DOCSLIB.ORG

Front Range Eco-Regional Partnership Invasive Plant Species Strategic Plan

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Front Range Eco-Regional Partnership Invasive Plant Species Strategic Plan Front Range Eco-regional Partnership Invasive Plant Species Strategic Plan June 29, 2007 Susan Spackman Panjabi and Karin Decker Colorado Natural Heritage Program Colorado State University Fort Collins, Colorado Recommended citation: Spackman Panjabi, S. and K. Decker. 2007. Front Range Eco-regional Partnership Invasive Plant Species Strategic Plan. Unpublished report prepared for the United States Department of Defense by the Colorado Natural Heritage Program, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO. Acknowledgements Numerous individuals provided crucial information and guidance to this project. The people in the Front Range Eco-regional Partnership, especially Stan Rogers and Jim McDermott, saw the need and developed the initial idea for the strategy. Kara Altvater and Floyd Hatch with Buckley AFB, Jim Buchanan with Cheyenne Mountain AFS, Caron Rifici, Richard Bunn, and Mead Klavetter with Fort Carson Military Reservation and Pinon Canyon Maneuver Site, Max Canestorp at Pueblo Chemical Depot, Cathryn Pesenti with F. E. Warren AFB, Mark Mann with Peterson AFB, Melissa Trenchik with Schriever AFB, and Brian Mihlbachler at the U. S. Air Force Academy provided mapped locations of noxious weeds and up to date information on installation-specific weed management issues. Eric Lane, Colorado State Weed Coordinator, and Slade Franklin, Wyoming State Weed Coordinator, provided guidance on a state-wide level. County weed coordinators, Russell Johnson with Arapahoe County, Mark Johnston with El Paso County, J.R. Philips with Fremont County, Robert Lucero with Las Animas, Elizabeth Campbell with Pueblo County, Colorado, and Stan McNamee with Laramie County in Wyoming, offered county-level insights. Jace Fahnestock, North Wind’s primary investigator for several of the installation invasive species control plans, provided information pertinent to the individual installations, including mapped locations of weeds. Kat Maybury with NatureServe provided information on the Invasive Species Assessment Protocol (NatureServe I ranks). Bonnie Heidel and Melanie Arnett with the Wyoming Natural Diversity Database provided information about the distribution of rare species at F. E. Warren AFB. Mary Anderson with the US Department of Defense, Steve Kettler, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service biologist, Melissa Landon, Colorado Natural Heritage Program Conservation Data Services Team Leader, and David Anderson, Colorado Natural Heritage Program Botany Team Leader, assisted with refining project methods and approaches to help assure a most useful end product. Amy Lavender, GIS Coordinator with the Colorado Natural Heritage Program, produced maps and assured accuracy with all geographic data. Emily Sherman, Colorado Natural Heritage Program botany volunteer, compiled information for the Appendixes. 2 Table of Contents Executive Summary.............................................................................................................................. 5 Introduction........................................................................................................................................... 8 Background Information..................................................................................................................... 10 Sikes Act ......................................................................................................................................... 10 Federal Noxious Weed Act............................................................................................................. 10 Executive Order 13112 ................................................................................................................... 11 U.S. Army Regulatory Requirements ............................................................................................. 11 Colorado Noxious Weed Act.......................................................................................................... 12 Wyoming Weed and Pest Control Act............................................................................................ 13 County Noxious Weed Management Programs.............................................................................. 13 Methods/Prioritization Systems.......................................................................................................... 13 Results................................................................................................................................................. 15 Buckley Air Force Base.................................................................................................................. 21 Cheyenne Mountain Air Force Station ........................................................................................... 23 Fort Carson Military Reservation ................................................................................................... 25 Francis E. Warren Air Force Base .................................................................................................. 30 Peterson Air Force Base.................................................................................................................. 33 Pinon Canyon Maneuver Site ......................................................................................................... 36 Pueblo Chemical Depot .................................................................................................................. 42 Schriever Air Force Base................................................................................................................ 46 U.S. Air Force Academy and Farish Outdoor Recreation Area ..................................................... 48 Recommendations............................................................................................................................... 54 References........................................................................................................................................... 56 Appendix 1: Colorado Noxious Weed List........................................................................................ 61 Appendix 2: Wyoming Noxious Weed List....................................................................................... 63 Appendix 3: List of relevant county weed contacts, priority weed lists, and services provided....... 64 Appendix 4: Natural Heritage Conservation Ranking System .......................................................... 67 Appendix 5: List of other non-natives that have been documented at each military installation...... 71 Appendix 5: List of other non-natives that have been documented at each military installation...... 71 Appendix 6: Sources of information about weed species.................................................................. 74 Appendix 7: Sources of weed control information............................................................................ 76 Appendix 8: Sources of weed monitoring information...................................................................... 77 Appendix 9: Rare species and ecological system descriptions.......................................................... 78 PLANTS ......................................................................................................................................... 78 BIRDS............................................................................................................................................. 85 AMPHIBIANS & REPTILES ........................................................................................................ 91 INSECTS ........................................................................................................................................ 94 MAMMALS ................................................................................................................................... 98 ECOLOGICAL SYSTEMS.......................................................................................................... 103 3 List of Figures and Tables Figure 1. Map of all installations........................................................................................................................ 9 Table 1. All noxious weeds found on the nine Front Range military installations.............................. 6 Table 2. Three categories of noxious weeds designated by the Commissioner of the Colorado Department of Agriculture (Colorado Noxious Weed Act 2003)............................................... 12 Table 3. Thirty-three noxious weeds that have been documented on the nine Front Range military installations. ................................................................................................................................ 15 Table 4. Significant species and plant communities found at the nine Front Range military installations. ................................................................................................................................ 17 Table 5. Noxious weeds known from Buckley Air Force Base......................................................... 21 Table 6. Noxious weeds known from the Cheyenne Mountain Air Force Station............................ 24 Table 7. Rare species and significant plant communities known from the Cheyenne Mountain Air Force Station ............................................................................................................................... 25 Table 8. Noxious weeds known from the Fort Carson Military Reservation ...................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Standardized National Vegetation Classification System Report
    USGS/NPS Vegetation Mapping Program Standardized National Vegetation Classification System - Final Draft Final Draft Standardized National Vegetation Classification System USGS/NPS Vegetation Mapping Program November 1994 Prepared for: United States Department of Interior United States Geological Survey and National Park Service Prepared By: The Nature Conservancy 1815 N. Lynn Street Arlington, Virginia 22209 Environmental Systems Research Institute 380 New York Street Redlands, California 92373 USGS/NPS Vegetation Mapping Program Standardized National Vegetation Classification System - Final Draft ESRI, ARC/INFO, PC ARC/INFO, ArcView, and ArcCAD are registered trademarks of Environmental Systems Research Institute, Inc. ARC/INFO COGO, ARC/INFO NETWORK, ARC/INFO TIN, ARC/INFO GRID, ARC/INFO LIBRARIAN, ARCSHELL, ARCEDIT, ARCPLOT, ARC Macro Language (AML), Simple Macro Language (SML), DATABASE INTEGRATOR, IMAGE INTEGRATOR, WorkStation ARC/INFO, ArcBrowser, ArcCensus, ARC News, ArcKits, ARCware, ArcCity, ArcDoc, ArcExpress, ArcFrame, ArcScan, ArcScene, ArcSchool, ArcSdl, ArcStorm, ArcTools, ArcUSA, ArcWorld, Avenue, FormEdit, Geographic User Interface (GUI), Geographic User System (GUS), Geographic Table of Contents (GTC), ARC Development Framework (ADF), PC ARCEDIT, PC ARCPLOT, PC ARCSHELL, PC OVERLAY, PC NETWORK, PC DATA CONVERSION, PC STARTER KIT, TABLES, University LAB KIT, the ESRI corporate logo, the ARC/INFO logo, the PC ARC/INFO logo, the ArcView logo, the ArcCAD logo, the ArcData logo, ESRI—Team GIS, and ESRI—The GIS People are trademarks of Environmental Systems Research Institute, Inc. ARCMAIL, ArcData, and Rent-a-Tech are service marks of Environmental Systems Research Institute, Inc. Other companies and products herein are trademarks or registered trademarks of their respective trademark owners. The information contained in any associated brochures is subject to change without notice.
    [Show full text]
  • P L a N T L I S T Water-Wise Trees and Shrubs for the High Plains
    P L A N T L I S T Water-Wise Trees and Shrubs for the High Plains By Steve Scott, Cheyenne Botanic Gardens Horticulturist 03302004 © Cheyenne Botanic Gardens 2003 710 S. Lions Park Dr., Cheyenne WY, 82001 www.botanic.org The following is a list of suitable water-wise trees and shrubs that are suitable for water- wise landscaping also known as xeriscapes. Many of these plants may suffer if they are placed in areas receiving more than ¾ of an inch of water per week in summer. Even drought tolerant trees and shrubs are doomed to failure if grasses or weeds are growing directly under and around the plant, especially during the first few years. It is best to practice tillage, hoeing, hand pulling or an approved herbicide to kill all competing vegetation for the first five to eight years of establishment. Avoid sweetening the planting hole with manure or compost. If the soil is needs improvement, improve the whole area, not just the planting hole. Trees and shrubs generally do best well with no amendments. Many of the plants listed here are not available in department type stores. Your best bets for finding these plants will be in local nurseries- shop your hometown first! Take this list with you. Encourage nurseries and landscapers to carry these plants! For more information on any of these plants please contact the Cheyenne Botanic Gardens (307-637-6458), the Cheyenne Forestry Department (307-637-6428) or your favorite local nursery. CODE KEY- The code key below will assist you in selecting for appropriate characteristics.
    [Show full text]
  • Amelanchierspp. Family: Rosaceae Serviceberry
    Amelanchier spp. Family: Rosaceae Serviceberry The genus Amelanchier contains about 16 species native to North America [5], Mexico [2], and Eurasia to northern Africa [4]. The word amelanchier is derived from the French common name amelanche of the European serviceberry, Amelanchier ovalis. Amelanchier alnifolia-juneberry, Pacific serviceberry, pigeonberry, rocky mountain servicetree, sarvice, sarviceberry, saskatoon, saskatoon serviceberry, western service, western serviceberry , western shadbush Amelanchier arborea-Allegheny serviceberry, apple shadbush, downy serviceberry , northern smooth shadbush, shadblow, shadblown serviceberry, shadbush, shadbush serviceberry Amelanchier bartramiana-Bartram serviceberry Amelanchier canadensis-American lancewood, currant-tree, downy serviceberry, Indian cherry, Indian pear, Indian wild pear, juice plum, juneberry, may cherry, sugar plum, sarvice, servicetree, shadberry, shadblow, shadbush, shadbush serviceberry, shadflower, thicket serviceberry Amelanchier florida-Pacific serviceberry Amelanchier interior-inland serviceberry Amelanchier sanguinea-Huron serviceberry, roundleaf juneberry, roundleaf serviceberry , shore shadbush Amelanchier utahensis-Utah serviceberry Distribution In North America throughout upper elevations and temperate forests. The Tree Serviceberry is a shrub or tree that reaches a height of 40 ft (12 m) and a diameter of 2 ft (0.6 m). It grows in many soil types and occurs from swamps to mountainous hillsides. It flowers in early spring, producing delicate white flowers, making
    [Show full text]
  • Castilleja Coccinea and C. Indivisa (Orobanchaceae)
    Nesom, G.L. and J.M. Egger. 2014. Castilleja coccinea and C. indivisa (Orobanchaceae). Phytoneuron 2014-14: 1–7. Published 6 January 2014. ISSN 2153 733X CASTILLEJA COCCINEA AND C. INDIVISA (OROBANCHACEAE) GUY L. NESOM 2925 Hartwood Drive Fort Worth, Texas 76109 www.guynesom.com J. M ARK EGGER Herbarium, Burke Museum of Natural History and Culture University of Washington Seattle, Washington 98195-5325 [email protected] ABSTRACT Castilleja coccinea and C. indivisa are contrasted in morphology and their ranges mapped in detail in the southern USA, where they are natively sympatric in small areas of Oklahoma, Arkansas, and Louisiana. Castilleja indivisa has recently been introduced and naturalized in the floras of Alabama and Florida. Castilleja ludoviciana , known only by the type collection from southwestern Louisiana, differs from C. coccinea in subentire leaves and relatively small flowers and is perhaps a population introgressed by C. indivisa . Castilleja coccinea and C. indivisa are allopatric except in small areas of Oklahoma, Arkansas, and Lousiana, but assessments of their native distributions are not consistent among various accounts (e.g. Thomas & Allen 1997; Turner et al. 2003; OVPD 2012; USDA, NRCS 2013). Morphological contrasts between the two species, via keys in floristic treatments (e.g., Smith 1994; Wunderlin & Hansen 2003; Nelson 2009; Weakley 2012), have essentially repeated the differences outlined by Pennell (1935). The current study presents an evaluation and summary of the taxonomy of these two species. We have examined specimens at CAS, TEX-LL, SMU-BRIT-VDB, MO, NLU, NO, USF, WS, and WTU and viewed digital images available through Florida herbaria and databases.
    [Show full text]
  • Translocation of Lesser Prairie Chicken
    National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior Natural Resource Program Center Sand Creek Massacre National Historic Site Rare Vertebrate Species Inventory Natural Resource Report NPS/SOPN/NRTR—2008/001 ON THE COVER Sand Creek Massacre National Historic Site: Grassland along Big Sandy Creek Sand Creek north of the monument. Photograph by: John R. Sovell Sand Creek Massacre National Historic Site Rare Vertebrate Species Inventory Natural Resource Report NPS/SOPN/NRTR—2008/001 John Sovell, Jodie Bell, and Stephanie Neid John Sovell Colorado Natural Heritage Program Colorado State University 254 General Services Building Fort Collins, CO 80523 Prepared for: National Park Service Inventory and Monitoring Program Southern Plains Network Johnson City, Texas June 2008 U.S. Department of the Interior National Park Service Natural Resource Program Center Fort Collins, Colorado i The Natural Resource Publication series addresses natural resource topics that are of interest and applicability to a broad readership in the National Park Service and to others in the management of natural resources, including the scientific community, the public, and the NPS conservation and environmental constituencies. Manuscripts are peer-reviewed to ensure that the information is scientifically credible, technically accurate, appropriately written for the intended audience, and is designed and published in a professional manner. The Natural Resources Technical Reports series is used to disseminate the peer-reviewed results of scientific studies in the physical, biological, and social sciences for both the advancement of science and the achievement of the National Park Service’s mission. The reports provide contributors with a forum for displaying comprehensive data that are often deleted from journals because of page limitations.
    [Show full text]
  • Impacts of Agricultural Management Systems on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services in Highly Simplified Dryland Landscapes
    sustainability Review Impacts of Agricultural Management Systems on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services in Highly Simplified Dryland Landscapes Subodh Adhikari 1,2,* , Arjun Adhikari 3,4, David K. Weaver 1 , Anton Bekkerman 5 and Fabian D. Menalled 1,* 1 Department of Land Resources and Environmental Sciences, Montana State University, P.O. Box 173120, Bozeman, MT 59717-3120, USA; [email protected] 2 Department of Entomology, Plant Pathology and Nematology; 875 Perimeter Drive MS 2329, Moscow, ID 83844-2329, USA 3 Department of Ecology, Montana State University, P.O. Box 173460, Bozeman, MT 59717-3460, USA; [email protected] 4 Natural Resource Ecology and Management, 008C Agricultural Hall, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, OK 74078, USA 5 Department of Agricultural Economics and Economics, P.O. Box 172920, Bozeman, MT 59717-3460, USA; [email protected] * Correspondence: [email protected] (S.A.); [email protected] (F.D.M.) Received: 2 May 2019; Accepted: 9 June 2019; Published: 11 June 2019 Abstract: Covering about 40% of Earth’s land surface and sustaining at least 38% of global population, drylands are key crop and animal production regions with high economic and social values. However,land use changes associated with industrialized agricultural managements are threatening the sustainability of these systems. While previous studies assessing the impacts of agricultural management systems on biodiversity and their services focused on more diversified mesic landscapes, there is a dearth of such research
    [Show full text]
  • Plant List for Web Page
    Stanford Working Plant List 1/15/08 Common name Botanical name Family origin big-leaf maple Acer macrophyllum Aceraceae native box elder Acer negundo var. californicum Aceraceae native common water plantain Alisma plantago-aquatica Alismataceae native upright burhead Echinodorus berteroi Alismataceae native prostrate amaranth Amaranthus blitoides Amaranthaceae native California amaranth Amaranthus californicus Amaranthaceae native Powell's amaranth Amaranthus powellii Amaranthaceae native western poison oak Toxicodendron diversilobum Anacardiaceae native wood angelica Angelica tomentosa Apiaceae native wild celery Apiastrum angustifolium Apiaceae native cutleaf water parsnip Berula erecta Apiaceae native bowlesia Bowlesia incana Apiaceae native rattlesnake weed Daucus pusillus Apiaceae native Jepson's eryngo Eryngium aristulatum var. aristulatum Apiaceae native coyote thistle Eryngium vaseyi Apiaceae native cow parsnip Heracleum lanatum Apiaceae native floating marsh pennywort Hydrocotyle ranunculoides Apiaceae native caraway-leaved lomatium Lomatium caruifolium var. caruifolium Apiaceae native woolly-fruited lomatium Lomatium dasycarpum dasycarpum Apiaceae native large-fruited lomatium Lomatium macrocarpum Apiaceae native common lomatium Lomatium utriculatum Apiaceae native Pacific oenanthe Oenanthe sarmentosa Apiaceae native 1 Stanford Working Plant List 1/15/08 wood sweet cicely Osmorhiza berteroi Apiaceae native mountain sweet cicely Osmorhiza chilensis Apiaceae native Gairdner's yampah (List 4) Perideridia gairdneri gairdneri Apiaceae
    [Show full text]
  • A List of Grasses and Grasslike Plants of the Oak Openings, Lucas County
    A LIST OF THE GRASSES AND GRASSLIKE PLANTS OF THE OAK OPENINGS, LUCAS COUNTY, OHIO1 NATHAN WILLIAM EASTERLY Department of Biology, Bowling Green State University, Bowling Green, Ohio 4-3403 ABSTRACT This report is the second of a series of articles to be prepared as a second "Flora of the Oak Openings." The study represents a comprehensive survey of members of the Cyperaceae, Gramineae, Juncaceae, Sparganiaceae, and Xyridaceae in the Oak Openings region. Of the 202 species listed in this study, 34 species reported by Moseley in 1928 were not found during the present investigation. Fifty-seven species found by the present investi- gator were not observed or reported by Moseley. Many of these species or varieties are rare and do not represent a stable part of the flora. Changes in species present or in fre- quency of occurrence of species collected by both Moseley and Easterly may be explained mainly by the alteration of habitats as the Oak Openings region becomes increasingly urbanized or suburbanized. Some species have increased in frequency on the floodplain of Swan Creek, in wet ditches and on the banks of the Norfolk and Western Railroad right-of-way, along newly constructed roadsides, or on dry sandy sites. INTRODUCTION The grass family ranks third among the large plant families of the world. The family ranks number one as far as total numbers of plants that cover fields, mead- ows, or roadsides are concerned. No other family is used as extensively to pro- vide food or shelter or to create a beautiful landscape. The sedge family does not fare as well in terms of commercial importance, but the sedges do make avail- able forage and food for wild fowl and they do contribute plant cover in wet areas where other plants would not be as well adapted.
    [Show full text]
  • Avis Et Rapport De L'anses Relatif À La Réalisation D'une Analyse De
    AnalyseMesures de de risques maîtrise relative àde l’ambroisie la brucellose à épis chez lisses (lesAmbrosia bouquetins psilostachya du Bargy DC.) et élaboration de Avis de l’Anses recommandationRapport d’expertise collective de gestion AvisJuillet de l’Anses 2015 Édition scientifique Rapport d’expertise collective Mars 2017 Édition scientifique Analyse de risques relative à l’ambroisie à épis lisses (Ambrosia psilostachya DC.) et élaboration de recommandation de gestion Avis de l’Anses Rapport d’expertise collective Mars 2017 Édition scientifique Avis de l’Anses Saisine n° « 2016-SA-0065 » Le directeur général Maisons-Alfort, le 28 mars 2017 AVIS de l’Agence nationale de sécurité sanitaire de l’alimentation, de l’environnement et du travail relatif à « la réalisation d’une analyse de risques relative à l’ambroisie à épis lisses (Ambrosia psilostachya DC.) et pour l’élaboration de recommandation de gestion » L’Anses met en œuvre une expertise scientifique indépendante et pluraliste. L’Anses contribue principalement à assurer la sécurité sanitaire dans les domaines de l’environnement, du travail et de l’alimentation et à évaluer les risques sanitaires qu’ils peuvent comporter. Elle contribue également à assurer d’une part la protection de la santé et du bien-être des animaux et de la santé des végétaux et d’autre part à l’évaluation des propriétés nutritionnelles des aliments. Elle fournit aux autorités compétentes toutes les informations sur ces risques ainsi que l’expertise et l’appui scientifique technique nécessaires à l’élaboration des dispositions législatives et réglementaires et à la mise en œuvre des mesures de gestion du risque (article L.1313-1 du code de la santé publique).
    [Show full text]
  • Bee-Plant Networks: Structure, Dynamics and the Metacommunity Concept
    Ber. d. Reinh.-Tüxen-Ges. 28, 23-40. Hannover 2016 Bee-plant networks: structure, dynamics and the metacommunity concept – Anselm Kratochwil und Sabrina Krausch, Osnabrück – Abstract Wild bees play an important role within pollinator-plant webs. The structure of such net- works is influenced by the regional species pool. After special filtering processes an actual pool will be established. According to the results of model studies these processes can be elu- cidated, especially for dry sandy grassland habitats. After restoration of specific plant com- munities (which had been developed mainly by inoculation of plant material) in a sandy area which was not or hardly populated by bees before the colonization process of bees proceeded very quickly. Foraging and nesting resources are triggering the bee species composition. Dis- persal and genetic bottlenecks seem to play a minor role. Functional aspects (e.g. number of generalists, specialists and cleptoparasites; body-size distributions) of the bee communities show that ecosystem stabilizing factors may be restored rapidly. Higher wild-bee diversity and higher numbers of specialized species were found at drier plots, e.g. communities of Koelerio-Corynephoretea and Festuco-Brometea. Bee-plant webs are highly complex systems and combine elements of nestedness, modularization and gradients. Beside structural com- plexity bee-plant networks can be characterized as dynamic systems. This is shown by using the metacommunity concept. Zusammenfassung: Wildbienen-Pflanzenarten-Netzwerke: Struktur, Dynamik und das Metacommunity-Konzept. Wildbienen spielen eine wichtige Rolle innerhalb von Bestäuber-Pflanzen-Netzwerken. Ihre Struktur wird vom jeweiligen regionalen Artenpool bestimmt. Nach spezifischen Filter- prozessen bildet sich ein aktueller Artenpool.
    [Show full text]
  • Survey of Critical Biological Resources of Pueblo County, Colorado
    Survey of Critical Biological Resources of Pueblo County, Colorado Colorado Natural Heritage Program Colorado State University 254 General Services Building 8002 Campus Delivery Fort Collins, Colorado 80523-8002 Survey of Critical Biological Resources of Pueblo County, Colorado Prepared for: Pueblo County Planning Department Pueblo, Colorado Prepared by: Susan Spackman Panjabi, Botanist John Sovell, Zoologist Georgia Doyle, Wetland Ecologist Denise Culver, Ecologist Lee Grunau, Conservation Planner May 2003 Colorado Natural Heritage Program Colorado State University 254 General Services Building 8002 Campus Delivery Fort Collins, Colorado 80523-8002 USER’S GUIDE The Survey of Critical Biological Resources of Pueblo County was conducted one year after the Survey of Critical Wetland and Riparian Areas in El Paso and Pueblo Counties. The projects, both conducted by the Colorado Natural Heritage Program, are two distinct projects that are highly integrated with respect to methodology and fieldwork. Both projects utilized the same Natural Heritage methodology that is used throughout the globe, and both searched for and assessed the plants, animals, and plant communities on the Colorado Natural Heritage Program’s list of rare and imperiled elements of biodiversity. Each report prioritizes potential conservation areas based on the relative significance of the biodiversity they support and the urgency for protection of the site. All information explaining Natural Heritage methodology and ranks is repeated in each report, so that each report can stand alone and be used independently of the other. This report, Survey of Critical Biological Resources of Pueblo County, presents all potential conservation areas identified in Pueblo County that support rare and imperiled plants, animals, and significant plant communities, including wetland and riparian areas.
    [Show full text]
  • Butterflies of North Carolina - Twenty-Eighth Approximation 159
    Crystal Skipper Atrytonopsis quinteri 40 n=0 30 M N 20 u m 10 b e 0 r 5 25 15 5 25 15 5 25 15 5 25 15 5 25 15 5 25 15 15 5 25 15 5 25 15 5 25 15 5 25 15 5 25 15 5 25 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec • o 40 • f n=0 = Sighting or Collection 30 P x• = Not seen nor collected F since 1980 l 20 i 5 records / 32 individuals added g 10 to 28th h 0 t 5 25 15 5 25 15 5 25 15 5 25 15 5 25 15 5 25 15 NC counties: 2 or 2% High counts of: 15 5 25 15 5 25 15 5 25 15 5 25 15 5 25 15 5 25 SC counties: 0 or 0% 414 - Carteret - 2019-04-14 D Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec a 40 100 - Carteret - 2001-05-02 t n=123 100 - Carteret - 2003-04-17 e 30 C s 20 10 Status and Rank Earliest date: Carteret 1 Apr 2008 State Global 0 Latest date: Carteret 31 Aug 2004 5 25 15 5 25 15 5 25 15 5 25 15 5 25 15 5 25 15 SR - S1 G1 15 5 25 15 5 25 15 5 25 15 5 25 15 5 25 15 5 25 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Synonym: Atrytonopsis hianna loammi, Atrytonopsis loammi, Atrytonopsis sp.
    [Show full text]