DOCSLIB.ORG

Environmental Assessment Glass Mountain 480-Foot Guyed

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Environmental Assessment Glass Mountain 480-Foot Guyed Environmental Assessment Glass Mountain 480-foot Guyed Telecommunications Tower Approximately 27 Miles Northeast of Marathon, Brewster County, Texas June 2, 2010 Project No. 90107018 Prepared for: Permian Basin Regional Planning Commission Prepared by: Terracon Consultants, Inc. San Antonio, Texas June 2, 2010 Mr. Barney Welch Permian Basin Regional Planning Commission 2910 La Force Boulevard Midland, Texas 79706 Re: Draft Environmental Assessment Glass Mountain Tower Approximately 27 miles northeast of Marathon, Brewster County, Texas Prudent Project Number: 90107018 Dear Mr. Welch: Terracon has conducted a Draft Environmental Assessment and FCC NEPA Checklist of the proposed project with respect to the expected environmental impacts associated with grant funds issued by the Public Safety Interoperable Communications (PSIC) Grant Program, administered by the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) of the U.S. Department of Commerce. The PSIC Grant Program is to assist State, local, tribal, and nongovernmental agencies in developing interoperable communications as they leverage newly available spectrum in the 700-800 megahertz (MHz) band. As a condition of the PSIC Grant Program, PSIC grantees must comply with all relevant Federal legislation. In addition, to the PSIC screening any new tower construction is required to undergo FCC NEPA Land Use screening in accordance with 47 CFR Section 1.1307 (a) (1) through (8), to determine whether any of the listed FCC special interest items would be significantly affected if a tower structure and/or antenna and associated equipment control cabinets were constructed at the proposed site location. The findings of this Draft Environmental and FCC NEPA Checklist are based on the project location, project type, and construction diagrams provided by the Pecos County Sheriff’s Department. Should the project location, project type, and/or construction diagrams be altered, reevaluation of this project will be required. If there are any questions regarding the information presented in this report, please contact our Terracon office at 210-641-2112. Sincerely, Terracon Consultants, Inc. Julio A. Aguilar Environmental Scientist Environmental Assessment Report Glass Mountain Tower Site■ Brewster County, Texas June 2, 2010 ■ Terracon Project Number 90107018 TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................................... i SECTION 1 - INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................... 1 Purpose and Need................................................................................................................... 2 Section 2 - Proposed Action ...................................................................................................... 3 Alternatives ............................................................................................................................. 3 Alternatives Considered But Not Carried Forward .............................................................. 4 SECTION 3 – EXISTING ENVIRONMENT ................................................................................... 6 Resource 1 – Noise ................................................................................................................. 6 Resource 2 – Air Quality......................................................................................................... 7 Resource 3 – Geology and Soils ........................................................................................... 7 Resource 4 – Water Resources ............................................................................................. 8 Resource 5 - Biological Resources ..................................................................................... 10 Resource 6 - Historic and Cultural Resources ................................................................... 13 Resource 7 - Aesthetic and Visual Resources ................................................................... 14 Resource 8 - Land Use ......................................................................................................... 15 Resource 9 - Infrastructure .................................................................................................. 15 Resource 10 - Socioeconomic Resources .......................................................................... 17 Resource 11 - Human Health and Safety ............................................................................ 17 SECTION 4 - ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES ............................................................... 19 Resource 1 - Noise ................................................................................................................ 19 Resource 2 - Air Quality ....................................................................................................... 20 Resource 3 - Geology and Soils .......................................................................................... 22 Resource 4 - Water Resources ............................................................................................ 23 Resource 5 - Biological Resources ..................................................................................... 24 Resource 6 - Historic and Cultural Resources ................................................................... 28 Resource 7 - Aesthetic and Visual Resources ................................................................... 29 Resource 8 - Land Use ......................................................................................................... 30 Resource 9 - Infrastructure .................................................................................................. 31 Resource 10 - Socioeconomic Resources .......................................................................... 32 Resource 11 - Human Health and Safety ............................................................................ 33 SECTION 5 - FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS ........................................................................ 34 REFERENCES ........................................................................................................................... 35 LIST OF PREPARERS ............................................................................................................... 36 Environmental Assessment Report Glass Mountain Tower Site■ Brewster County, Texas June 2, 2010 ■ Terracon Project Number 90107018 FIGURES Figure 1: Vicinity Map Figure 2: Topographic Map Figure 3: Site Plan Figure 4: Aerial Map Figure 5: Geologic Map Figure 6: Soils Map Figure 7: Sole Source Aquifer Map Figure 8: FEMA Map Figure 9: Historic Sites Map Figure 10: Wetland Map APPENDIX A – Site Photographs APPENDIX B – USFWS Documentation APPENDIX C – Section 106 APPENDIX D – FCC NEPA Land Use Compliance Checklist Environmental Assessment Report Glass Mountain Tower Site■ Brewster County, Texas June 2, 2010 ■ Terracon Project Number 90107018 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This executive summary is provided for convenience only and should not substitute review of the complete report, including all figures and appendices. The Proposed Action is identified as the Glass Mountain Tower site. The Glass Mountain Tower is classified as a ”New” Transmission and Receiving Site, which consists of the proposed construction of a 480-foot guyed communications tower with associated equipment to be located within an existing 100-foot by 100-foot compound. The total ground-disturbance area is less than 0.25 acres. The area surrounding the proposed Glass Mountain Tower site is mountainous rangeland with three rural residences approximately 0.32 miles northwest of the site. The site consists of a vacant parcel on an existing site containing the remnants of a former communications tower which was destroyed in an ice storm. A vicinity map of the area and photographs of the site and surrounding area are in the appendices of this report. The proposed Glass Mountain Tower site is located at 30° 23’ 33.9” N Latitude, 103° 8’ 9.6” W Longitude (NAD83) approximately 27 miles northeast of Marathon, Texas as shown on the USGS Hess Canyon, Texas 7.5 Minute Series Topographic Map dated 1983, Figure 2. The Glass Mountain Tower site consists of a proposed 480-foot guyed telecommunication tower, within an existing 100-foot by 100-foot compound. The proposed telecommunication compound will house: one 12-foot by 16-foot equipment shelter, a stand-alone emergency backup generator and associated propane tank, and control utility board as shown in Figure 3. The proposed Glass Mountain Tower site will be located on mountainous rangeland of the Glass Mountains in Brewster, County. The existing utilities located on site will be used for power. An existing gravel access road will be used for site access for construction and operational maintenance. Figure 4 shows the aerial photograph of the project site location. The proposed site will allow for the following: Increased coverage area for emergency responders connected through the system Updated equipment to support new frequencies to improve and expand voice and data coverage Facilitate reliable interoperable communications among first responder organizations Enhanced security and facility control The Proposed Action will not involve any of the unusual risks or impacts to sensitive areas identified in Section 4. Therefore, the Proposed Action would
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Southwestern Rare and Endangered Plants
    Preliminary Report on the Reproductive Biology of the Threatened Chisos Mountain Hedgehog Cactus BONNIE B. AMOS and CHRISTOS VASSILIOU Angelo State University, Texas Abstract: The Chisos Mountain hedgehog cactus (Echinocereus chisoensis, Cactaceae) is a narrow endemic restricted to an approximately 100 square mile area in Big Bend National Park, Texas. It was listed as threatened in 1987 as Echinocereus chisoensis var. chisoensis. An investigation of the reproductive biology and pollination ecology conducted in 1999 and 2000 revealed the taxon to be homogamous, self-incompatible, xenogamous, and heavily dependent upon the cactus oligolectic bee, Diadasia rinconis (Anthophoridae) for pollination. Despite infrequent bee visitation, fruit set from open pollination is high and fruits produce large numbers of seeds. Predation in 2002, probably from rodents as a result of severe drought conditions, was severe on plants, flower buds, and fruits. The Chisos Mountain hedgehog cactus, or Chisos jillo (Opuntia leptocaulis DC.), ocotillo (Fouquieria pitaya (Echinocereus chisoensis W. Marshall), is 1 of splendens K. Kunth), leatherstem (Jatropha dioica V. 20 threatened or endangered cacti listed by the de Cervantes), lechuguilla (Agave lechuguilla J. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for Region 2 (http: Torrey), and ceniza (Leucophyl1umf)zltescens (J. Ber- // ecos. fws.gov/ webpage/ webpage-lead.htrnl? landier) I. M. Johnston). An earlier study (Hender- lead_region=2&type=L&listings=l).In 1987 it was shott et al. 1992) did not show specific E. chisoen- added to the federal lists (53 FR 38453) of en- sis-nurse plant associations, but rather showed dangered and threatened wildlife and plants as associations as a consequence of soil conditions threatened because of its restricted distribution, that provide a hospitablL environment for a diver- low numbers, loss of viability in existing popula- sity of species or the exploitation by E.
    [Show full text]
  • Notes Oak News
    The NewsleTTer of The INTerNaTIoNal oak socIeTy&, Volume 15, No. 1, wINTer 2011 Fagaceae atOak the Kruckeberg News Botanic GardenNotes At 90, Art Kruckeberg Looks Back on Oak Collecting and “Taking a Chance” isiting Arthur Rice Kruckeberg in his garden in Shoreline, of the house; other species are from the southwest U.S., and VWashington–near Seattle–is like a rich dream. With over Q. myrsinifolia Blume and Q. phillyraeiodes A.Gray from Ja- 2,000 plant species on the 4 acres, and with stories to go with pan. The Quercus collection now includes about 50 species, every one, the visitor can’t hold all the impressions together some planted together in what was an open meadow and others for long. Talking with Art about his collection of fagaceae interspersed among many towering specimens of Douglas fir, captures one slice of a life and also sheds light on many other Pseudotsuga menziesii (Mirb.) Franco, the most iconic native aspects of his long leadership in botany and horticulture in the conifer. Pacific Northwest of the United States. Though the major segment of the oak collection is drawn Art Kruckeberg arrived in Seattle in 1950, at age 30, to teach from California and southern Oregon, many happy years of botany at the University of Washington. He international seed exchanges and ordering grew up in Pasadena, California, among the from gardens around the world have extended canyon live oaks (Quercus chrysolepis Liebm.) the variety. A friend in Turkey supplied Q. and obtained his doctorate at the University of trojana Webb, Q. pubescens Willd., and–an- California at Berkeley.
    [Show full text]
  • Management Recommendations for Native Insect Pollinators in Texas
    Management Recommendations for Native Insect Pollinators in Texas Texas Parks and Wildlife Department • 4200 Smith School Road • Austin, Texas 78744 • (512) 389-4800 Management Recommendations for Native Insect Pollinators in Texas Developed by Michael Warriner and Ben Hutchins Nongame and Rare Species Program Texas Parks and Wildlife Department Acknowledgements Critical content review was provided by Mace Vaughn, Anne Stine, and Jennifer Hopwood, The Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation and Shalene Jha Ph.D., University of Texas at Austin. Texas Master Naturalists, Carol Clark and Jessica Womack, provided the early impetus for development of management protocols geared towards native pollinators. Cover photos: Left top to bottom: Ben Hutchins, Cullen Hanks, Eric Isley, Right: Eric Isley Design and layout by Elishea Smith © 2016 Texas Parks and Wildlife Department PWD BK W7000-1813 (04/16) In accordance with Texas State Depository Law, this publication is available at the Texas State Publications Clearinghouse and/or Texas Depository Libraries. TPWD receives federal assistance from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and other federal agencies and is subject to Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, the Age Discrimination Act of 1975, Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, and state anti-discrimination laws which prohibit discrimination the basis of race, color, national origin, age, sex or disability. If you believe that you have been discriminated against in any TPWD program, activity or facility, or need more information, please contact Office of Diversity and Inclusive Workforce Management, U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Population Structure and Gene Flow in Two Rare, Isolated Quercus Species: Q. Hinckleyi and Q. Pacifica by JANET RIZNER BACKS B
    Population structure and gene flow in two rare, isolated Quercus species: Q. hinckleyi and Q. pacifica BY JANET RIZNER BACKS B.A., Loretto Heights College M.A., University of Wisconsin, Madison M.S., Northeastern Illinois University M.S., University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign THESIS Submitted as partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Biological Sciences in the Graduate College of the University of Illinois at Chicago, 2014 Chicago, Illinois Defense Committee: Mary V. Ashley, Chair and Advisor Roberta Mason-Gamer Emily Minor Andrew Hipp, Morton Arboretum Andrea Kramer, Chicago Botanic Garden ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Special thanks to my advisor, Dr. Mary Ashley, for affording me the opportunity to pursue graduate research in oaks, and especially Quercus hinckleyi, and giving me the space and freedom to learn new disciplines and skills. The Ashley Lab has been a source of friendship, support, encouragement, and sharing of the ups and downs of research. Without all of the people in the Lab, especially Saji Abraham, David Zaya, and Eun Sun Kim, this work would not have been possible. Thank you to my Committee for reading and listening to my proposals and finally my results. I appreciate your time and help. Funding for this research was through the University of Illinois at Chicago Hadley Grant. My research of Quercus hinckleyi was aided by the help of many people in Texas. Special thanks to Martin Terry and Molly Klein of Sul Ross University in Alpine, TX, volunteers from Texas Master Naturalists, and Troy Rinehart, Rio Grande Mining Co., for their assistance in locating and collecting specimens for this study.
    [Show full text]
  • Program 2014
    CHRISTMAS MOUNTAINS RESEARCH SYMPOSIUM 2014 Terlingua Ranch Headquarters Brewster County, Texas May 19th–21st, 2014 Sponsored by the component institutions of the Texas State University System CHRISTMAS MOUNTAINS RESEARCH SYMPOSIUM Terlingua Ranch Headquarters Brewster County, Texas May 19th–21st, 2014 Monday, May 19th 6:00 pm Informal social for meeting participants by the swimming pool 7:00 pm Dinner available (on your own) at the Bad Rabbit Café Tuesday, May 20th 9:00 am Field trip to Christmas Mountains overlook (meet in the parking lot next to the swimming pool) 9:00 am Field trip to fluorspar mines (meet on the patio outside the café) 1:30 pm Paper session (in the bunkhouse beneath the Bad Rabbit Café) 8:00 pm Christmas Mountains Advisory Committee meeting (bunkhouse) Wednesday, May 21st 8:00 am Hike to Christmas Mountains overlook (meet in the parking lot next to the swimming pool) 8:30 am Field trip to Paisano Peak overlook (meet on the patio outside the café) 1:30 pm Paper session (in the bunkhouse beneath the Bad Rabbit Café) 7:00 pm Dinner for meeting registrants at the Bad Rabbit Café (regular dinner menu will be available for others at the café) - 2 - FIELD TRIPS Christmas Mountains Overlook Trip leader: Michael Huston Tuesday morning at 9:00 – meet in the parking lot next to the swimming pool Participants will carpool up the Old Mine Road to a scenic overlook at the road’s end. We will make several stops along the way to examine the geology and vegetation of the area and to take in views of the Rosillos Mountains and desert flats to the east and the Chisos Mountains to the southeast.
    [Show full text]
  • Section IV – Guideline for the Texas Priority Species List
    Section IV – Guideline for the Texas Priority Species List Associated Tables The Texas Priority Species List……………..733 Introduction For many years the management and conservation of wildlife species has focused on the individual animal or population of interest. Many times, directing research and conservation plans toward individual species also benefits incidental species; sometimes entire ecosystems. Unfortunately, there are times when highly focused research and conservation of particular species can also harm peripheral species and their habitats. Management that is focused on entire habitats or communities would decrease the possibility of harming those incidental species or their habitats. A holistic management approach would potentially allow species within a community to take care of themselves (Savory 1988); however, the study of particular species of concern is still necessary due to the smaller scale at which individuals are studied. Until we understand all of the parts that make up the whole can we then focus more on the habitat management approach to conservation. Species Conservation In terms of species diversity, Texas is considered the second most diverse state in the Union. Texas has the highest number of bird and reptile taxon and is second in number of plants and mammals in the United States (NatureServe 2002). There have been over 600 species of bird that have been identified within the borders of Texas and 184 known species of mammal, including marine species that inhabit Texas’ coastal waters (Schmidly 2004). It is estimated that approximately 29,000 species of insect in Texas take up residence in every conceivable habitat, including rocky outcroppings, pitcher plant bogs, and on individual species of plants (Riley in publication).
    [Show full text]
  • Honey Bees on TPWD Lands
    WESTERN (EUROPEAN) HONEY BEES (APIS MELLIFERA) ON TEXAS PARKS AND WILDLIFE DEPARTMENT LANDS MANAGED FOR NATIVE BIODIVERISTY ISSUE BRIEFING PAPER/ POSITION STATEMENT ISSUE: Recommendation Against Managed Colonies of Western (European) Honey Bees (Apis mellifera) on Texas Parks and Wildlife Department Lands Managed for Native Biodiversity APPROVED: Carter Smith, Executive Director, Texas Parks and Wildlife Department. March 29, 2017. STAFF CONTACT: Benjamin T. Hutchins, TPWD Nongame and Rare Species Program, 512.389.4975, [email protected] COMMUNICATION GUIDANCE: This document provides information to Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD) staff on the potential impacts of the non-native western (European) honey bee (Apis mellifera) (referred to here as ‘honey bee’) on native ecosystems and guidance regarding the exclusion of managed honey bee colonies on TPWD lands established for the conservation of native plant communities and associated native wildlife. TPWD POSITION: The placement of managed honey bee colonies on TPWD lands managed wholly or in part for native biodiversity is incompatible with the protection of native biodiversity and should be avoided. SUMMARY: Western (European) honey bees (Apis mellifera) have the potential to negatively impact populations of native pollinator species. They may also facilitate establishment, reproduction, and expansion of non- native invasive plant species. Consequently, establishment of managed honey bee colonies on TPWD lands is not compatible with the conservation and management of native plant communities and associated wildlife. Exclusion of managed hives would help reduce establishment of feral honey bee populations that can potentially pose a nuisance or threat to visitors and staff. Although the importance of non-native honey bees for honey production and agricultural pollination is certainly substantial, establishment of managed and resulting feral colonies on TPWD lands managed wholly or in part for native biodiversity should be avoided.
    [Show full text]
  • Davis's Green Pitaya Echinocereus Viridiflorus Var. Davisii Houghton
    Davis’s Green Pitaya Echinocereus viridiflorus var. davisii Houghton And Nellie’s Cory Cactus Escobaria minima (Baird) D.R. Hunt (Syn. Coryphantha minima Baird) 5-Year Review: Summary and Evaluation U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Austin Ecological Services Field Office Austin, Texas 5-YEAR REVIEW Davis’s Green Pitaya / Echinocereus viridiflorus var. davisii Houghton Nellie’s Cory Cactus / Escobaria minima (Baird) D.R. Hunt (Syn. Coryphantha minima Baird) 1.0 GENERAL INFORMATION 1.1 Reviewers Lead Regional Office: Southwest Regional Office (Region 2) Susan Jacobsen, Chief, Threatened and Endangered Species, (505) 248-6641 Wendy Brown, Recovery Coordinator, (505) 248-6664 Julie McIntyre, Regional Recovery Biologist, (505) 248-6663 Lead Field Office: Austin Ecological Services Field Office Adam Zerrenner, Field Supervisor, (512) 490-0057 x 248 Chris Best, Texas State Botanist, (512) 490-0057 x 225 1.2 Purpose of 5-Year Reviews: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) is required under section 4(c)(2) of the endangered Species Act (ESA) to conduct a status review of each listed species once every 5 years. The purpose of five-year reviews is to evaluate whether or not a species’ status has changed since it was listed, or since completion of the most recent 5-year review. Our original listing as endangered or threatened is based on the five threat factors described in section 4(a)(1) of the ESA. In the 5-year review, we first review the best available scientific and commercial data on the species, focusing on any new information obtained since the species was listed or last reviewed.
    [Show full text]
  • Hinckley Oak (Quercus Hinckleyi)
    Hinckley Oak (Quercus hinckleyi) 5-Year Review: Summary and Evaluation Photo of Hinckley Oak by Mark W. Lockwood, Texas Parks and Wildlife, taken at the Solitario, Big Bend Ranch State Park, Presidio County, Texas U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Trans-Pecos Sub-Office Alpine, Texas 5-YEAR REVIEW Species reviewed: Hinckley oak (Quercus hinckleyi) 1.0 GENERAL INFORMATION 1.1 Reviewers Lead Regional Office: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service - Southwest (Region 2) Susan Jacobsen, Chief, Threatened and Endangered Species 505-248-6641 Wendy Brown, Recovery Coordinator, 505-248-6664; Brady McGee, Regional Recovery Biologist, 505-248-6657; Julie McIntyre, Recovery Biologist, 505-248-6657. Lead Field Office: Trans-Pecos Ecological Services Sub-Office, Alpine, Texas Aimee Roberson, Biologist, 432-837-0747. 1.2 Methodology used to complete the review: The public notice for this review was published in the Federal Register on March 20, 2008 (73 FR 14995). This review considers both new and previously existing information from Federal and State agencies, non-governmental organizations, academia, and the general public. Information used in the preparation of the review includes the recovery plan, the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD) Natural Diversity Database; a section 6-funded project on propagation, genetic constitution, and reintroduction of the species; unpublished documents; and communications from botanists familiar with the species. The 5-year review document was prepared by staff in the Trans-Pecos Sub-Office of the Austin Ecological Services Field Office without peer review. 1.3 Background: Hinckley oak is an endemic evergreen shrub found on arid limestone slopes in the Chihuahuan desert of the Trans-Pecos region in Presidio County, Texas.
    [Show full text]
  • An Updated Infrageneric Classification of the North American Oaks
    Article An Updated Infrageneric Classification of the North American Oaks (Quercus Subgenus Quercus): Review of the Contribution of Phylogenomic Data to Biogeography and Species Diversity Paul S. Manos 1,* and Andrew L. Hipp 2 1 Department of Biology, Duke University, 330 Bio Sci Bldg, Durham, NC 27708, USA 2 The Morton Arboretum, Center for Tree Science, 4100 Illinois 53, Lisle, IL 60532, USA; [email protected] * Correspondence: [email protected] Abstract: The oak flora of North America north of Mexico is both phylogenetically diverse and species-rich, including 92 species placed in five sections of subgenus Quercus, the oak clade centered on the Americas. Despite phylogenetic and taxonomic progress on the genus over the past 45 years, classification of species at the subsectional level remains unchanged since the early treatments by WL Trelease, AA Camus, and CH Muller. In recent work, we used a RAD-seq based phylogeny including 250 species sampled from throughout the Americas and Eurasia to reconstruct the timing and biogeography of the North American oak radiation. This work demonstrates that the North American oak flora comprises mostly regional species radiations with limited phylogenetic affinities to Mexican clades, and two sister group connections to Eurasia. Using this framework, we describe the regional patterns of oak diversity within North America and formally classify 62 species into nine major North American subsections within sections Lobatae (the red oaks) and Quercus (the Citation: Manos, P.S.; Hipp, A.L. An Quercus Updated Infrageneric Classification white oaks), the two largest sections of subgenus . We also distill emerging evolutionary and of the North American Oaks (Quercus biogeographic patterns based on the impact of phylogenomic data on the systematics of multiple Subgenus Quercus): Review of the species complexes and instances of hybridization.
    [Show full text]
  • June Preston, Editor 832 Sunset Drive USA No.2 Mar/Apr
    No.2 Mar/Apr 1983 of the LEPIDOPTERISTS' SOCIETY June Preston, Editor 832 Sunset Drive Lawrenc~KS 66044 USA ======================================================================================= ASSOCIATE EDITORS ART: Les Sielski RIPPLES: Jo Brewer ZONE COORDINATORS 1 Robert Langston 8 Kene1m Philip 2 Jon Shepard 5 Mo Nielsen 9 Eduardo Welling M. 3 Ray Stanford 6 Dave Baggett 10 Boyce Drummond 4 Hugh Freeman 7 Dave Winter 11 Quimby Hess =============================================================:========================= ZONE 1 SOUTHWEST: ARIZONA, NEVADA, CALIFORNIA. Coordinator: R. L. Langston (RLL). Contributors: R. L. Allen (RA), R. A. Bailowitz (RB), R. M. Brown (RMW), Jim and Joan Coleman (J-JC), K. Davenport (KD), J. F. Emmel (JE), C. D. Ferris (CDF), G. A. Gorelick (GG), C. Hageman (CH), K. Hansen (KH), R. V. Kelson (RK), T. W. Koerber (TK), R. H. Leuschner (RHL), D. Marion (DM), Eileen and S. O. Mattoon (E-SM), R. O'Donnell (RO), D. Parkinson (DP), F. P. Sala (FS), A. M. Shapiro (AS), o. Shields (OS), R. J. Skalski (RS) and W. L. Swisher (WS). COUNTY, STATE (in caps.) = new county, state records. NORTH, SOUTH, HIGH, LOW, EARLY, LATE, etc. (in caps.) are also considered records by the contributors and/or the coordinator. ARIZONA. No new COUNTY records or range extension for 1982. Most data was from the well-collected southeastern part of the state. Transients were hampered by cold, wet weather in Apache Co., Coconico Co., Cochise Co., Aug. (CDF), with heavy rains in Cochise Co., Sept. (RHL). Windy, cold and rainy in Pima Co., Sept. (RHL). No migrations were reported from Arizona. MOTHS: Sphingidae: Xylophanes falco, Cave Creek area, Chiricahua Mtns., Cochise Co., 9-11 Aug.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 14. Wildlife and Forest Communities 341
    chapteR 14. Wildlife and Forest Communities 341 Chapter 14. Wildlife and Forest communities Margaret Trani Griep and Beverly Collins1 key FindingS • Hotspot areas for plants of concern are Big Bend National Park; the Apalachicola area of the Southern Gulf Coast; • The South has 1,076 native terrestrial vertebrates: 179 Lake Wales Ridge and the area south of Lake Okeechobee amphibians, 525 birds, 176 mammals, and 196 reptiles. in Peninsular Florida; and coastal counties of North Species richness is highest in the Mid-South (856) and Carolina in the Atlantic Coastal Plain. The Appalachian- Coastal Plain (733), reflecting both the large area of these Cumberland highlands also contain plants identified by subregions and the diversity of habitats within them. States as species of concern. • The geography of species richness varies by taxa. • Species, including those of conservation concern, are Amphibians flourish in portions of the Piedmont and imperiled by habitat alteration, isolation, introduction of Appalachian-Cumberland highlands and across the Coastal invasive species, environmental pollutants, commercial Plain. Bird richness is highest along the coastal wetlands of development, human disturbance, and exploitation. the Atlantic Ocean and Gulf of Mexico, mammal richness Conditions predicted by the forecasts will magnify these is highest in the Mid-South and Appalachian-Cumberland stressors. Each species varies in its vulnerability to highlands, and reptile richness is highest across the forecasted threats, and these threats vary by subregion. Key southern portion of the region. areas of concern arise where hotspots of vulnerable species • The South has 142 terrestrial vertebrate species coincide with forecasted stressors. considered to be of conservation concern (e.g., global • There are 614 species that are presumed extirpated from conservation status rank of critically imperiled, imperiled, selected States in the South; 64 are terrestrial vertebrates or vulnerable), 77 of which are listed as threatened or and 550 are vascular plants.
    [Show full text]