DOCSLIB.ORG

LCR MSCP Species Accounts, 2008

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
LCR MSCP Species Accounts, 2008 Lower Colorado River Multi-Species Conservation Program Steering Committee Members Federal Participant Group California Participant Group Bureau of Reclamation California Department of Fish and Game U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service City of Needles National Park Service Coachella Valley Water District Bureau of Land Management Colorado River Board of California Bureau of Indian Affairs Bard Water District Western Area Power Administration Imperial Irrigation District Los Angeles Department of Water and Power Palo Verde Irrigation District Arizona Participant Group San Diego County Water Authority Southern California Edison Company Arizona Department of Water Resources Southern California Public Power Authority Arizona Electric Power Cooperative, Inc. The Metropolitan Water District of Southern Arizona Game and Fish Department California Arizona Power Authority Central Arizona Water Conservation District Cibola Valley Irrigation and Drainage District Nevada Participant Group City of Bullhead City City of Lake Havasu City Colorado River Commission of Nevada City of Mesa Nevada Department of Wildlife City of Somerton Southern Nevada Water Authority City of Yuma Colorado River Commission Power Users Electrical District No. 3, Pinal County, Arizona Basic Water Company Golden Shores Water Conservation District Mohave County Water Authority Mohave Valley Irrigation and Drainage District Native American Participant Group Mohave Water Conservation District North Gila Valley Irrigation and Drainage District Hualapai Tribe Town of Fredonia Colorado River Indian Tribes Town of Thatcher The Cocopah Indian Tribe Town of Wickenburg Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement and Power District Unit “B” Irrigation and Drainage District Conservation Participant Group Wellton-Mohawk Irrigation and Drainage District Yuma County Water Users’ Association Ducks Unlimited Yuma Irrigation District Lower Colorado River RC&D Area, Inc. Yuma Mesa Irrigation and Drainage District Other Interested Parties Participant Group QuadState County Government Coalition Desert Wildlife Unlimited 2 Species Accounts for the Lower Colorado River Multi-Species Conservation Program Lower Colorado River Multi-Species Conservation Program Bureau of Reclamation Lower Colorado Region Boulder City, Nevada http://www.lcrmscp.gov September 2008 3 CONTENTS INTRODUCTION 5 THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES 7 YUMA CLAPPER RAIL 8 SOUTHWESTERN WILLOW FLYCATCHER 22 DESERT TORTOISE MOHAVE POPULATION 47 BONYTAIL 65 RAZORBACK SUCKER 74 OTHER COVERED SPECIES 97 WESTERN RED BAT 98 WESTERN YELLOW BAT 102 COLORADO RIVER COTTON RAT 114 YUMA HISPID COTTON RAT 120 LEAST BITTERN 126 CALIFORNIA BLACK RAIL 137 YELLOW-BILLED CUCKOO 150 ELF OWL 168 GILDED FLICKER 188 GILA WOODPECKER 198 VERMILION FLYCATCHER 208 ARIZONA BELL’S VIREO 218 SONORAN YELLOW WARBLER 226 SUMMER TANAGER 235 FLAT-TAILED HORNED LIZARD 243 RELICT LEOPARD FROG 264 FLANNELMOUTH SUCKER 278 MACNEILL’S SOOTYWING SKIPPER 290 STICKY BUCKWHEAT 294 THREECORNER MILKVETCH 297 EVALUATION SPECIES 300 DESERT POCKET MOUSE 301 CALIFORNIA LEAF-NOSED BAT 306 PALE TOWNSEND’S BIG-EARED BAT 315 COLORADO RIVER TOAD 330 LOWLAND LEOPARD FROG 343 4 INTRODUCTION The Lower Colorado River Multi-Species Conservation Program (LCR MSCP) is a multi-stakeholder Federal and non-Federal partnership responding to the need to balance the use of lower Colorado River (LCR) water resources and the conservation of native species and their habitats in compliance with the Endangered Species Act. This is a long- term (50-year) plan to conserve at least 26 species along the LCR from Lake Mead to the Southerly International Boundary with Mexico through the implementation of a Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP)1. Most of the covered species are state and/or Federally listed threatened and endangered species. The Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) is the entity responsible for implementing the LCR MSCP over the 50-year term of the program. A Steering Committee, currently consisting of 54 entities, has been formed as described in the LCR MSCP Funding and Management Agreement (FMA), to provide input and oversight functions in support of LCR MSCP implementation. Reclamation has developed species accounts for 22 covered species and 5 evaluation species listed in the HCP that utilize terrestrial, marsh, and riparian habitats. Bio-West, Inc., developed four species accounts for the covered native fish species (Bio-West, Inc. 2005)2. A species account was not developed for humpback chub as there is neither critical habitat nor occupied habitat for this species within the LCR MSCP program area. These species accounts were based on extensive literature searches for each species and include the latest and best scientific information. These accounts include current knowledge about each species’ legal status, life history, distribution, habitat requirements, behavior, and LCR MSCP Conservation Measures as it relates to the creation and management of their habitats. Only the specific Conservation Measures for each particular species were included. For a complete listing of LCR MSCP Conservation Measures, please refer to either the LCR MSCP HCP1 or the Lower Colorado River Multi-Species Conservation Program Draft Final Science Strategy3. These species accounts were developed to quantify existing knowledge for each species and to identify information gaps that, if addressed, would better inform the creation and management of covered species habitats, enabling the successful completion of Conservation Measures. LCR MSCP research and monitoring data needs have been identified for each covered and evaluation species, where appropriate. These needs will be prioritized in a 5-year plan and will be completed according to importance, urgency, and cost. Other potential research and monitoring opportunities, either identified through this process or by other scientists or conservation programs, that are outside of the scope and purpose of the LCR MSCP have also been listed to further non-LCR MSCP conservation activities. Species accounts will be periodically updated, when appropriate, as new information is collected through monitoring and research conducted by Reclamation and others through the adaptive management process. For more information regarding the adaptive management process, refer to the Lower Colorado River Multi-Species Conservation Program Draft Final Science Strategy3. 5 1. Lower Colorado River Multi-Species Conservation Program. 2004. Lower Colorado River Multi-Species Conservation Program, Volume II: Habitat Conservation Plan. Final. December 17. Available at: http://www.lcrmscp.gov. 2. Bio-West, Inc. 2005. Colorado River Backwaters Enhancement, Species Profiles Report. Submitted to Bureau of Reclamation, Lower Colorado Region, Boulder City, NV. Logan, UT. 102 p. 3. Lower Colorado River Multi-Species Conservation Program. 2006. Lower Colorado River Multi-Species Conservation Program Draft Final Science Strategy. Bureau of Reclamation, Lower Colorado Region, Boulder City, NV. Available at http://www.lcrmscp.gov. 6 THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES 7 YUMA CLAPPER RAIL (Rallus longirostris yumanensis) Introduction Clapper rails (Rallus longirostris) are found from North America to South America and are classified into three groups: obsoletus, crepitans, and longirostris. The Yuma clapper rail (Rallus longirostris yumanensis Dickey) is one of four subspecies of the obsoletus group (Eddleman and Conway 1998). It was initially designated as a separate species, Rallus yumanensis Dickey (Bent 1926). The four species of clapper rails found along the west coast of North America, R. obsoletus, R. levipes, R. beldingi, and R. yumanensis, were later reclassified into subspecies (Van Rossem, 1929). The clapper rail primarily inhabits salt marshes and mangrove swamps throughout its range; the Yuma clapper rail inhabits freshwater marshes in the southwestern United States and northern Mexico (Eddleman and Conway 1998, Hinojosa-Huerta et al. 2001). It is distinguished by paler, duller underparts and grayish edging of dorsal feathers. The cheeks and postoculars are bluish or ashy gray (Eddleman and Conway 1998). Legal Status The Yuma clapper rail was listed as endangered on 11 March 1967 by the Secretary of Interior, pursuant to the Endangered Species Act of 1966 (U.S. Dept. of Interior 1968). California originally listed the Yuma clapper rail as endangered in 1971; relisted it as rare in 1978, and currently lists it as threatened (California Dept. of Fish and Game 2006). In 1978, Arizona classified the Yuma clapper rail as a species of special concern, similar to the Federal status of endangered (Arizona Game and Fish Dept. 2006). Nevada classifies the Yuma clapper rail as endangered as per Nevada Administrative Code 503.050. It is listed as threatened in Mexico (Hinojosa-Huerta et al. 2004). Distribution Historical Range Grinnell (1914) did not encounter the rail during an expedition/exploration from Needles, California, to Yuma, Arizona, in 1910 (Rosenberg et al. 1991). The Yuma clapper rail was found along the lower Colorado River after constructions of dams and the subsequent creation of marsh habitat (Ohmart and Smith 1973). The species was first described in 1923 from one of three rails collected in 1921 near Laguna Dam, north of Yuma, Arizona (Dickey 1923). Naturalists sighted Yuma clapper rails farther north several years after Parker, Imperial, and Headgate Rock dams were completed in 1938, 1939, and 1942, respectively (Monson 1964, Phillips et al. 1964, Welch 1966, Ohmart and Smith 1973).
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Based on Comparative Morphological Data AF Emel'yanov Transactions of T
    The phylogeny of the Cicadina (Homoptera, Cicadina) based on comparative morphological data A.F. Emel’yanov Transactions of the All-Union Entomological Society Morphological principles of insect phylogeny The phylogenetic relationships of the principal groups of cicadine* insects have been considered on more than one occasion, commencing with Osborn (1895). Some phylogenetic schemes have been based only on data relating to contemporary cicadines, i.e. predominantly on comparative morphological data (Kirkaldy, 1910; Pruthi, 1925; Spooner, 1939; Kramer, 1950; Evans, 1963; Qadri, 1967; Hamilton, 1981; Savinov, 1984a), while others have been constructed with consideration given to paleontological material (Handlirsch, 1908; Tillyard, 1919; Shcherbakov, 1984). As the most primitive group of the cicadines have been considered either the Fulgoroidea (Kirkaldy, 1910; Evans, 1963), mainly because they possess a small clypeus, or the cicadas (Osborn, 1895; Savinov, 1984), mainly because they do not jump. In some schemes even the monophyletism of the cicadines has been denied (Handlirsch, 1908; Pruthi, 1925; Spooner, 1939; Hamilton, 1981), or more precisely in these schemes the Sternorrhyncha were entirely or partially depicted between the Fulgoroidea and the other cicadines. In such schemes in which the Fulgoroidea were accepted as an independent group, among the remaining cicadines the cicadas were depicted as branching out first (Kirkaldy, 1910; Hamilton, 1981; Savinov, 1984a), while the Cercopoidea and Cicadelloidea separated out last, and in the most widely acknowledged systematic scheme of Evans (1946b**) the last two superfamilies, as the Cicadellomorpha, were contrasted to the Cicadomorpha and the Fulgoromorpha. At the present time, however, the view affirming the equivalence of the four contemporary superfamilies and the absence of a closer relationship between the Cercopoidea and Cicadelloidea (Evans, 1963; Emel’yanov, 1977) is gaining ground.
    [Show full text]
  • Competitive Renewable Energy Zones
    From: Megan Lawson To: Gungle, Ashley Cc: Hingtgen, Robert J; Patrick BROWN ([email protected]) ([email protected]) Subject: RE: Soitech follow up Date: Friday, October 04, 2013 2:34:46 PM Attachments: image001.png CA_CREZ_Conceptual_Transmission_Segments_Phase_2B_final.pdf Ashley, Here is our response to Mr. Silver's e-mail: Mr. Silver references “Competitive Renewable Energy Zones” (CREZs), which were part of the California Energy Commission’s (CEC) “Renewable Energy Transmission Initiative” (RETI) between 2008 and 2011. From what we can tell, the CEC’s RETI process appears to have stalled in early 2011, and now appears to have been set aside by the Desert Renewable Energy Conservation Plan (DRECP) process. http://www.energy.ca.gov/reti/. As you know, we do not need to address the DRECP in the PEIR because the project areas are located entirely outside of the DRECP area. For the County’s reference, the RETI process identified necessary major updates to the California transmission system to access CREZs. The process identified CREZs that could be developed in the most cost effective and environmentally benign manner. Potential renewable energy projects were grouped into CREZs based on geographic proximity. The CREZ implicated in southern San Diego County is CREZ 27, San Diego South. Each CREZ was developed based on existing and proposed projects (e.g., those projects with a PPA, or PPA pending) and other projects or resources with a high potential of being developed. Because the Soitec projects were not yet proposed at the time of CREZ development (2008- 2010), Soitec’s projects were not accounted for in the CREZ, nor does CREZ 27 account for areas of high solar potential or the most cost-effective or environmentally-benign sites for future solar development.
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix F3 Rare Plant Survey Report
    Appendix F3 Rare Plant Survey Report Draft CADIZ VALLEY WATER CONSERVATION, RECOVERY, AND STORAGE PROJECT Rare Plant Survey Report Prepared for May 2011 Santa Margarita Water District Draft CADIZ VALLEY WATER CONSERVATION, RECOVERY, AND STORAGE PROJECT Rare Plant Survey Report Prepared for May 2011 Santa Margarita Water District 626 Wilshire Boulevard Suite 1100 Los Angeles, CA 90017 213.599.4300 www.esassoc.com Oakland Olympia Petaluma Portland Sacramento San Diego San Francisco Seattle Tampa Woodland Hills D210324 TABLE OF CONTENTS Cadiz Valley Water Conservation, Recovery, and Storage Project: Rare Plant Survey Report Page Summary ............................................................................................................................... 1 Introduction ..........................................................................................................................2 Objective .......................................................................................................................... 2 Project Location and Description .....................................................................................2 Setting ................................................................................................................................... 5 Climate ............................................................................................................................. 5 Topography and Soils ......................................................................................................5
    [Show full text]
  • VGP) Version 2/5/2009
    Vessel General Permit (VGP) Version 2/5/2009 United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) VESSEL GENERAL PERMIT FOR DISCHARGES INCIDENTAL TO THE NORMAL OPERATION OF VESSELS (VGP) AUTHORIZATION TO DISCHARGE UNDER THE NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM In compliance with the provisions of the Clean Water Act (CWA), as amended (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), any owner or operator of a vessel being operated in a capacity as a means of transportation who: • Is eligible for permit coverage under Part 1.2; • If required by Part 1.5.1, submits a complete and accurate Notice of Intent (NOI) is authorized to discharge in accordance with the requirements of this permit. General effluent limits for all eligible vessels are given in Part 2. Further vessel class or type specific requirements are given in Part 5 for select vessels and apply in addition to any general effluent limits in Part 2. Specific requirements that apply in individual States and Indian Country Lands are found in Part 6. Definitions of permit-specific terms used in this permit are provided in Appendix A. This permit becomes effective on December 19, 2008 for all jurisdictions except Alaska and Hawaii. This permit and the authorization to discharge expire at midnight, December 19, 2013 i Vessel General Permit (VGP) Version 2/5/2009 Signed and issued this 18th day of December, 2008 William K. Honker, Acting Director Robert W. Varney, Water Quality Protection Division, EPA Region Regional Administrator, EPA Region 1 6 Signed and issued this 18th day of December, 2008 Signed and issued this 18th day of December, Barbara A.
    [Show full text]
  • Medicinal Plants Used by the Tamang Community in the Makawanpur
    Luitel et al. Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine 2014, 10:5 http://www.ethnobiomed.com/content/10/1/5 JOURNAL OF ETHNOBIOLOGY AND ETHNOMEDICINE RESEARCH Open Access Medicinal plants used by the Tamang community in the Makawanpur district of central Nepal Dol Raj Luitel1*, Maan B Rokaya2,3*, Binu Timsina3,4 and Zuzana Münzbergová2,4 Abstract Background: We can conserve cultural heritage and gain extensive knowledge of plant species with pharmacological potential to cure simple to life-threatening diseases by studying the use of plants in indigenous communities. Therefore, it is important to conduct ethnobotanical studies in indigenous communities and to validate the reported uses of plants by comparing ethnobotanical studies with phytochemical and pharmacological studies. Materials and methods: This study was conducted in a Tamang community dwelling in the Makawanpur district of central Nepal. We used semi-structured and structured questionnaires during interviews to collect information. We compared use reports with available phytochemical and pharmacological studies for validation. Results: A total of 161 plant species belonging to 86 families and 144 genera to cure 89 human ailments were documented. Although 68 plant species were cited as medicinal in previous studies, 55 different uses described by the Tamang people were not found in any of the compared studies. Traditional uses for 60 plant species were consistent with pharmacological and phytochemical studies. Conclusions: The Tamang people in Makawanpur are rich in ethnopharmacological understanding. The present study highlights important medicinal plant species by validating their traditional uses. Different plant species can improve local economies through proper harvesting, adequate management and development of modern techniques to maximize their use.
    [Show full text]
  • Nutritional Ecology of the Carpenter Ant Camponotus Pennsylvanicus (De Geer): Macronutrient Preference and Particle Consumption
    Nutritional Ecology of the Carpenter Ant Camponotus pennsylvanicus (De Geer): Macronutrient Preference and Particle Consumption Colleen A. Cannon Dissertation submitted to the Faculty of the Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Entomology Richard D. Fell, Chairman Jeffrey R. Bloomquist Richard E. Keyel Charles Kugler Donald E. Mullins June 12, 1998 Blacksburg, Virginia Keywords: diet, feeding behavior, food, foraging, Formicidae Copyright 1998, Colleen A. Cannon Nutritional Ecology of the Carpenter Ant Camponotus pennsylvanicus (De Geer): Macronutrient Preference and Particle Consumption Colleen A. Cannon (ABSTRACT) The nutritional ecology of the black carpenter ant, Camponotus pennsylvanicus (De Geer) was investigated by examining macronutrient preference and particle consumption in foraging workers. The crops of foragers collected in the field were analyzed for macronutrient content at two-week intervals through the active season. Choice tests were conducted at similar intervals during the active season to determine preference within and between macronutrient groups. Isolated individuals and small social groups were fed fluorescent microspheres in the laboratory to establish the fate of particles ingested by workers of both castes. Under natural conditions, foragers chiefly collected carbohydrate and nitrogenous material. Carbohydrate predominated in the crop and consisted largely of simple sugars. A small amount of glycogen was present. Carbohydrate levels did not vary with time. Lipid levels in the crop were quite low. The level of nitrogen compounds in the crop was approximately half that of carbohydrate, and exhibited seasonal dependence. Peaks in nitrogen foraging occurred in June and September, months associated with the completion of brood rearing in Camponotus.
    [Show full text]
  • Nest-Site Selection by Western Screech-Owls in the Sonoran Desert, Arizona
    Western North American Naturalist Volume 63 Number 4 Article 16 12-3-2003 Nest-site selection by Western Screech-Owls in the Sonoran Desert, Arizona Paul C. Hardy University of Arizona, Tucson Michael L. Morrison University of California, Bishop Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/wnan Recommended Citation Hardy, Paul C. and Morrison, Michael L. (2003) "Nest-site selection by Western Screech-Owls in the Sonoran Desert, Arizona," Western North American Naturalist: Vol. 63 : No. 4 , Article 16. Available at: https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/wnan/vol63/iss4/16 This Note 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 Western North American Naturalist by an authorized editor of BYU ScholarsArchive. For more information, please contact [email protected], [email protected]. Western North American Naturalist 63(4), ©2003, pp. 533-537 NEST~SITE SELECTION BY WESTERN SCREECH~OWLS IN THE SONORAN DESERT, ARIZONA Paul C. Hardyl,2 and Michael L. Morrison3 Key words: Gila Woodpecker, Gilded Flicker, nest-site selection, Otus kennicottii, saguaro cacti, Sonoran Desert, West­ ern Screech~Owl. The Western ScreecbOwl (Otus kennicottii) valley includes the creosote (Larrea triden­ is a small, nocturnal, secondary caVity-nesting tata)~white bursage (Ambrosia dumosa) series, bird that is a year-round resident throughout and in runnels and washes, the mixed-scrub much of western North America and Mexico series (Turner and Brown 1994). Temperatures (Marshall 1957, Phillips et al. 1964, AOU 1983, for the Arizona Upland and Lower Colorado Johnsgard 1988, Cannings and Angell 2001).
    [Show full text]
  • ON 1196 NEW.Fm
    SHORT COMMUNICATIONS ORNITOLOGIA NEOTROPICAL 25: 237–243, 2014 © The Neotropical Ornithological Society NON-RANDOM ORIENTATION IN WOODPECKER CAVITY ENTRANCES IN A TROPICAL RAIN FOREST Daniel Rico1 & Luis Sandoval2,3 1The University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Lincoln, Nebraska. 2Department of Biological Sciences, University of Windsor, 401 Sunset Avenue, Windsor, ON, Canada, N9B3P4. 3Escuela de Biología, Universidad de Costa Rica, San Pedro, San José, Costa Rica, CP 2090. E-mail: [email protected] Orientación no al azar de las entradas de las cavidades de carpinteros en un bosque tropical. Key words: Pale-billed Woodpecker, Campephilus guatemalensis, Chestnut-colored Woodpecker, Celeus castaneus, Lineated Woodpecker, Dryocopus lineatus, Black-cheeked Woodpecker, Melanerpes pucherani, Costa Rica, Picidae. INTRODUCTION tics such as vegetation coverage of the nesting substrate, surrounding vegetation, and forest Nest site selection play’s one of the main roles age (Aitken et al. 2002, Adkins Giese & Cuth- in the breeding success of birds, because this bert 2003, Sandoval & Barrantes 2006). Nest selection influences the survival of eggs, orientation also plays an important role in the chicks, and adults by inducing variables such breeding success of woodpeckers, because the as the microclimatic conditions of the nest orientation positively influences the microcli- and probability of being detected by preda- mate conditions inside the nest cavity (Hooge tors (Viñuela & Sunyer 1992). Although et al. 1999, Wiebe 2001), by reducing the woodpecker nest site selections are well estab- exposure to direct wind currents, rainfalls, lished, the majority of this information is and/or extreme temperatures (Ardia et al. based on temperate forest species and com- 2006). Cavity entrance orientation showed munities (Newton 1998, Cornelius et al.
    [Show full text]
  • Missouri State Wildlife Action Plan Missouri Department of Conservation Conserving Healthy Fish, Forests, and Wildlife 2015
    Missouri State Wildlife Action Plan Missouri Department of Conservation CONSERVING HEALTHY FISH, FORESTS, AND WILDLIFE 2015 Missouri State Wildlife Action Plan 2015 Missouri is a national leader in fish, forest, and wildlife conservation due to Missouri citizens’ unique and proactive support of conservation efforts. The Conservation Department continues to build on our 79- year legacy of citizen-led conservation by outlining strategic priorities for the future to help us successfully manage fish, forest, and wildlife. Each of these priorities ties directly back to the heart of our mission: to manage and protect the fish, forest, and wildlife resources of the state and to provide opportunities for all citizens to use, enjoy, and learn about those resources. - Robert L. Ziehmer, Director Missouri Department of Conservation Missouri State Wildlife Action Plan 2015 FOREWORD issouri supports an abundant natural heri- examples of the state’s original natural communities tage, ranking 21st in the nation in terms of and outstanding biological diversity. The Depart- Mits numbers of native animal and plant spe- ment’s science-based efforts, aimed at understand- cies. There are over 180 native fish species, includ- ing life-history needs and habitat system dynamics, ing the endemic Niangua darter, that ply the state’s have benefited a variety of Missouri species, includ- aquatic habitats. More than 100 species of native ing recovery efforts of the American burying beetle, amphibians and reptiles occur in a myriad of habitats Ozark hellbender, eastern hellbender, eastern collared from mountain-top glades to lowland swamps. Mis- lizard, prairie massasauga rattlesnake, greater prai- souri supports nationally significant river and stream rie-chicken, bald eagle, peregrine falcon, pallid and systems, some of the largest forested tracts left in the lake sturgeons, Niangua darter, Topeka shiner, Virgin- Midwest, a high density of cave and karst features, ia sneezeweed, geocarpon, and Missouri bladderpod.
    [Show full text]
  • Landbird Monitoring in the Sonoran Desert Network 2012 Annual Report
    National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior Natural Resource Stewardship and Science Landbird Monitoring in the Sonoran Desert Network 2012 Annual Report Natural Resource Technical Report NPS/SODN/NRTR—2013/744 ON THE COVER Hooded Oriole (Icterus cucullatus). Photo by Moez Ali. Landbird Monitoring in the Sonoran Desert Network 2012 Annual Report Natural Resource Technical Report NPS/SODN/NRTR—2013/744 Authors Moez Ali Rocky Mountain Bird Observatory 230 Cherry Street, Suite 150 Fort Collins, Colorado 80521 Kristen Beaupré National Park Service Sonoran Desert Network 7660 E. Broadway Blvd, Suite 303 Tucson, Arizona 85710 Patricia Valentine-Darby University of West Florida Department of Biology 11000 University Parkway Pensacola, Florida 32514 Chris White Rocky Mountain Bird Observatory 230 Cherry Street, Suite 150 Fort Collins, Colorado 80521 Project Contact Robert E. Bennetts National Park Service Southern Plains Network Capulin Volcano National Monument PO Box 40 Des Moines, New Mexico 88418 May 2013 U.S. Department of the Interior National Park Service Natural Resource Stewardship and Science Fort Collins, Colorado The National Park Service, Natural Resource Stewardship and Science office in Fort Collins, Colora- do, publishes a range of reports that address natural resource topics. These reports are of interest and applicability to a broad audience in the National Park Service and others in natural resource manage- ment, including scientists, conservation and environmental constituencies, and the public. The Natural Resource Technical Report Series is used to disseminate 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 mission.
    [Show full text]
  • Wilderness Study Areas
    I ___- .-ll..l .“..l..““l.--..- I. _.^.___” _^.__.._._ - ._____.-.-.. ------ FEDERAL LAND M.ANAGEMENT Status and Uses of Wilderness Study Areas I 150156 RESTRICTED--Not to be released outside the General Accounting Wice unless specifically approved by the Office of Congressional Relations. ssBO4’8 RELEASED ---- ---. - (;Ao/li:( ‘I:I)-!L~-l~~lL - United States General Accounting OfTice GAO Washington, D.C. 20548 Resources, Community, and Economic Development Division B-262989 September 23,1993 The Honorable Bruce F. Vento Chairman, Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests, and Public Lands Committee on Natural Resources House of Representatives Dear Mr. Chairman: Concerned about alleged degradation of areas being considered for possible inclusion in the National Wilderness Preservation System (wilderness study areas), you requested that we provide you with information on the types and effects of activities in these study areas. As agreed with your office, we gathered information on areas managed by two agencies: the Department of the Interior’s Bureau of Land Management (BLN) and the Department of Agriculture’s Forest Service. Specifically, this report provides information on (1) legislative guidance and the agency policies governing wilderness study area management, (2) the various activities and uses occurring in the agencies’ study areas, (3) the ways these activities and uses affect the areas, and (4) agency actions to monitor and restrict these uses and to repair damage resulting from them. Appendixes I and II provide data on the number, acreage, and locations of wilderness study areas managed by BLM and the Forest Service, as well as data on the types of uses occurring in the areas.
    [Show full text]
  • Pdf Clickbook Booklet
    Checklist of the Vascular Flora of Plum Canyon, Anza-Borrego Desert State Park # Family Scientific Name (*) Common Name #V #Pls Lycopods 1 Selagi Selaginella bigelovii Bigelow's spike-moss 99 2 Selagi Selaginella eremophila desert spike-moss 99 Ferns 3 Pterid Cheilanthes covillei beady lipfern 2 13 4 Pterid Cheilanthes parryi woolly lipfern 5 99 5 Pterid Cheilanthes viscida sticky lipfern 1 6 Pterid Notholaena californica ssp. californica^ California cloak fern 1 7 Pterid Pellaea mucronata var. mucronata bird's-foot fern 1 Gymnosperms 8 Cupres Juniperus californica California juniper 1 99 9 Ephedr Ephedra aspera Mormon tea 2 99 10 Ephedr Ephedra californica desert tea 2 Eudicots 11 Acanth Carlowrightia arizonica Arizona carlowrightia 15 12 Acanth Justicia californica chuparosa 7 99 13 Amaran Amaranthus fimbriatus fringed amaranth 99 14 Apiace Apiastrum angustifolium wild celery 2 15 Apiace Lomatium mohavense Mojave lomatium 8 16 Apocyn Matelea parvifolia spearleaf 1 16 Acamptopappus sphaerocephalus var. 17 Astera goldenhead 1 sphaerocephalus 18 Astera Adenophyllum porophylloides San Felipe dogweed 2 99 19 Astera Ambrosia dumosa burroweed 1 99 20 Astera Ambrosia salsola var. salsola cheesebush^ 1 99 21 Astera Artemisia ludoviciana ssp. albula white mugwort 25 22 Astera Baccharis brachyphylla short-leaved baccharis 70 23 Astera Bahiopsis parishii Parish's viguiera 2 99 24 Astera Bebbia juncea var. aspera sweetbush 1 99 California spear-leaved 25 Astera Brickellia atractyloides var. arguta 11 brickellia 26 Astera Brickellia frutescens shrubby brickellia 1 40 27 Astera Chaenactis carphoclinia var. carphoclinia pebble pincushion 5 28 Astera Chaenactis fremontii Fremont pincushion 1 99 29 Astera Encelia farinosa brittlebush 1 99 30 Astera Ericameria brachylepis boundary goldenbush^ 99 31 Astera Ericameria paniculata blackbanded rabbitbrush 20 32 Astera Eriophyllum wallacei var.
    [Show full text]