DOCSLIB.ORG

San Juan National Forest Biological Evaluation & Bureau of Land

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
San Juan National Forest Biological Evaluation & Bureau of Land Appendix T San Juan National Forest Biological Evaluation and Bureau of Land Management Sensitive Species Analysis Final Environmental Impact Statement Table of Contents 1 U.S. Forest Service Terrestrial Wildlife Biological Evaluation ......................................................... 1 1.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Species Evaluated ...................................................................................................................... 11 1.3 Effects Analysis ........................................................................................................................... 43 2 Bureau of Land Management Sensitive Wildlife Species Analysis ............................................... 65 2.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 65 2.2 Sensitive Species Considered and Evaluated ............................................................................ 65 2.3 Sensitive Species Evaluations .................................................................................................... 66 3 U.S. Forest Service Sensitive Plants Biological Evaluation ........................................................ 111 3.1 Sensitive Species Considered and Evaluated .......................................................................... 111 3.2 Sensitive Species Evaluations .................................................................................................. 112 3.3 Effects Analysis ......................................................................................................................... 118 4 Bureau of Land Management Sensitive Plant Species Analysis ................................................. 123 4.1 Plant Species Considered and Evaluated ................................................................................. 123 4.2 Species Evaluations .................................................................................................................. 123 4.3 Effects Analysis ......................................................................................................................... 126 5 U.S. Forest Service Fish Biological Evaluation And Bureau of Land Management Sensitive Fish Species Analysis ..................................................................................................... 132 5.1 Habitat Associations .................................................................................................................. 132 5.2 Species Evaluation and Effects ................................................................................................. 132 6 References and Literature Cited ..................................................................................................... 163 Volume III Appendix T – San Juan National Forest Biological Evaluation and Bureau of Land Management Sensitive Species Analysis T-i Final San Juan National Forest and Proposed Tres Rios Field Office Land and Resource Management Plan This page intentionally left blank. Volume III Appendix T – San Juan National Forest Biological Evaluation and T-ii Bureau of Land Management Sensitive Species Analysis Final Environmental Impact Statement 1 U.S. FOREST SERVICE TERRESTRIAL WILDLIFE BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION 1.1 Introduction This biological evaluation (BE) discloses the potential influences on the revision of the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) San Juan National Forest (SJNF) Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP) on USFS Rocky Mountain Region (Region 2) sensitive. The list of Region 2 Regional Forester sensitive species was updated on June 10, 2011. The Forest Service Manual (FSM) 2670 directs the USFS to develop and implement management practices to ensure that sensitive species do not become threatened or endangered because of USFS actions (FSM 2670.22). Sensitive species are those plant and animal species identified by a Regional Forester for which population viability is a concern as evidenced by a) significant current or predicted downward trends in population numbers or density or b) significant current or predicted downward trends in habitat capability that would reduce a species' existing distribution (FSM 2670.5). FSM 2670 directs the USFS to prepare BEs for projects, as part of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) process, to determine the potential effects from those projects on sensitive species and to ensure that USFS actions do not contribute to loss of viability of threatened, endangered, proposed, or sensitive plant and animal species or contribute to a trend towards federal listing of any species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) (FSM 2672.41 and 2670.32). A BE is as a documented review of USFS programs or activities in sufficient detail to determine how an action or proposed action may affect any threatened, endangered, proposed, or sensitive species (FSM 2670.5). 1.1.1 Project Description The LRMP would guide relevant resource management programs, practices, uses, and protection measures. The associated Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) examines potential environmental effects that could occur as a result of implementing projects associated with the LRMP. The key decisions made in this integrated plan for long-term management of the SJNF are: • Establishment of desired outcomes, including multiple-use goals and objectives. • Establishment of management requirements, including criteria that would be applied to guide day-to- day activities. These are primarily expressed as standards and guidelines and other design criteria. • Establishment of management area direction, including identifying allowable uses, or allocations, restrictions, and prohibitions. All lands within the planning area are allocated to one of seven management areas, or zones, that reflect different levels of development and suitable uses or activities. • Designation of suitable timber land and establishment of allowable sale quantity. • Establishment of monitoring and evaluation requirements. 1.1.2 Project Area The project area is the SJNF boundary, located in southwest Colorado at the junction of the Southern Rockies and the Colorado Plateau ecoregions. The Colorado Plateau portion is characterized by sedimentary geology dominated by deep canyons and mesas. The Southern Rocky Mountains portion is characterized by mountains with mixed geology. Life zones represented in the planning area include Semi- Desert, Lower Montane, Upper Montane, Subalpine, and Alpine. The area encompasses about 1,864,831 acres of National Forest Service (NFS) land and includes lands in Archuleta, Conejos, Dolores, Hinsdale, La Plata, Mineral, Montezuma, Montrose, Rio Grande, San Juan, and San Miguel Counties. The west border of the planning area is the Utah state line. The southern border of the planning area is the New Mexico state Volume III Appendix T – San Juan National Forest Biological Evaluation and Bureau of Land Management Sensitive Species Analysis T-1 Final San Juan National Forest and Proposed Tres Rios Field Office Land and Resource Management Plan line. The eastern border is the Continental Divide. The northern border covers the administrative boundaries with the Rio Grande, Gunnison, Grand Mesa, and Uncompahgre National Forests. 1.1.3 Alternatives Four issues drove the development of four alternatives: • Issue 1. Balancing Management between the Ideas of Maintaining “Working Forest and Rangelands” and Retaining “Core Undeveloped Areas” • Issue 2. Providing for Recreation and Travel Management within a Sustainable Ecological Framework • Issue 3. Management of Special Areas Designations and Unique Landscapes • Issue 4. Oil and Gas Leasing and Development The four alternatives are summarized below: Alternative A (No Action): Alternative A represents the continuation of current management direction under the existing USFS land management plans. Alternative A meets the requirements of NEPA (40 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] 1502.14) that a No Action Alternative be considered. “No Action” means that the alternative reflects the implementation of existing management goals, objectives, and management practices based on the existing land use plans. Alternative A also serves as the baseline for comparing and contrasting the impacts of the other alternatives. Alternative A is based on reasonably foreseeable actions, existing planning decisions and policies, and existing land use allocations and programs. The activities projected under Alternative A are based more on historical and expected output levels than on projections of outputs from the earlier land management plans. For example, the SJNF has been selling about one-half as much timber as was estimated in the existing plan due to both budget constraints and lower demand for wood products and periodically revised adjustments of the capacity of the SJNF to supply timber. Continuation of current management reflects this adjustment to program activities. Alternative B (Preferred Alternative): Alternative B, the Preferred Alternative, provides for a mix of multiple-use activities, with a primary emphasis on maintaining most of the large, contiguous blocks of undeveloped lands, enhancing various forms of recreation opportunities, and maintaining the full diversity of uses and active forest and rangeland vegetation management. Alternative B focuses on balancing the goals
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Gilia Sedifolia Brandeg. (Stonecrop Gilia): a Technical Conservation Assessment
    Gilia sedifolia Brandeg. (stonecrop gilia): A Technical Conservation Assessment Prepared for the USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region, Species Conservation Project August 9, 2004 David G. Anderson Colorado Natural Heritage Program 8002 Campus Delivery — Colorado State University Fort Collins, CO 80523 Peer Review Administered by Society for Conservation Biology Anderson, D.G. (2004, August 9). Gilia sedifolia Brandeg. (stonecrop gilia): a technical conservation assessment. [Online]. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/ assessments/giliasedifolia.pdf [date of access]. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This research was facilitated by the helpfulness and generosity of many experts, particularly Bill Jennings, Susan Komarek, Peggy Lyon, J. Mark Porter, and James Reveal. Their interest in the project and time spent answering questions were extremely valuable, and their insights into the distribution, habitat, classification, and ecology ofGilia sedifolia were crucial to this project. The rediscovery of this species and its subsequent documentation are solely the work of Susan Komarek; without her efforts very little could be said about this species. J. Mark Porter’s thoughts and insights into this species have contributed greatly to our understanding of G. sedifolia. Greg Hayward, Gary Patton, Jim Maxwell, Andy Kratz, Beth Burkhart, and Joy Bartlett assisted with questions and project management. Jane Nusbaum, Carmen Morales, Betty Eckert, Candyce Jeffery, and Barbara Brayfield provided crucial financial oversight. Amy Lavender assisted with the production of the potential habitat distribution map. Annette Miller provided information for the report on seed storage status. Nan Lederer and Tim Hogan provided valuable assistance and insights at the CU Herbarium, as did Janet Wingate and Loraine Yeatts at the Kalmbach Herbarium.
    [Show full text]
  • Review Article Distribution and Conservation Status of Amphibian
    Mongabay.com Open Access Journal - Tropical Conservation Science Vol.7 (1):1-25 2014 Review Article Distribution and conservation status of amphibian and reptile species in the Lacandona rainforest, Mexico: an update after 20 years of research Omar Hernández-Ordóñez1, 2, *, Miguel Martínez-Ramos2, Víctor Arroyo-Rodríguez2, Adriana González-Hernández3, Arturo González-Zamora4, Diego A. Zárate2 and, Víctor Hugo Reynoso3 1Posgrado en Ciencias Biológicas, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México; Av. Universidad 3000, C.P. 04360, Coyoacán, Mexico City, Mexico. 2 Centro de Investigaciones en Ecosistemas, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Antigua Carretera a Pátzcuaro No. 8701, Ex Hacienda de San José de la Huerta, 58190 Morelia, Michoacán, Mexico. 3Departamento de Zoología, Instituto de Biología, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, 04510, Mexico City, Mexico. 4División de Posgrado, Instituto de Ecología A.C. Km. 2.5 Camino antiguo a Coatepec No. 351, Xalapa 91070, Veracruz, Mexico. * Corresponding author: Omar Hernández Ordóñez, email: [email protected] Abstract Mexico has one of the richest tropical forests, but is also one of the most deforested in Mesoamerica. Species lists updates and accurate information on the geographic distribution of species are necessary for baseline studies in ecology and conservation of these sites. Here, we present an updated list of the diversity of amphibians and reptiles in the Lacandona region, and actualized information on their distribution and conservation status. Although some studies have discussed the amphibians and reptiles of the Lacandona, most herpetological lists came from the northern part of the region, and there are no confirmed records for many of the species assumed to live in the region.
    [Show full text]
  • San Juan Landscape Rangeland Environmental Assessment, March
    United States Department of Agriculture Environmental Forest Service Assessment March 2009 San Juan Landscape Rangeland Assessment Ouray Ranger District and Gunnison Ranger District Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre, and Gunnison National Forests Ouray, Gunnison, Hinsdale Counties, Colorado Cover photo: Box Factory Park courtesy of Barry Johnston The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or part of an individuals income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, DC 20250-9410, or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. Environmental Assessment San Juan Landscape Rangeland Assessment San Juan Landscape Rangeland Assessment Environmental Assessment Ouray, Gunnison, Hinsdale Counties, Colorado Lead Agency: USDA Forest Service Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre and Gunnison National Forests Responsible Officials: Tamera
    [Show full text]
  • Profiles of Colorado Roadless Areas
    PROFILES OF COLORADO ROADLESS AREAS Prepared by the USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region July 23, 2008 INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 2 3 TABLE OF CONTENTS ARAPAHO-ROOSEVELT NATIONAL FOREST ......................................................................................................10 Bard Creek (23,000 acres) .......................................................................................................................................10 Byers Peak (10,200 acres)........................................................................................................................................12 Cache la Poudre Adjacent Area (3,200 acres)..........................................................................................................13 Cherokee Park (7,600 acres) ....................................................................................................................................14 Comanche Peak Adjacent Areas A - H (45,200 acres).............................................................................................15 Copper Mountain (13,500 acres) .............................................................................................................................19 Crosier Mountain (7,200 acres) ...............................................................................................................................20 Gold Run (6,600 acres) ............................................................................................................................................21
    [Show full text]
  • A Supplemental Bibliography of Herpetology in New Mexico
    A Supplemental Bibliography of Herpetology in New Mexico --- Revised: 1 September 2005 --- Compiled by: James N. Stuart New Mexico Department of Game & Fish Conservation Services Division P.O. Box 25112 , Santa Fe, NM 87504-5112 and Curatorial Associate (Amphibians & Reptiles) Museum of Southwestern Biology University of New Mexico E-mail: [email protected] This document may be cited as: Stuart, J.N. 2005. A Supplemental Bibliography of Herpetology in New Mexico. Web publication (Revised: 1 September 2005): http://www.msb.unm.edu/herpetology/publications/stuart_supl_biblio.pdf Contents Section 1: Introduction and Acknowledgments Section 2: Alphabetical List of References Section 3: Index of References by Taxon or General Topic Appendix A: List of Standard English and Current Scientific Names for Amphibians and Reptiles of New Mexico Appendix B: List of State and Federally Protected Herpetofauna in New Mexico Section 1: Introduction and Acknowledgments The publication of Amphibians and Reptiles of New Mexico by W.G. Degenhardt, C.W. Painter, and A.H. Price in 1996 provided the first comprehensive review of the herpetofauna in New Mexico. Approximately 1,600 references were cited in the book and yet, as is the nature of scientific research, additional information continues to be published on the amphibian and reptile populations of this state. This supplemental bibliography was created to build on the information in Degenhardt et al. by compiling all pertinent references not included in their 1996 book or in their corrigenda to the book (Price et al. 1996). References include both peer-reviewed and non-reviewed (e.g., “gray literature”) sources such as journal and magazine articles, books, book chapters, symposium proceedings, doctoral dissertations, master’s theses, unpublished agency and contract reports, and on-line Web publications.
    [Show full text]
  • Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre, and Gunnison National Forests DRAFT Wilderness Evaluation Report August 2018
    United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre, and Gunnison National Forests DRAFT Wilderness Evaluation Report August 2018 Designated in the original Wilderness Act of 1964, the Maroon Bells-Snowmass Wilderness covers more than 183,000 acres spanning the Gunnison and White River National Forests. In accordance with Federal civil rights law and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) civil rights regulations and policies, the USDA, its Agencies, offices, and employees, and institutions participating in or administering USDA programs are prohibited from discriminating based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity (including gender expression), sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, political beliefs, or reprisal or retaliation for prior civil rights activity, in any program or activity conducted or funded by USDA (not all bases apply to all programs). Remedies and complaint filing deadlines vary by program or incident. Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication for program information (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, American Sign Language, etc.) should contact the responsible Agency or USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TTY) or contact USDA through the Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339. Additionally, program information may be made available in languages other than English. To file a program discrimination complaint, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, AD-3027, found online at http://www.ascr.usda.gov/complaint_filing_cust.html and at any USDA office or write a letter addressed to USDA and provide in the letter all of the information requested in the form.
    [Show full text]
  • Outing Description Day, Date, Summer 2013 Difficulty Rating, Departure Time Printer-Friendly Version
    Outing Description Day, Date, Summer 2013 Difficulty Rating, Departure Time Printer-friendly version Total Length & Logistics, outing rules, meeting places, and difficulty ratings & Departure Place E-mail schedule changes and updates to: Lyle Hancock. Elevation Schedule changes and trip updates are in red Gain If you have received this schedule by mail, please keep in mind that additions and changes are continually being made. Please ask someone with internet access to inform you when these updates occur or go to a friends computer or the library to view the updates at www.seniorsoutdoors.org. Participation in Seniors Outdoors! activities by non-members is limited to two outings per year. Visitors who wish to actively participate are expected to join Seniors Outdoors! Participants (new & old) as we start the season please review the Guidelines for Outing Participants found on the SO! Web Site. It contains important information about our requirements and general alpine safety. Meeting Place Abbreviations: ACP: Animas City Park; TC: Trimble Crossing; Tam: Tamarron; DMR: Durango Mountain Resort; SRP: Santa Rita Park; RC: Rec Center Sun June 9 Hike Fourmile Falls. Hike to Fourmile falls, enjoying views of Eagle Peak on Moderate to the way. There are several falls to view in this area, so mileage depends on falls. Hard to SRP 8:30 am how much we explore. Carpool $9. lake 6 8 miles RSVP: Sandy Hoagland 247-3678 or [email protected] 800' Mon June 10 Cascade to Coal Bank: Hike to Engineer Plateau via Engineer Mtn. Trail from FS Hard work center near Cascade and then down to Coal Bank on the Pass Creek Trail.
    [Show full text]
  • Summits on the Air – ARM for USA - Colorado (WØC)
    Summits on the Air – ARM for USA - Colorado (WØC) Summits on the Air USA - Colorado (WØC) Association Reference Manual Document Reference S46.1 Issue number 3.2 Date of issue 15-June-2021 Participation start date 01-May-2010 Authorised Date: 15-June-2021 obo SOTA Management Team Association Manager Matt Schnizer KØMOS Summits-on-the-Air an original concept by G3WGV and developed with G3CWI Notice “Summits on the Air” SOTA and the SOTA logo are trademarks of the Programme. This document is copyright of the Programme. All other trademarks and copyrights referenced herein are acknowledged. Page 1 of 11 Document S46.1 V3.2 Summits on the Air – ARM for USA - Colorado (WØC) Change Control Date Version Details 01-May-10 1.0 First formal issue of this document 01-Aug-11 2.0 Updated Version including all qualified CO Peaks, North Dakota, and South Dakota Peaks 01-Dec-11 2.1 Corrections to document for consistency between sections. 31-Mar-14 2.2 Convert WØ to WØC for Colorado only Association. Remove South Dakota and North Dakota Regions. Minor grammatical changes. Clarification of SOTA Rule 3.7.3 “Final Access”. Matt Schnizer K0MOS becomes the new W0C Association Manager. 04/30/16 2.3 Updated Disclaimer Updated 2.0 Program Derivation: Changed prominence from 500 ft to 150m (492 ft) Updated 3.0 General information: Added valid FCC license Corrected conversion factor (ft to m) and recalculated all summits 1-Apr-2017 3.0 Acquired new Summit List from ListsofJohn.com: 64 new summits (37 for P500 ft to P150 m change and 27 new) and 3 deletes due to prom corrections.
    [Show full text]
  • Microsoft Outlook
    Joey Steil From: Leslie Jordan <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2018 1:13 PM To: Angela Ruberto Subject: Potential Environmental Beneficial Users of Surface Water in Your GSA Attachments: Paso Basin - County of San Luis Obispo Groundwater Sustainabilit_detail.xls; Field_Descriptions.xlsx; Freshwater_Species_Data_Sources.xls; FW_Paper_PLOSONE.pdf; FW_Paper_PLOSONE_S1.pdf; FW_Paper_PLOSONE_S2.pdf; FW_Paper_PLOSONE_S3.pdf; FW_Paper_PLOSONE_S4.pdf CALIFORNIA WATER | GROUNDWATER To: GSAs We write to provide a starting point for addressing environmental beneficial users of surface water, as required under the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA). SGMA seeks to achieve sustainability, which is defined as the absence of several undesirable results, including “depletions of interconnected surface water that have significant and unreasonable adverse impacts on beneficial users of surface water” (Water Code §10721). The Nature Conservancy (TNC) is a science-based, nonprofit organization with a mission to conserve the lands and waters on which all life depends. Like humans, plants and animals often rely on groundwater for survival, which is why TNC helped develop, and is now helping to implement, SGMA. Earlier this year, we launched the Groundwater Resource Hub, which is an online resource intended to help make it easier and cheaper to address environmental requirements under SGMA. As a first step in addressing when depletions might have an adverse impact, The Nature Conservancy recommends identifying the beneficial users of surface water, which include environmental users. This is a critical step, as it is impossible to define “significant and unreasonable adverse impacts” without knowing what is being impacted. To make this easy, we are providing this letter and the accompanying documents as the best available science on the freshwater species within the boundary of your groundwater sustainability agency (GSA).
    [Show full text]
  • Aliciella Sedifolia (Brandegee) J.M
    1. Species [12.53 1]: Aliciella sedifolia (Brandegee) J.M. Porter [syn. = Gilia sedifolia Brandeg.] (stonecrop gilia). 2. Status: Table 1 summarizes the current status of this plant by various ranking entity and defines the meaning of the status. Table 1. Current status of Aliciella sedifolia Entity Status Status Definition NatureServe G1 Critically Imperiled—At very high risk of extinction due to extreme rarity (often 5 or fewer populations), very steep declines, or other factors. CNHPa G1 Globally critically imperiled; typically 5 or fewer occurrences. CNHP S1 State critically imperiled; typically 5 or fewer occurrences. USDA Forest Sensitive Species identified by a regional forester for which population viability is a concern, as Service evidenced by: a) significant current or predicted downward trends in population numbers or density, or b) significant current or predicted downward trends in habitat capability that would reduce a species’ existing distribution. USDI FWSb Not Not federally recognized under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) as endangered, Listed threatened, proposed, or candidate species. a Colorado Natural Heritage Program. b US Department of Interior Fish and Wildlife Service. The 2012 U.S. Forest Service Planning Rule defines Species of Conservation Concern (SCC) as “a species, other than federally recognized threatened, endangered, proposed, or candidate species, that is known to occur in the plan area and for which the regional forester has determined that the best available scientific information indicates substantial concern about the species' capability to persist over the long- term in the plan area” (36 CFR 219.9). This overview was developed to summarize information relating to this species’ consideration to be listed as a SCC on the Rio Grande National Forest, and to aid in the development of plan components and monitoring objectives.
    [Show full text]
  • Texas Creek, (2,600 Acres)
    GRAND MESA, UNCOMPAHGRE, AND GUNNISON NATIONAL FOREST Agate Creek, (11,800 acres)............................................................................................................ 3 American Flag Mountain, (11,900 acres) ....................................................................................... 4 Baldy, (2,300 acres) ........................................................................................................................ 5 Battlements, (24,400 acres)............................................................................................................. 6 Beaver (3,700 acres) ....................................................................................................................... 7 Beckwiths, (18,400 acres) ............................................................................................................... 8 Calamity Basin, (12,500 acres) ....................................................................................................... 9 Cannibal Plateau, (14,500 acres) .................................................................................................. 10 Canyon Creek (10,900 acres); Canyon Creek/Antero, (1,700 acres) ........................................... 11 Carson, (6,000 acres) .................................................................................................................... 13 Castle, (9,400 acres) ...................................................................................................................... 14 Cataract,
    [Show full text]
  • Protecting the Unique and Threatened Frogs of the Western Cape, South
    October 2020 AMPHIBIAN SURVIVAL ALLIANCE NEWTSLETTER Got a story you want to share? Drop Candace an email today! [email protected] Stories from our partners around the world © Endangered Wildlife Trust Wildlife © Endangered Protecting the unique and threatened frogs of the Western Cape, South Africa By Jeanne Tarrant, Endangered very limited ranges in the Western tion and habitat management inter- Wildlife Trust Cape province of South Africa. Here ventions would have particularly sig- is where the highest concentrations nificant conservation benefits. These In July 2020, with the support of of threatened amphibians can be species are the Critically Endangered ASA’s small grant through Global found in the country. Rough Moss Frog (Arthroleptella Wildlife Conservation, the Endan- rugosa) and Micro Frog (Microba- gered Wildlife Trust (EWT) com- Based on a prioritization exercise trachella capensis); and the Data menced a new project focused on we conducted in 2018, we identified Deficient Moonlight Mountain Toad- some of the most threatened and three species in the Western Cape let (Capensibufo selenophos) (IUCN, endemic frogs species restricted to for which targeted habitat protec- 2017). The population trend of each of these species is decreasing, species also represent umbrella spe- tares – one site (in Kleinrivierberg, or unknown, and as such research cies for other threatened frogs, such comprising 780 hectares) is already is needed on their distributions, as the Endangered Cape Platanna committed to proclamation and this population sizes, life histories, and (Xenopus gilli), and Western Leop- site is under review. threats. While the distributions of ard Toad (Sclerophrys pantherina). these species may not be extensive, As such, the fundamental goal of Formalizing protection of these they represent important habitat securing habitat for these species is incredibly beautiful landscapes will types, often themselves threatened, critical.
    [Show full text]