DOCSLIB.ORG

Biological Assessment and Biological Evaluation for Plants

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Biological Assessment and Biological Evaluation for Plants Biological Assessment and United States Department of Agriculture Biological Evaluation for Forest Service Plants Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre, And Gunnison National Forests Spruce Beetle Epidemic and Aspen Decline Delta, Colorado Management Response January 2016 Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre, and Gunnison National Forests, Delta, Garfield, Gunnison, Hinsdale, Mesa, Montrose, Ouray, Saguache, and San Miguel Counties, Colorado 1-26-2016 Barry C. Johnston, Botanist Date Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre, and Gunnison National Forests 216 N. Colorado Street, Gunnison, Colorado 81230-2197 970-642-4447 • [email protected] 1-26-2016 Suzie Parker, Wildlife Biologist Date Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre, and Gunnison National Forests 216 N. Colorado Street, Gunnison, Colorado 81230-2197 970-642-4459 • [email protected] 1 The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, gender, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, or marital or family status. (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 USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, Room 326-W, Whitten Building, 14th and Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20250-9410 or call (202) 720-5964 (voice and TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 6 PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES TO IT ................................................................ 6 ACTIVITIES COMMON TO ALL ACTION ALTERNATIVES ....................................................................... 7 Alternative 2 (Agency Preferred Action) ............................................................................................................ 21 Alternative 3 (WUI Alternative) ......................................................................................................................... 25 Summary of Alternatives .................................................................................................................................... 28 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT .................................................................................................... 32 GENERAL DESCRIPTION ............................................................................................................................... 32 THREATENED, ENDANGERED, AND PROPOSED PLANT SPECIES ...................................................... 37 SENSITIVE SPECIES .................................................................................................................. 40 SPECIES DESCRIPTIONS ................................................................................................................................ 42 Species considered for analysis .................................................................................................................. 64 Environmental Baseline.............................................................................................................................. 68 Geographic Areas ....................................................................................................................................... 69 Sensitive Species on the GMUG by Habitat ....................................................................................................... 75 Mesic Conifer Stands .................................................................................................................................. 76 Montane Parks .......................................................................................................................................... 76 Wetlands ..................................................................................................................................................... 76 Moist Swales and Riparian Meadows ........................................................................................................ 77 Fens ............................................................................................................................................................ 78 ANALYSIS AND DETERMINATIONS OF EFFECTS ON SENSITIVE SPECIES ................ 79 Methodology ............................................................................................................................................... 79 Scope of Analysis ....................................................................................................................................... 79 Assumptions Made ...................................................................................................................................... 79 Criteria used to determine impacts ............................................................................................................ 80 Cumulative effects ...................................................................................................................................... 80 ALTERNATIVE 1: NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE ......................................................................................... 80 EFFECTS COMMON TO ALL ACTION ALTERNATIVES .......................................................................... 82 Direct Effects .............................................................................................................................................. 84 Indirect effects common to most actions..................................................................................................... 85 Indirect impacts caused by introduction or spread of invasive plant species ............................................ 86 Pile burning ................................................................................................................................................ 87 Prescribed fire ............................................................................................................................................ 87 3 Roads .......................................................................................................................................................... 87 Mechanical treatments ............................................................................................................................... 88 Staging areas and landings ........................................................................................................................ 89 Cumulative Effects ...................................................................................................................................... 89 Activities on private and state lands .................................................................................... 90 Recreational activities ......................................................................................................... 90 Road maintenance by state and county................................................................................ 90 Climate change .................................................................................................................... 90 Design features ........................................................................................................................................... 90 COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES ............................................................................................................. 93 Alternative 2 (Agency Preferred Action) .................................................................................................... 94 Sensitive Species within Alternative 2 Area ....................................................................... 94 Effects to Sensitive Species ....................................................................................................................... 102 Astragalus leptaleus ........................................................................................................... 102 Botrychium paradoxum ..................................................................................................... 102 Carex diandra, Drosera rotundifolia, Eriophorum chamissonis, Eriophorum gracile, Salix candida, Sphagnum angustifolium, and Utricularia minor ................................................ 103 Machaeranthera coloradoensis .......................................................................................... 104 Alternative 3 (WUI Alternative) ............................................................................................................... 104 Sensitive Species within Alternative 3 Area ..................................................................... 106 Effects to Sensitive Species ....................................................................................................................... 114 Astragalus leptaleus ........................................................................................................... 114 Botrychium paradoxum ..................................................................................................... 114 Carex diandra, Drosera rotundifolia, Eriophorum chamissonis, Eriophorum gracile, Salix candida, Sphagnum angustifolium, and Utricularia minor ...............................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • (Leguminosae): Nomenclatural Proposals and New Taxa
    Great Basin Naturalist Volume 58 Number 1 Article 5 1-30-1998 Astragalus (Leguminosae): nomenclatural proposals and new taxa Stanley L. Welsh Brigham Young University Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/gbn Recommended Citation Welsh, Stanley L. (1998) "Astragalus (Leguminosae): nomenclatural proposals and new taxa," Great Basin Naturalist: Vol. 58 : No. 1 , Article 5. Available at: https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/gbn/vol58/iss1/5 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Western North American Naturalist Publications at BYU ScholarsArchive. It has been accepted for inclusion in Great Basin Naturalist by an authorized editor of BYU ScholarsArchive. For more information, please contact [email protected], [email protected]. Great Basin Naturalist 58(1), © 1998, pp. 45-53 ASTRAGALUS (LEGUMINOSAE): NOMENCLATURAL PROPOSALS AND NEW TAXA Stanley L. Welsh! ABSTRACT.-As part of an ongoing summary revision of Astragalus for the Flora North America project, several nomenclatural changes are indicated. Nomenclatural proposals include A. molybdenus val'. shultziorom (Barneby) Welsh, comb. nov.; A. australis var. aboriginorom (Richardson) Welsh, comb. nov.; A. australis var. cattoni (M.E. Jones) Welsh, comb. nov.; A. aU8tralis var. lepagei (Hulten) Welsh, comb. nov; A. australis var. muriei (Hulten) Welsh, comb. nov.; A. subcinereus var. sileranus (M.E. Jones) Welsh, comb. nov.; A. tegetariaides val'. anxius (Meinke & Kaye) Welsh, comb. nov.; A. ampullarioides (Welsh) Welsh, comb. nov.; A. cutlen (Barneby) Welsh, comb. nov.; and A. laccaliticus (M.E. Jones) Welsh, comb. nov. Proposals of new taxa include Astragalus sect. Scytocarpi subsect. Micl'ocymbi Welsh, subsed. nov., and A. sabulosus var.
    [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]
  • Plant Species of Special Concern and Vascular Plant Flora of the National
    Plant Species of Special Concern and Vascular Plant Flora of the National Elk Refuge Prepared for the US Fish and Wildlife Service National Elk Refuge By Walter Fertig Wyoming Natural Diversity Database The Nature Conservancy 1604 Grand Avenue Laramie, WY 82070 February 28, 1998 Acknowledgements I would like to thank the following individuals for their assistance with this project: Jim Ozenberger, ecologist with the Jackson Ranger District of Bridger-Teton National Forest, for guiding me in his canoe on Flat Creek and for providing aerial photographs and lodging; Jennifer Whipple, Yellowstone National Park botanist, for field assistance and help with field identification of rare Carex species; Dr. David Cooper of Colorado State University, for sharing field information from his 1994 studies; Dr. Ron Hartman and Ernie Nelson of the Rocky Mountain Herbarium, for providing access to unmounted collections by Michele Potkin and others from the National Elk Refuge; Dr. Anton Reznicek of the University of Michigan, for confirming the identification of several problematic Carex specimens; Dr. Robert Dorn for confirming the identification of several vegetative Salix specimens; and lastly Bruce Smith and the staff of the National Elk Refuge for providing funding and logistical support and for allowing me free rein to roam the refuge for plants. 2 Table of Contents Page Introduction . 6 Study Area . 6 Methods . 8 Results . 10 Vascular Plant Flora of the National Elk Refuge . 10 Plant Species of Special Concern . 10 Species Summaries . 23 Aster borealis . 24 Astragalus terminalis . 26 Carex buxbaumii . 28 Carex parryana var. parryana . 30 Carex sartwellii . 32 Carex scirpoidea var. scirpiformis .
    [Show full text]
  • Autumn Willow in Rocky Mountain Region the Black Hills National
    United States Department of Agriculture Conservation Assessment Forest Service for the Autumn Willow in Rocky Mountain Region the Black Hills National Black Hills National Forest, South Dakota and Forest Custer, South Dakota Wyoming April 2003 J.Hope Hornbeck, Carolyn Hull Sieg, and Deanna J. Reyher Species Assessment of Autumn willow in the Black Hills National Forest, South Dakota and Wyoming J. Hope Hornbeck, Carolyn Hull Sieg and Deanna J. Reyher J. Hope Hornbeck is a Botanist with the Black Hills National Forest in Custer, South Dakota. She completed a B.S. in Environmental Biology (botany emphasis) at The University of Montana and a M.S. in Plant Biology (plant community ecology emphasis) at the University of Minnesota-Twin Cities. Carolyn Hull Sieg is a Research Plant Ecologist with the Rocky Mountain Research Station in Flagstaff, Arizona. She completed a B.S. in Wildlife Biology and M.S. in Range Science from Colorado State University and a Ph.D. in Range and Wildlife Management (fire ecology) at Texas Tech University. Deanna J. Reyher is Ecologist/Soil Scientist with the Black Hills National Forest in Custer, South Dakota. She completed a B.S. degree in Agronomy (soil science and crop production emphasis) from the University of Nebraska – Lincoln. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Autumn willow, Salix serissima (Bailey) Fern., is an obligate wetland shrub that occurs in fens and bogs in the northeastern United States and eastern Canada. Disjunct populations of autumn willow occur in the Black Hills of South Dakota. Only two populations occur on Black Hills National Forest lands: a large population at McIntosh Fen and a small population on Middle Boxelder Creek.
    [Show full text]
  • Technical Background Document in Support of the Mid-Term Review of the Global Strategy for Plant Conservation (GSPC)
    Technical background document for the mid-term review of the GSPC Technical background document in support of the mid-term review of the Global Strategy for Plant Conservation (GSPC) Compiled by Botanic Gardens Conservation International (BGCI) in association with the Global Partnership for Plant Conservation (GPPC) and the Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity 1 Technical background document for the mid-term review of the GSPC Contents Introduction ......................................................................................................................................5 Section 1: Progress in national / regional implementation of the GSPC ................................................6 The GSPC and National / Regional Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plans ........................................... 6 Progress in plant conservation as reported in 5th National Reports to the CBD ...................................... 7 Reviews from regional workshops ............................................................................................................ 8 Progress in China ....................................................................................................................................... 8 Progress in Brazil ....................................................................................................................................... 9 Progress in Europe .................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service
    Wednesday, December 15, 2010 Part V Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service 50 CFR Part 17 Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 12-Month Finding on a Petition To List Astragalus microcymbus and Astragalus schmolliae as Endangered or Threatened; Proposed Rule VerDate Mar<15>2010 20:54 Dec 14, 2010 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4717 Sfmt 4717 E:\FR\FM\15DEP2.SGM 15DEP2 srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2 78514 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 240 / Wednesday, December 15, 2010 / Proposed Rules DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Colorado Ecological Services Office (see government consultation with Tribes, ADDRESSES); by telephone, 970–243– we met with the Ute Mountain Ute Fish and Wildlife Service 2778; or by facsimile, 970–245–6933. Tribe regarding the process we would Persons who use a telecommunications take to conduct a 12-month status 50 CFR Part 17 device for the deaf (TDD), call the review of Astragalus schmolliae. As an [FWS–R6–ES–2010–0080; MO 92210–0– Federal Information Relay Service outcome of our government-to- 0008–B2] (FIRS) at 800–877–8339. government consultation, we recognize SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: the sovereign right of the Ute Mountain Endangered and Threatened Wildlife Ute Tribe to manage the habitat for A. and Plants; 12-Month Finding on a Background schmolliae on its tribal lands, and Petition To List Astragalus Section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Act (16 acknowledge that right in this 12-month microcymbus and Astragalus U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), requires that, for finding. schmolliae as Endangered or any petition to revise the Federal Lists Previous Federal Actions Threatened of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants that contains substantial Federal action for Astragalus AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, microcymbus and Astragalus schmolliae Interior.
    [Show full text]
  • Checklist Flora of the Former Carden Township, City of Kawartha Lakes, on 2016
    Hairy Beardtongue (Penstemon hirsutus) Checklist Flora of the Former Carden Township, City of Kawartha Lakes, ON 2016 Compiled by Dale Leadbeater and Anne Barbour © 2016 Leadbeater and Barbour All Rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or database, or transmitted in any form or by any means, including photocopying, without written permission of the authors. Produced with financial assistance from The Couchiching Conservancy. The City of Kawartha Lakes Flora Project is sponsored by the Kawartha Field Naturalists based in Fenelon Falls, Ontario. In 2008, information about plants in CKL was scattered and scarce. At the urging of Michael Oldham, Biologist at the Natural Heritage Information Centre at the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry, Dale Leadbeater and Anne Barbour formed a committee with goals to: • Generate a list of species found in CKL and their distribution, vouchered by specimens to be housed at the Royal Ontario Museum in Toronto, making them available for future study by the scientific community; • Improve understanding of natural heritage systems in the CKL; • Provide insight into changes in the local plant communities as a result of pressures from introduced species, climate change and population growth; and, • Publish the findings of the project . Over eight years, more than 200 volunteers and landowners collected almost 2000 voucher specimens, with the permission of landowners. Over 10,000 observations and literature records have been databased. The project has documented 150 new species of which 60 are introduced, 90 are native and one species that had never been reported in Ontario to date.
    [Show full text]
  • U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Species Assessment and Listing Priority Assignment Form
    U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE SPECIES ASSESSMENT AND LISTING PRIORITY ASSIGNMENT FORM Scientific Name: Astragalus microcymbus Common Name: skiff milkvetch Lead region: Region 6 (Mountain-Prairie Region) Information current as of: 04/08/2014 Status/Action ___ Funding provided for a proposed rule. Assessment not updated. ___ Species Assessment - determined species did not meet the definition of the endangered or threatened under the Act and, therefore, was not elevated to the Candidate status. ___ New Candidate _X_ Continuing Candidate ___ Candidate Removal ___ Taxon is more abundant or widespread than previously believed or not subject to the degree of threats sufficient to warrant issuance of a proposed listing or continuance of candidate status ___ Taxon not subject to the degree of threats sufficient to warrant issuance of a proposed listing or continuance of candidate status due, in part or totally, to conservation efforts that remove or reduce the threats to the species ___ Range is no longer a U.S. territory ___ Insufficient information exists on biological vulnerability and threats to support listing ___ Taxon mistakenly included in past notice of review ___ Taxon does not meet the definition of "species" ___ Taxon believed to be extinct ___ Conservation efforts have removed or reduced threats ___ More abundant than believed, diminished threats, or threats eliminated. Petition Information ___ Non-Petitioned _X_ Petitioned - Date petition received: 07/30/2007 90-Day Positive:08/18/2009 12 Month Positive:12/15/2010 Did the Petition
    [Show full text]
  • A Second Annotated Checklist of Vascular Plants in Wells Gray Provincial Park and Vicinity, British Columbia, Canada
    A second annotated checklist of vascular plants in Wells Gray Provincial Park and vicinity, British Columbia, Canada Version 1: April, 2011 Curtis R. Björk1 and Trevor Goward2 ENLICHENED CONSULTING LTD. Box 131, Clearwater, BC, V0E 1N0, Canada [email protected], [email protected] Vascular Plants in Wells Gray SUMMARY Wells Gray Provincial Park is a vast wilderness preserve situated in the mountains and highlands of south-central British Columbia. The first major floristic study of the vascular plants of Wells Gray and its vicinity was published in 1965 by Leena Hämet-Ahti, who documented 550 taxa, including a first Canadian record of Carex praeceptorium. The present study contributes nearly 500 additional taxa documented by us between 1976 and 2010 in connection with our personal explorations of the Clearwater Valley. The vascular flora of Wells Gray Park and vicinity now stands at 1046 taxa, including 881 native species and 165 species introduced from Eurasia and other portions of British Columbia. Wells Gray Park is notable both for the presence of numerous taxa (45) at or near the northern limits of their range, as well as for an unexpectedly high number of taxa (43) accorded conservation status by the British Columbia Conservation Data Centre. Antennaria corymbosa has its only known Canadian locality within Wells Gray, while five additional species reported here are known in Canada from fewer than six localities. About a dozen unknown, possibly undescribed taxa have also been detected. Botanical inventory has thus far been confined to the southern portions of Wells Gray. Future studies in northern half of the park will certainly greatly increase our knowledge of the biological diversity safeguarded in this magnificent wilderness preserve.
    [Show full text]
  • Species Status Assessment Report for the Chapin Mesa Milkvetch, Astragalus Schmolliae
    Species Status Assessment Report for the Chapin Mesa Milkvetch, Astragalus schmolliae Prepared by the Western Colorado Ecological Services Field Office U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Grand Junction, Colorado January 2018 Photo of Chapin Mesa Milkvetch taken by USFWS employee This document was prepared by Dara Taylor with assistance from other members of the Chapin Mesa milkvetch SSA Team, including Sarah Backsen (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). Chapin Mesa milkvetch SSA Report i January 2018 Valuable peer and partner reviewers of a draft of this document were provided by Carol Dawson (Bureau of Land Management), Jennifer Ramp Neale (Denver Botanic Gardens), Erin Riggs (Utah Valley University Herbarium), David Anderson (Colorado Natural Heritage Program), Tova Spector (Mesa Verde National Park), Renee Rondeau (Colorado Natural Heritage Program), Jill Handwerk (Colorado Natural Heritage Program), and Jessica Smith (Colorado Natural Heritage Program). Suggested reference: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2018. Species status assessment report for the Chapin Mesa milkvetch (Astragalus schmolliae). Lakewood, CO. Chapin Mesa milkvetch SSA Report ii January 2018 Executive Summary This species status assessment (SSA) reports the results of the comprehensive biological status review by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) for the Chapin Mesa milkvetch (Astragalus schmolliae), and provides a thorough account of the species’ overall viability and, therefore, extinction risk. Chapin Mesa milkvetch is a narrow endemic perennial herb known to occur only in the southwestern corner of Colorado on land administered by Mesa Verde National Park and Ute Mountain Ute Tribal Park. This SSA report is intended to provide the best available biological information to inform the decision on whether or not Chapin Mesa milkvetch is warranted for listing under the Endangered Species Act (Act), and if so, whether and where to propose designation of critical habitat.
    [Show full text]
  • Colorado Rare Plant Conservation Strategy
    Plants have too long been hidden in plain sight. The prospect of continued threats to the nation’s plant life, coupled with the large proportion of the flora already at risk, argues that now is the time to bring plants out from COLO R A D O RA R E P L A nt the background, and to put the conservation needs of our nation’s flora COnsERVATION StrATEgy squarely into view. -Stein and Gravuer, NatureServe, 2008 Printed on recycled paper. BY: THE RARE PLAnt COnsERVATION InITIATIVE | MAY 2009 Plants are essential to both wildlife and humans through provision of key services such as food, shelter, fiber, and medicine ... protecting our wild flora goes to the heart of the human condition. Yet without focused conservation attention to the growing plight of the nation’s plant species, we are at risk of losing significant portions of our wild heritage, and the ecological resilience that comes with that diversity. -Stein and Gravuer, NatureServe, 2008 North Park phacelia © Frank Weston RECOMMENDED CITATION Neely, B., S. Panjabi, E. Lane, P. Lewis, C. Dawson, A. Kratz, B. Kurzel, T. Hogan, J. Handwerk, S. Krishnan, J. Neale, and N. Ripley. 2009. Colorado Rare Plant Conservation Strategy. Developed by the Colorado Rare Plant Conservation Initiative. The Nature Conservancy, Boulder, Colorado. 117 pp. AUTHORS Carol Dawson, Bureau of Land Management Jill Handwerk, Colorado Natural Heritage Program Tim Hogan, University of Colorado Herbarium Andrew Kratz, U.S. Forest Service Sarada Krishnan, Colorado Native Plant Society and Denver Botanic Gardens Brian Kurzel, Colorado Natural Areas Program Eric Lane, Colorado Department of Agriculture Paige Lewis, The Nature Conservancy Jennifer Neale, Denver Botanic Gardens Betsy Neely, The Nature Conservancy Susan Spackman Panjabi, Colorado Natural Heritage Program Nicola Ripley, Betty Ford Alpine Gardens COLORADO RARE PLANT CONSERVATION INITIATIVE MEMBERS David Anderson, Colorado Natural Heritage Program (CNHP) Rob Billerbeck, Colorado Natural Areas Program (CNAP) Leo P.
    [Show full text]
  • Checklist of Vascular Plants of the Southern Rocky Mountain Region
    Checklist of Vascular Plants of the Southern Rocky Mountain Region (VERSION 3) NEIL SNOW Herbarium Pacificum Bernice P. Bishop Museum 1525 Bernice Street Honolulu, HI 96817 [email protected] Suggested citation: Snow, N. 2009. Checklist of Vascular Plants of the Southern Rocky Mountain Region (Version 3). 316 pp. Retrievable from the Colorado Native Plant Society (http://www.conps.org/plant_lists.html). The author retains the rights irrespective of its electronic posting. Please circulate freely. 1 Snow, N. January 2009. Checklist of Vascular Plants of the Southern Rocky Mountain Region. (Version 3). Dedication To all who work on behalf of the conservation of species and ecosystems. Abbreviated Table of Contents Fern Allies and Ferns.........................................................................................................12 Gymnopserms ....................................................................................................................19 Angiosperms ......................................................................................................................21 Amaranthaceae ............................................................................................................23 Apiaceae ......................................................................................................................31 Asteraceae....................................................................................................................38 Boraginaceae ...............................................................................................................98
    [Show full text]