSA report) reassess for Chapin Mesa Milkvetch and Comments, below, for more all available information regarding Designation of Critical Habitat information). status of and threats to the Chapin Mesa Document availability: The draft milkvetch. AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, economic analysis is available at http:// The basis for our action. Under the Interior. www.regulations.gov under Docket No. Act, we can determine that a species is ACTION: Proposed rule. FWS–R6–ES–2018–0055, and at the an endangered or threatened species Colorado Ecological Services Field based on any of five factors: (A) The SUMMARY: We, the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Ecography ECOG-02578 Pinkert, S., Brandl, R
    Ecography ECOG-02578 Pinkert, S., Brandl, R. and Zeuss, D. 2016. Colour lightness of dragonfly assemblages across North America and Europe. – Ecography doi: 10.1111/ecog.02578 Supplementary material Appendix 1 Figures A1–A12, Table A1 and A2 1 Figure A1. Scatterplots between female and male colour lightness of 44 North American (Needham et al. 2000) and 19 European (Askew 1988) dragonfly species. Note that colour lightness of females and males is highly correlated. 2 Figure A2. Correlation of the average colour lightness of European dragonfly species illustrated in both Askew (1988) and Dijkstra and Lewington (2006). Average colour lightness ranges from 0 (absolute black) to 255 (pure white). Note that the extracted colour values of dorsal dragonfly drawings from both sources are highly correlated. 3 Figure A3. Frequency distribution of the average colour lightness of 152 North American and 74 European dragonfly species. Average colour lightness ranges from 0 (absolute black) to 255 (pure white). Rugs at the abscissa indicate the value of each species. Note that colour values are from different sources (North America: Needham et al. 2000, Europe: Askew 1988), and hence absolute values are not directly comparable. 4 Figure A4. Scatterplots of single ordinary least-squares regressions between average colour lightness of 8,127 North American dragonfly assemblages and mean temperature of the warmest quarter. Red dots represent assemblages that were excluded from the analysis because they contained less than five species. Note that those assemblages that were excluded scatter more than those with more than five species (c.f. the coefficients of determination) due to the inherent effect of very low sampling sizes.
    [Show full text]
  • Is the Endangered Species Act in Danger?
    Aqui egza• Newsletter of the Colorado Native Plant Society " ... dedicated to the appreciation and conservation of the Colorado native flora" ......... ..... .. ~ ........... ," .. ,' .... ", ., ..... ', .. " .. -.". ","' ....... " ... _, qtl.ty> •• t.h.·rQI.J.g.h •• ·} ••• [).~.C~nlt>e," 1.·9.93··· Is The Endangered Species Act In Danger? Nina Williams under the Act are those fortunate enough to Furthermore, unlike wildlife and fish, only Legislative Affairs Committee reside on federal land, those endangered by plant species or sub-species, not populations, a project receiving federal funds, or those are eligible for protection under the Act. The battle over our nation's strongest plant species afforded protection by state This means that unless a plant is imperiled environmental law , the Endangered Species law. This last provision offers no help in throughout its entire range, it can not be Act of 1973 (ESA, the Act), is heating up in Colorado where the only plant protected by protected under the Act. In contrast, a Congress. The ESA is now 20 years old and state law is the ubiquitous state flower, the threatened or endangered population of ~ up for re-authorization in the next session of Colorado columbine (Aqui/egia caerulea). animals can be protected under the Act even the United States Congress. It is no surprise Colorado state law provides absolutely NO if viable populations of the same species that the Act is facing strong opposition from protection for any other plant species on exist elsewhere. conservative private property rights private land, including the 88 species advocates such as the Wise Use Movement. identified by the Colorado Natural Heritage Inequitable treatment ofplants has been the High profile struggles such as old growth Program as rare.
    [Show full text]