DOCSLIB.ORG

Soil Survey of Guadalupe Mountains National Park, Texas

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Soil Survey of Guadalupe Mountains National Park, Texas United States In cooperation Department of with the Soil Survey of Agriculture United States Department of Guadalupe Mountains Natural Interior Resources National Park Conservation Service, National Park, Texas Service and National Park Texas Service AgriLife Research How To Use This Soil Survey General Soil Map The general soil map, which is a color map, shows the survey area divided into groups of associated soils called general soil map units. This map is useful in planning the use and management of large areas. To find information about your area of interest, locate that area on the map, identify the name of the map unit in the area on the color-coded map legend, then refer to the section General Soil Map Units for a general description of the soils in your area. Detailed Soil Maps The detailed soil maps can be useful in planning the use and management of small areas. To find information about your area of interest, locate that area on the Index to Map Sheets. Locate your area of interest on the map sheet. Note the map unit symbols that are in that area. Go to the Contents, which lists the map units by symbol and name and shows the page where each map unit is described. The Contents shows which table has data on a specific land use for each detailed soil map unit. Also see the Contents for sections of this publication that may address your specific needs. iii This soil survey is a publication of the National Cooperative Soil Survey, a joint effort of the United States Department of Agriculture and other Federal agencies, State agencies including Texas AgriLife Research, and local agencies. The Natural Resources Conservation Service has leadership for the Federal part of the National Cooperative Soil Survey. Major fieldwork for this soil survey was completed in 2010. Soil names and descriptions were approved in 2010. Unless otherwise indicated, statements in this publication refer to conditions in the survey area in 2010. This survey was made cooperatively by the Natural Resources Conservation Service and Texas AgriLife Research. The survey is part of the technical assistance furnished to the National Park Service, Guadalupe Mountains National Park Unit. The proper citation for this soil survey report is as follows: United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, and United States Department of the Interior, National Park Service. 2010. Soil Survey of Guadalupe Mountains National Park, Texas. Soil maps in this survey may be copied without permission. Enlargement of these maps, however, could cause misunderstanding of the detail of mapping. If enlarged, maps do not show the small areas of contrasting soils that could have been shown at a larger scale. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or a part of an individual’s income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-9410 or call (800) 795- 3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. Cover: The cover depicts a typical area of Pinery, Choza, and Altuda soils, 5 to 60 percent slopes, very rocky, on the alluvial fan remnants of the front range in Guadalupe Mountains National Park. Lostpeak-Rock outcrop complex, 40 to 95 percent slopes is on the very steep slopes above the fans. El Capitan Peak is in the background and Manzanita Spring is in the foreground. Additional information about the Nation’s natural resources is available on the Natural Resources Conservation Service homepage on the World Wide Web. The address is http://www.nrcs.usda.gov iv Contents How To Use This Soil Survey ............................................................................... i Foreword ............................................................................................................. vii General Nature of the Survey Area .................................................................. 1 History ......................................................................................................... 2 Agriculture ................................................................................................... 3 Climate ........................................................................................................ 4 How This Survey Was Made ............................................................................ 8 General Soil Map Units ...................................................................................... 11 Soils of the Desert Grassland Vegetative Zone .............................................. 11 1. Chilicotal-Bissett-Chispa-Tenneco ........................................................ 11 Soils of the Desert Shrub Vegetative Zone .................................................... 12 2. Monahans-Corvus-Peligro .................................................................... 13 Soils of the Mixed Conifer Forest Vegetative Zone ........................................ 14 3. Victorio-Lozen-Rock outcrop ................................................................. 14 Soils of the Mixed Prairie Vegetative Zone ..................................................... 14 4. Bonespring-Pinery-Choza-Altuda ......................................................... 16 Soils of the Mountain Savannas Vegetative Zone .......................................... 16 5. Biduya-Desario-Lazarus ....................................................................... 16 Soils of the Mountain Shrub Vegetative Zone ................................................ 17 6. Lostpeak-Rock outcrop ......................................................................... 17 Soils of the Riparian Woodland Vegetative Zone ........................................... 17 7. McKittrick-Riverwash ............................................................................. 18 Detailed Soil Map Units ...................................................................................... 19 BDG—Biduya-Desario-Rock outcrop complex, 10 to 50 percent slopes ....... 20 BRG—Bissett-Rock outcrop complex, 15 to 60 percent slopes ..................... 23 BSG—Bonespring-Rock outcrop complex, 10 to 60 percent slopes .............. 25 CAD—Chispa-Tenneco complex, 2 to 9 percent slopes ................................ 27 CCD—Chilicotal-Chispa complex, 3 to 13 percent slopes ............................. 29 COC—Copia loamy fine sand, 2 to 7 percent slopes ..................................... 31 CPB—Corvus-Peligro complex, 1 to 5 percent slopes ................................... 33 LAD—Lazarus loam, 2 to 9 percent slopes .................................................... 35 LPC—Lark-Peligro complex, 1 to 8 percent slopes ........................................ 37 LRH—Lostpeak-Rock outcrop complex, 40 to 95 percent slopes .................. 39 MCB—McKittrick-Riverwash complex, flooded, 0 to 3 percent slopes ........... 41 MPB—Monahans-Pajarito complex, 0 to 5 percent slopes ............................ 44 PCG—Pinery, Choza, and Altuda soils, 5 to 60 percent slopes, very rocky .................................................................................................. 47 VLG—Victorio-Lozen-Rock outcrop complex, 10 to 60 percent slopes ......... 50 VLH—Victorio-Lozen-Rock outcrop complex, 40 to 95 percent slopes .......... 53 Prime Farmland .................................................................................................. 57 Use and Management of the Soils .................................................................... 59 Interpretive Ratings ......................................................................................... 59 Rating Class Terms ................................................................................... 59 Numerical Ratings ..................................................................................... 59 Land Management .......................................................................................... 60 Land Capability Classification ......................................................................... 61 Ecological Site Descriptions for Guadalupe Mountains National Park ........... 62 v General Description of Vegetation ............................................................ 63 Description of Rangeland and Annual Production Tables ........................ 65 Forest Productivity and Management ....................................................... 65 Rangeland and Forestland Ecological Sites ............................................. 66 LRR D, MLRA 42—Southern Desertic Basins, Plains, and Mountains .......................................................................................... 66 R042XB011NM—Deep Sand .......................................................... 66 R042XB007NM—Gyp Outcrop ....................................................... 67 R042XB006NM—Gyp Upland ........................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Visualizing Texas Parent Materials Julieta Collazo, Jonathan Gross, Cristine L
    Visualizing Texas Parent Materials Julieta Collazo, Jonathan Gross, Cristine L. S. Morgan Agrilife Research, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX Figure 2: INTRODUCTION Water MAJOR LAND RESOURCE AREAS A soil parent material map for Texas was created Wind Blown PARENT MATERIALS OF TEXAS SOIL to further the ISEE2 goal of better visualization Aeolian Sand for teaching soil science. Texas has a diverse Loess depositional history which includes residuum, as Coastal Sediments well as water and wind transported materials Coarse Coastal Sediments (Fig. 1). The most difficultly was found in Fine Coastal Sediments differentiating alluvial sediments in the Coastal Alluvium Plains. While these materials were classified Young Alluvium similarly by the United States Department of Old Alluvium Agriculture, differentiation of the two processes Deltaic Alluvium is important for teaching purposes. Another Lacustrine Alluvium 42 Desertic Basin problem that was encountered in the decision 77 High Plains 85 Grand Prairie Valley Fill Alluvium 78 Central Rolling Red Plains making process was delineating general 86 Blackland Prairie Alluvial Fans 80 Prairies 87 Claypan 81 Edward Plateau categories that are instructive for land use Undifferentiated Residuum 133 Coastal Plain 82 Central Basin 150 Gulf Coast Prairie decisions. Residuum Clastic 83 Rio Grand Plains and Valley 151 Gulf Coast Marshes 84 Cross Timbers Residuum Igneous or Metamorphic 152 Gulf Coast Flatwoods The overall goal of this project was to develop a Residuum Tuff decision tree to convert Official Series Colluvium Figure 3: 1st ORDER CLASSIFICATION Descriptions (OSD) to parent materials, to aid Organic Material teaching, as well as be congruent with Anthropogenic Windblown material, neighboring states and the United States.
    [Show full text]
  • Surficial Geology of Marine Quadrangle
    Introduction Clearing of forests during early European colonization and possibly earlier during 2004b). An electrical earth resistivity study of Neudecker’s Mountain, for example, Stream Valleys References Amerindian civilization centered at the Cahokia Site in western Madison County, led could not resolve specific sand bodies within the mound, although sand found in nearby The Silver Creek valley is filled with fine-grained postglacial stream sediment (Cahokia This map depicts geologic materials found within 5 feet of the ground surface in the to extensive upland erosion and sediment accumulation in creek valleys. Relatively boreholes may be correlatable to the mound. (cross section B-B’; ISGS Groundwater Formation) that overlies coarse-grained glacial stream sediment (Pearl Formation, Berg, R.C., J.P. Kempton, and K. Cartwright, 1984, Potential for Contamination of Marine 7.5-minute Quadrangle, Madison County, southwestern Illinois (fig. 1). The cross recent stream incision into these sediments and older deposits is attributed to large water Section, unpublished data). Other similar but smaller mounds also occur across the undifferentiated). The occurrence of the Pearl Formation (undifferentiated) in Silver Shallow Aquifers in Illinois: Illinois State Geological Survey Circular 532, 30 p. discharges with initially low sediment loads brought about by recent climate changes, quadrangle, but they have not been distinguished here because there is no supporting Creek is evidence that the valley was as a meltwater outlet during the Illinois Episode. sections show the extent of surficial and buried units down to bedrock.This product Fox, J., E.D. McKay, J. Hines, and M.M. Killey, unpublished, Work maps of geology for URFICIAL EOLOGY OF ARINE UADRANGLE land use changes, or both.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 Understanding the Regolith in Tropical and Sub
    UNDERSTANDING THE REGOLITH IN TROPICAL AND SUB-TROPICAL TERRAINS: THE KEY TO EXPLORATION UNDER COVER. C.R.M. Butt Cooperative Research Centre for Landscape Environments and Mineral Exploration CSIRO Exploration and Mining PO Box 1130 Bentley Western Australia 6151 Regolith distribution and characteristics Large areas of the world, especially the largely tropical to sub-tropical zone between latitudes 40º north and south, are characterized by a thick regolith cover. Much of this regolith is residual and consists of intensely weathered bedrock, but there may also be an overlying component of transported material, itself weathered to varying degrees. The regolith is most extensive in continental regions of low to moderate relief, such as the Precambrian shields, and adjacent and overlying Phanerozoic sedimentary basins, of South America, Africa, India, south east Asia and Australia. Remnants are present in some areas of stronger relief, perhaps most significantly in parts of the circum-Pacific belt, where ophiolitic rocks have weathered to form high grade nickel laterites. Commonly, such regolith is absent from tectonically active and mountainous areas. Thick residual regolith is also generally absent from very arid terrains in the tropics and sub-tropics, such as the Sahara and Arabian deserts, although transported materials, including fluvial deposits and dune sands, are widespread. Nevertheless, isolated occurrences of strongly weathered regolith are recorded from these desert regions, either exposed or buried beneath the younger sediments, indicating that it was once more widespread. There is also increasing recognition of the presence of similar regolith, mainly as thick saprolite, in North America and Europe. Much of the residual regolith has broadly lateritic characteristics, with a thick, clay-rich saprolite, generally with an overlying iron and /or aluminium-enriched horizon, although the latter may be only patchily developed or have been removed by later erosion.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 7 – Geomechanics
    Chapter 7 GEOMECHANICS GEOTECHNICAL DESIGN MANUAL January 2019 Geotechnical Design Manual GEOMECHANICS Table of Contents Section Page 7.1 Introduction ....................................................................................................... 7-1 7.2 Geotechnical Design Approach......................................................................... 7-1 7.3 Geotechnical Engineering Quality Control ........................................................ 7-2 7.4 Development Of Subsurface Profiles ................................................................ 7-2 7.5 Site Variability ................................................................................................... 7-2 7.6 Preliminary Geotechnical Subsurface Exploration............................................. 7-3 7.7 Final Geotechnical Subsurface Exploration ...................................................... 7-4 7.8 Field Data Corrections and Normalization ......................................................... 7-4 7.8.1 SPT Corrections .................................................................................... 7-4 7.8.2 CPTu Corrections .................................................................................. 7-7 7.8.3 Correlations for Relative Density From SPT and CPTu ....................... 7-10 7.8.4 Dilatometer Correlation Parameters .................................................... 7-11 7.9 Soil Loading Conditions And Soil Shear Strength Selection ............................ 7-12 7.9.1 Soil Loading .......................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Subsurface Exploration and Geotechnical Engineering Evalution
    SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION AND GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING EVALUTION DeKalb County Fire Station No. 7 Decatur, DeKalb County, Georgia November 23, 2016 Submitted to: DeKalb County Facilities Management Department DeKalb County, Georgia Submitted by: Willmer Engineering Inc. Project No. 71.4175 November 23, 2016 VIA EMAIL Dulce M. Guzman Senior Project Manager Architectural & Engineering Services DeKalb County Facilities Management Department Clark W. Harrison Building 330 W. Ponce de Leon Avenue, 4 th Floor Decatur, Georgia 30030 SUBJECT: Subsurface Exploration and Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation Fire Station No. 7 Decatur, DeKalb County, Georgia Willmer Project No. 71.4175 Dear Ms. Guzman: Willmer Engineering Inc. (Willmer) is pleased to provide this report of subsurface exploration and geotechnical engineering evaluation for the proposed Fire Station No. 7 project located east of the intersection of Columbia Drive and Peachcrest Road in Decatur, DeKalb County, Georgia. This work was performed for DeKalb County under our Master Services Agreement in general accordance with our proposal dated October 6, 2016. The results of our evaluation and our recommendations are summarized in this report. This engineering report is divided into five sections. Section 1 contains the project background information and a summary of the objectives and scope of our work. Summaries of the field exploration and laboratory testing programs are provided in Sections 2 and 3, respectively. Section 4 presents regional geologic conditions and subsurface conditions at the site, and the results of our geotechnical engineering evaluations and our recommendations are presented in Section 5. We greatly appreciate the opportunity to be of service to you on this project. Please contact us if you have any questions concerning this report or require further assistance.
    [Show full text]
  • A Brief Guide to Parent Material and Landforms Developed for the New Mexico Envirothon Introduction
    A Brief Guide to Parent Material and Landforms Developed for the New Mexico Envirothon Logan Peterson, NRCS Introduction When soil scientists make maps of soil, we search above the ground for clues before we dig holes. As explained in “From the Surface Down,” a soil gets its unique properties from the interaction of five major factors: climate, living organisms, landscape position, parent material, and time. Once we learn how to read a landscape, we can identify differences in each of these factors and, thus, predict differences in soil properties. A steep north-facing slope will be cooler and support different vegetation than a steep south- facing slope of the same mountain. Because these two slopes will differ in their landscape position, microclimate, and living organisms, we can expect that they will have different soil properties. As another example, let’s compare two landforms: a mountain slope and a floodplain along a stream. The mountain slope is made up of bedrock which is several million years old, while the floodplain is made up of sediments which were recently deposited by water. The mountain slope is relatively steep, and water readily runs off of it, while the floodplain is flat and often flooded. Lastly, the hillslope hasn’t changed much in shape for several thousand years, while the floodplain was deposited during a heavy rainstorm just thirty years ago. We can see that the soils on these two landforms differ in their parent material, landscape position, and in the amount of time they have had to form. Because of its landscape position, the floodplain soil receives much more water, so it will grow a very different plant community (organisms) than the mountain slope soil.
    [Show full text]
  • Jennings County
    JENNINGS COUNTY. PROF. E. T. COX, State Geologist of Indiana: DEAR SIR :-Agreeable with your letter of instructions, of April 21, 1875, I have closely traced the geological formations of Jennings and Ripley counties, Indiana; observed the character and position of pre-historic mounds;. inquired into the agriCllltural and manufacturing interests, and herewith respectfully submit notes on the same. Yours Truly, WM. W. BORDEN. New Providence, Ind., Jan. 1, 1876. I DESCRIPTION. • Jennings county was organized in 1816, and named in honor of Jonathan Jennings, the first Governor of the. State of Indiana. It is bounded on the north by Barthol­ omew and Decatur counties, east by Ripley and Jefferson, south by Je1Jerlln and Scott, and on the west mainly by Jackson and Bartholomew counties. The east and west sides of the county are nearly parallel, but the north and south borders are very irregular. This county contains 375 square miles, or 240,375 acres. Enumeratfon of chil. dren for school in 1874,3,834. The surface of the county bordering all the streams, is very much broken, while rich JENNINGS COUNTY. 147 alluvial valleys and high table-lands or "flats," form the water-shed between the streams. This county is traversed by a number of water-courses, those in the northeastern part, flowing near the summit of the Lower Silurian rocks, and those on the remaining por­ tion, flowing over the Niagara and Devonian formations. All the streams in the western part of the county, flow from a lower to a higher geological horizon. The principal streams are: Big creek, which washes the county on the southwest, Big and Little Graham, uniting, below San Jacinto, the latter rising east of New Marion, in Ripley county, and the former near Versailles, and the North or West Fork of the Muscatatuck, which unites with the South Fork at Old Vernon.
    [Show full text]
  • Unexpected but Foreseeable Mat Settlements on Piedmont Residuum
    Unexpected but foreseeable mat settlements on Piedmont residuum Paul W. Mayne, Professor, Georgia Institute of Technology, USA ABSTRACT: A large mat foundation was constructed to support a 13-story dormitory on Piedmont residual silty soils in Atlanta, Georgia. Prior to construction, the geotechnical consultant of record estimated maximum expected settlements of the mat on the order of 1.8 inches (46 mm), while the building proceeded to deflect as much as 10 inches (250 mm) at the center and 5 inches (127 mm) at the corners near the end of construction. Details on the case history are reviewed by an outside observer and placed within the context of geotechnical practice. In addition to routine soil borings, the use of enhanced in-situ testing (in this case, flat dilatometer tests) in concert with elastic continuum solutions would have provided calculated values in line with the observed performance. KEYWORDS: foundations, displacements, elasticity, in-situ tests, mats, rafts, settlements. INTRODUCTION In preparation for the 1996 Summer Olympics, the construction of many office and residential buildings were underway in downtown Atlanta in order to accommodate a large number of visiting athletes, participants, and spectators. A site located south of the Olympic Village was to receive four mid-rise buildings that were eventually turned over to Georgia State University (GSU) for use as dormitories. The site was previously occupied by small one- and two-story residential and commercial buildings that were demolished prior to the new construction. Based on the results of soil test borings with standard penetration tests (SPT), the consultant recommended different systems for each of these buildings.
    [Show full text]
  • 222Ke21 LTA: CLIMATE GEOLOGY GEOMORPHOLOGY SOIL
    LTA:222Ke21 NAME: ACRES: SQUARE MILES: Charlesburg Till Plain 70002.367 109.379 DESCRIPTION: The characteristic landform pattern is undulating till plain with drumlins and scattered bedrock knolls. Soils are predominantly well drained loam over calcareous loam till or dolomite. Common habitat types include AFrDeO, AFrDe, AFrDe(Vb), and wetland CLIMATE GEOLOGY CODE PERCENT BEDROCK TYPE DESCRIPTION 86 77 Carbonates 88 10 92 13 AVERAGE DEPTH BEDROCK DEPTH TO BEDROCK DESCRIPTION 5005 Bedrock is between 50 feet and 5 feet of the land surface GEOMORPHOLOGY GEOMORPHOLOGY PROCESS TOPOGRAPHY Till Deposition Undulating SURFACE Drumlin Morain SOIL INFORMATION SOIL ASSOCIATIONS SOIL DESCRIPTION Hochheim-Theresa-Lamartine-Channahan-Whalan-Houghton Well drained, moderately well drained, and somewhat poorly drained loamy and silty soils with a silt loam surface over calcareous loam till or over clay residuum over dolomite bedrock, along with very poorly drained nonacid organic soils. SURFACE TEXTURES GENERAL TEXTURES FAMILY TEXTURES DRAINAGE CLASSES SIL-MK Loamy-Silty-Mucky FIL-FISI-SP WD-MWD-SPD-VPD PARENT MATERIAL Till-Residuum-Organic KOTAR'S HABITAT *Listed in order of probability occurrence, HABITAT 1 HABITAT 2 HABITAT 3 HABITAT 4 HABITAT 5 HABITAT 6 with each having an occurrence of 10% or greater WISCLAND LAND COVER COVER TYPE CLASS ACRES PERCENT Agricultural Land 55153 79 Bare Land 1337 2 Cloud Cover 105 0 Forested Wetland 2542 4 Grassland 1121 2 High Intensity Urban Area 398 1 Low Intensity Urban Area 336 0 Nonforested Wetland 5557 8 Open Water
    [Show full text]
  • Geochemical Exploration in Regolith Dominated Terrains
    Geochemical Exploration in Regolith Dominated Terrains Ravi Anand, Rob Thorne, Walid Salama, Vasek Metelka MINERAL RESOURCES Areas of regolith cover: Issues Large areas of South America, Africa and Australia Limited success because of lack of are covered with regolith. understanding of regolith-landform South America and Africa have suffered under formation and metal dispersion exploration relative to indicative mineral potential. processes in various climatic regimes Regolith may form important sampling media Palaeoclimatic history of Australia, Africa and South America Australia has drifted northwards This resulted in change in climatic conditions from wetter, warmer (tropical) to arid conditions. Tardy and Roquin 1998 Two types of cover: In situ and transported Transported cover In situ regolith . Anand How to describe regolith materials: Developing consistent and uniform terminology of weathering profile Anand and Paine 2002 Anand and Paine 2002 Variable regolith is exposed at landsurface In-situ regolith Transported regolith 2 1 Western Australia landscape 1 1 2 (colluvium, alluvium, Aeolian) Anand and Paine 2002 REGOLITH MAPPING DEM & drainage Landsat TM Aerial photo regolith interp Radiometrics RGB = K, Th, U Total magnetic intensity Cornelius and Wildman 2000 Anand, 2016 Data science in regolith mapping Input bands O.A. (%) K DEM+RAD 89.67 0.86 DEM+RAD+L7 92.87 0.90 DEM + RAD + Landsat 7 ETM+ Fe-rich duricrusts Lower Glacis (partially indurated) DEM + RAD rock outcrop/suboutcrop alluvial sediments Metelka 2014 Factual regolith-landform
    [Show full text]
  • Geothermal Soil Ecology in Yellowstone National Park
    GEOTHERMAL SOIL ECOLOGY IN YELLOWSTONE NATIONAL PARK by James Francis Meadow A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Land Resources and Environmental Sciences MONTANA STATE UNIVERSITY Bozeman, Montana April 2012 ©COPYRIGHT by James Francis Meadow 2012 All Rights Reserved ii APPROVAL of a dissertation submitted by James Francis Meadow This dissertation has been read by each member of the dissertation committee and has been found to be satisfactory regarding content, English usage, format, citations, bibliographic style, and consistency, and is ready for submission to The Graduate School. Dr. Catherine A. Zabinski Approved for the Department of Land Resources and Environmental Sciences Dr. Tracy M. Sterling Approved for the The Graduate School Dr. Carl A. Fox iii STATEMENT OF PERMISSION TO USE In presenting this dissertation in partial fulfillment of the requirements for a doctoral degree at Montana State University, I agree that the Library shall make it available to borrowers under rules of the Library. I further agree that copying of this dissertation is allowable only for scholarly purposes, consistent with \fair use" as prescribed in the U. S. Copyright Law. Requests for extensive copying or reproduction of this dissertation should be referred to ProQuest Information and Learning, 300 North Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48106, to whom I have granted \the exclusive right to reproduce and distribute my dissertation in and from microform along with the non-exclusive right to reproduce and distribute my abstract in any format in whole or in part." James Francis Meadow April 2012 iv ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Funding was provided by a GK-12 Graduate Fellowship from the NSF and the Big Sky Institute, a Boyd Evison Graduate Fellowship from the Grand Teton Association, a dissertation fellowship from the Institute on Ecosystems, and also from a USDA NRICG to Dr.
    [Show full text]
  • Endangered, Threatened, and Special Concern Plants, Animals, and Natural Communities of Kentucky with Habitat Description
    ENDANGERED, THREATENED, AND SPECIAL CONCERN PLANTS, ANIMALS, AND NATURAL COMMUNITIES OF KENTUCKY WITH HABITAT DESCRIPTION KENTUCKY STATE NATURE PRESERVES COMMISSION 801 TETON TRAIL FRANKFORT, KY 40601 (502) 573-2886 (phone) (502) 573-2355 (fax) www.naturepreserves.ky.gov Data Current as of December 2015 Kentucky State Nature Preserves Commission Key for County List Report STATUS KSNPC: Kentucky State Nature Preserves Commission status: N or blank = none E = endangered T = threatened S = special concern H = historic X = extirpated USESA: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service status: blank = none C = candidate LT = listed as threatened LE = listed as endangered SOMC = Species of Management Concern RANKS GRANK: Estimate of element abundance on a global scale: G1 = Critically imperiled GU = Unrankable G2 = Imperiled G#? = Inexact rank (e.g. G2?) G3 = Vulnerable G#Q = Questionable taxonomy G4 = Apparently secure G#T# = Infraspecific taxa (Subspecies and variety abundances are coded with a 'T' suffix; the 'G' G5 = Secure portion of the rank then refers to the entire species) GH = Historic, possibly extinct GNR = Unranked GX = Presumed extinct GNA = Not applicable SRANK: Estimate of element abundance in Kentucky: S1 = Critically imperiled SU = Unrankable Migratory species may have separate ranks for different S2 = Imperiled S#? = Inexact rank (e.g. G2?) population segments (e.g. S1B, S2N, S4M): S3 = Vulnerable S#Q = Questionable taxonomy S#B = Rank of breeding population S4 = Apparently secure S#T# = Infraspecific taxa S#N = Rank of non-breeding population S5 = Secure SNR = Unranked S#M = Rank of transient population SH = Historic, possibly extirpated SNA = Not applicable SX = Presumed extirpated COUNT DATA FIELDS # OF OCCURRENCES: Number of occurrences of a particular element from a county.
    [Show full text]