DOCSLIB.ORG

Environmental Assessment

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Environmental Assessment ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT DESIGNATION OF CRITICAL HABITAT FOR IPOMOPSIS POLYANTHA (PAGOSA SKYROCKET), PENSTEMON DEBILIS (PARACHUTE BEARDTONGUE), AND PHACELIA SUBMUTICA (DEBEQUE PHACELIA) IN COLORADO Prepared by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Western Colorado Ecological Services Field Office Grand Junction, Colorado July 2012 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................................4 1.0 PURPOSE OF THE ACTION ...........................................................................................................4 2.0 NEED FOR THE ACTION ...............................................................................................................4 2.1 Background – Ipomopsis polyantha...........................................................................................5 Species Description ....................................................................................................................5 Geographic Range ......................................................................................................................6 Ecology and Life History ...........................................................................................................6 Habitat ........................................................................................................................................6 Threats........................................................................................................................................8 2.2 Background – Penstemon debilis .............................................................................................11 Species Description ..................................................................................................................11 Geographic Range ....................................................................................................................11 Ecology and Life History .........................................................................................................11 Habitat ......................................................................................................................................12 Threats......................................................................................................................................13 2.3 Background – Phacelia submutica ..........................................................................................18 Species Description ..................................................................................................................18 Geographic Range ....................................................................................................................18 Ecology and Life History .........................................................................................................18 Habitat ......................................................................................................................................19 Threats......................................................................................................................................20 2.4 Endangered Species Act ..........................................................................................................23 2.4.1 Critical Habitat .............................................................................................................23 2.4.2 Consequences of Designation, the Section 7 Consultation Process ............................25 2.4.3 Technical Assistance ....................................................................................................26 2.4.4 Section 9 Prohibitions ..................................................................................................27 2.4.5 Section 10 Permits .......................................................................................................27 3.0 DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES ..........................................................................................27 3.1 Alternatives Considered But Not Fully Evaluated...................................................................27 3.2 Alternative A. No Action Alternative .....................................................................................27 3.3 Alternative B. Designation of Critical Habitat as Identified in the Rule ................................28 3.4 Summary of Actions by Alternative ........................................................................................32 4.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT .............................................................32 4.1 Physical Environment ..............................................................................................................33 4.2 Fish, Wildlife, and Plants .........................................................................................................33 4.3 Human Environment ................................................................................................................35 4.4 Tribal Lands .............................................................................................................................35 5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES ......................................................................................35 5.1 Physical Environment ..............................................................................................................37 5.2 Fish, Wildlife, and Plants .........................................................................................................37 5.2.1 Ipomopsis polyantha, Penstemon debilis, and Phacelia submutica ............................37 5.2.2 Other Fish, Wildlife, and Plant Species .......................................................................38 ii 5.3 Human Environment ................................................................................................................38 5.3.1 Energy Development ...................................................................................................41 5.3.2 Transportation Projects ................................................................................................41 5.3.3 Agriculture and Grazing ..............................................................................................42 5.3.4 Recreation ....................................................................................................................42 5.3.5 Residential and Commercial Development .................................................................43 5.4 Technical Assistance Requests of the Service .........................................................................43 5.5 Archeological and Cultural Resources .....................................................................................44 5.6 Cumulative Impacts .................................................................................................................44 6.0 COUNCIL ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ANALYSIS OF SIGNIFICANCE ...................48 6.1 Context .....................................................................................................................................48 6.2 Intensity....................................................................................................................................48 7.0 COMPLIANCE WITH OTHER LAWS AND REGULATIONS ...................................................49 7.1 Compliance with Other Laws and Regulations .......................................................................49 7.2 Environmental Justice ..............................................................................................................49 7.3 Agencies, Organizations, and Persons to Whom Copies of This Environmental Assessment Were Sent or Contacted .......................................................................................49 7.4 Public Review and Comment...................................................................................................49 8.0 LITERATURE CITED ....................................................................................................................50 9.0 APPENDICES .................................................................................................................................57 9.1 Maps of Proposed Action.........................................................................................................57 9.2 Maps of Alternative A .............................................................................................................60 LIST OF TABLES TABLE 1 Critical Habitat for Ipomopsis polyantha ..............................................................................31 TABLE 2 Critical Habitat for Penstemon debilis ..................................................................................31 TABLE 3 Critical Habitat for Phacelia submutica ...............................................................................31 TABLE 4 Candidate, Threatened, and Endangered Species in Archulta, Garfield, and Mesa Counties, Colorado ......................................................................................................33 TABLE 5 Incremental Costs Associated With Designation of Critical Habitat for Ipomopsis polyantha, Penstemon debilis, and Phacelia submutica .....................................39 TABLE 6 Summary of Environmental Consequences by Alternative ..................................................45
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Colorado Wildlife Action Plan: Proposed Rare Plant Addendum
    Colorado Wildlife Action Plan: Proposed Rare Plant Addendum By Colorado Natural Heritage Program For The Colorado Rare Plant Conservation Initiative June 2011 Colorado Wildlife Action Plan: Proposed Rare Plant Addendum Colorado Rare Plant Conservation Initiative Members David Anderson, Colorado Natural Heritage Program (CNHP) Rob Billerbeck, Colorado Natural Areas Program (CNAP) Leo P. Bruederle, University of Colorado Denver (UCD) Lynn Cleveland, Colorado Federation of Garden Clubs (CFGC) Carol Dawson, Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Michelle DePrenger-Levin, Denver Botanic Gardens (DBG) Brian Elliott, Environmental Consulting Mo Ewing, Colorado Open Lands (COL) Tom Grant, Colorado State University (CSU) Jill Handwerk, Colorado Natural Heritage Program (CNHP) Tim Hogan, University of Colorado Herbarium (COLO) Steve Kettler, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Andrew Kratz, U.S. Forest Service (USFS) Sarada Krishnan, Colorado Native Plant Society (CoNPS), Denver Botanic Gardens Brian Kurzel, Colorado Natural Areas Program Eric Lane, Colorado Department of Agriculture (CDA) Paige Lewis, The Nature Conservancy (TNC) Ellen Mayo, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Mitchell McGlaughlin, University of Northern Colorado (UNC) Jennifer Neale, Denver Botanic Gardens Betsy Neely, The Nature Conservancy Ann Oliver, The Nature Conservancy Steve Olson, U.S. Forest Service Susan Spackman Panjabi, Colorado Natural Heritage Program Jeff Peterson, Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) Josh Pollock, Center for Native Ecosystems (CNE) Nicola Ripley,
    [Show full text]
  • 39516 Federal Register / Vol. 50, No. 188 / Friday, September 27, 1985
    39516 Federal Register / Vol. 50, No. 188 / Friday, September 27, 1985 / Rules and Regulations reaction irreversibility or by formation polarography or square-wave (3) Irving, H., “The Stability of Metal of two or more complex species in polarography). Complexes and Their Measurement equilibrium with each other. In this last (3) Interpretation and evaluation of Polarographically," Advances ih case it is necessary to apply the method resu lts, (i) Stability constants Polarography Proceedings of the 2nd by De Ford and Hume paragraph (d) (8) determined for a new substance can be International Congress, Ed. I.S. of this section to calculate stepwise compared with literature values for Langmuir (Pergamon Press, 1960). formation constants. standard substances (see Reference (4) Perrin, D.D., Dempsey, B., B u ffe r (2) Test report, (i) The test report substances, above) and used therefore for pH and Metal Ion Controls. should list for each metal ion to evaluate the strength of its (Chapman and Hall: London, 1974). investigated the half-wave potential complexing ability. (5) “Stability Constants of Metal-ion Complexes,” Part B, Organic Ligands, Ei /2 , co-ordination number and overall (ii) The system is physically stability constant. Compiled by D.D. Perrin, IUPAC meaningful if (A) the value of the Publication on Chemical Data Series, stability constant is positive and (B) the (ii) In addition, the following should No. 22 (Pergamon Press, 1979) also be reported: standard error is less than the constant (6) Grabaric, B., Tkalcec, M., Piljac, L, (A) Type of polarisable micro­ (the t-test should be used as a criterion).
    [Show full text]
  • Cathedral Bluff Meadow-Rue): a Technical Conservation Assessment
    Thalictrum heliophilum Wilken & DeMott (Cathedral Bluff meadow-rue): A Technical Conservation Assessment Prepared for the USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region, Species Conservation Project January 4, 2007 Susan Spackman Panjabi and David G. Anderson Colorado Natural Heritage Program Colorado State University Fort Collins, CO Peer Review Administered by Society for Conservation Biology Panjabi, S.S. and D.G. Anderson. (2007, January 4). Thalictrum heliophilum Wilken & DeMott (Cathedral Bluff meadow-rue): a technical conservation assessment. [Online]. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/thalictrumheliophilum.pdf [date of access]. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This research was facilitated by the helpfulness and generosity of many experts, particularly Carla Scheck, Peggy Lyon, Renee Rondeau, Barry Johnston, and Tamara Meagley. Their interest in the project and time spent answering questions were extremely valuable and their insights into the distribution, habitat, and ecology of Thalictrum heliophilum were crucial to this project. Thanks also to Greg Hayward, Gary Patton, Kathy Roche, and Joy Bartlett for assisting with questions and project management. Thanks to Kimberly Nguyen for the work on the layout and for bringing this assessment to Web publication. Mary Olivas provided crucial financial oversight. Annette Miller provided information for the report on seed storage status. Drs. Ron Hartman and Ernie Nelson provided access to specimens of T. heliophilum at the Rocky Mountain Herbarium, and Jennifer Ackerfield provided access to specimens from the Colorado State University Herbarium. Nan Lederer and Tim Hogan provided valuable assistance and insights at the Colorado University Herbarium. Jessica Andersen assisted with data and literature acquisition. Special thanks to Karin Decker and Arvind Panjabi who reviewed part or all of the first draft of this document and offered input.
    [Show full text]
  • COLORADO Rnati VE PLANT -SOCIETY NEWSLETTER Volume 10, Number 3
    COLORADO rNATI VE PLANT -SOCIETY NEWSLETTER Volume 10, Number 3 May 1986 "DEDICATED TO THE APPRECIATION AND CONSERVATION OF THE COLORADO FLORAl! •••••••--•••-----.--•••JIIL••••••••••••••••---­•••••••••• • iV_ ••••••1Ir6 • • ~ • • .rv••wwr....• It¥_ •••••••• _ ••~ -.r_ ••• *'*Ywrtr• .......·······--IIUI····················1r. -.rwr..__••••_TV••••••••• - • ­ ACTIONS FROM THE BOARD! \fuat's new from your Board of Directors? CONPS is to have a display at the Alpine 86 conference in Boulder, June 28 - July 2. Anna Thurston is coordinator, so if you would like to help, please call Anna at 433-3705. TALLGRASS PRAIRIE RESEARCH Planning goes forward on the Rare Plant Publication. Anyone A management plan for the ~,interested in joining the working Colorado Tallgrass Prairie Natural ~ group will be most welcome. Please Area is nearly complete. The Colo­ call Eleanor Von Bargen, 756-1400. rado Natural Areas Program, City of The first effort will be in assemb­ Boulder and other pertinant agen­ ling photographs and technical data cies and organizations, including on the species selected for inclu­ the Colorado Native Plant Society, sion. This is one of the larger have developed grazing and burning enterprises that CONPS has prescriptions for the 270 acre undertaken, and the board solicits natural area. Intensive monitoring your active involvement! will determine if the types of After a highly successful management are suitable for these first year of workshops, with relict tallgrass communities. Con­ excellent speakers and challenging tact Virginia Crosby, 666-5303, if topics, the board decided to insti­ you are interested in working on tute modest fees for workshops in the floristic survey. Permanent the future, to cover expenses. vegetation transects will be estab­ Registration procedures will be lished and sampled.
    [Show full text]
  • APPENDIX A13 US FOREST SERVICE SENSITIVE SPECIES TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM for the State Highway 9 Iron Springs Alignment Environmental Assessment
    APPENDIX A13 US FOREST SERVICE SENSITIVE SPECIES TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM FOR THE State Highway 9 Iron Springs Alignment Environmental Assessment Prepared for COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION Prepared by JEFF PETERSON COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAMS BRANCH April 2014 USFS Sensitive Species for the State Highway 9 Iron Springs Alignment EA CONTENTS Introduction .................................................................................................................. 1 Proposed Action .............................................................................................................. 1 No Action Alternative ..................................................................................................... 3 Applicable Statutes and Regulations ............................................................................. 5 Federal ............................................................................................................................ 5 White River National Forest – Revised Land and Resource Management Plan ..................... 5 Issues: Possibility of impacting the USFS Sensitive Species ........................................... 5 Method of Evaluation ..................................................................................................... 5 Historical Precedent from Other Activities Proposed for this Area ............................... 6 Other Uses: Recreation .................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Sensitive Species That Are Not Listed Or Proposed Under the ESA Sorted By: Major Group, Subgroup, NS Sci
    Forest Service Sensitive Species that are not listed or proposed under the ESA Sorted by: Major Group, Subgroup, NS Sci. Name; Legend: Page 94 REGION 10 REGION 1 REGION 2 REGION 3 REGION 4 REGION 5 REGION 6 REGION 8 REGION 9 ALTERNATE NATURESERVE PRIMARY MAJOR SUB- U.S. N U.S. 2005 NATURESERVE SCIENTIFIC NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME(S) COMMON NAME GROUP GROUP G RANK RANK ESA C 9 Anahita punctulata Southeastern Wandering Spider Invertebrate Arachnid G4 NNR 9 Apochthonius indianensis A Pseudoscorpion Invertebrate Arachnid G1G2 N1N2 9 Apochthonius paucispinosus Dry Fork Valley Cave Invertebrate Arachnid G1 N1 Pseudoscorpion 9 Erebomaster flavescens A Cave Obligate Harvestman Invertebrate Arachnid G3G4 N3N4 9 Hesperochernes mirabilis Cave Psuedoscorpion Invertebrate Arachnid G5 N5 8 Hypochilus coylei A Cave Spider Invertebrate Arachnid G3? NNR 8 Hypochilus sheari A Lampshade Spider Invertebrate Arachnid G2G3 NNR 9 Kleptochthonius griseomanus An Indiana Cave Pseudoscorpion Invertebrate Arachnid G1 N1 8 Kleptochthonius orpheus Orpheus Cave Pseudoscorpion Invertebrate Arachnid G1 N1 9 Kleptochthonius packardi A Cave Obligate Pseudoscorpion Invertebrate Arachnid G2G3 N2N3 9 Nesticus carteri A Cave Spider Invertebrate Arachnid GNR NNR 8 Nesticus cooperi Lost Nantahala Cave Spider Invertebrate Arachnid G1 N1 8 Nesticus crosbyi A Cave Spider Invertebrate Arachnid G1? NNR 8 Nesticus mimus A Cave Spider Invertebrate Arachnid G2 NNR 8 Nesticus sheari A Cave Spider Invertebrate Arachnid G2? NNR 8 Nesticus silvanus A Cave Spider Invertebrate Arachnid G2? NNR
    [Show full text]
  • Curriculum Vitae, Eugene W. Schupp
    1 Curriculum Vitae, Eugene W. Schupp Curriculum Vitae Eugene W. Schupp ResearcherID: F-1834-2010 Address: Department of Wildland Resources, and The Ecology Center 5230 Old Main Hill Utah State University Logan, UT 84322-5230 Phone: 435-797-2475 FAX: 435-797-3796 e-mail: [email protected] Education: 1987 Ph.D., Biology University of Iowa 1981 M.A., Zoology University of South Florida 1977 B.A., Biology University of South Florida Professional Experience (Post-Ph.D.): 2012-2013 College of Natural Resources Assistant Dean for Research & Graduate Education, Utah State University 2011-present Professor, Utah State University 1998-2011 Associate Professor, Utah State University 1995-present Adjunct Researcher, Integrated Ecology Group, Estación Biológica de Doñana, Sevilla, Spain 1992-1998 Assistant Professor, Utah State University 1989-1992 DOE Alexander Hollaender Distinguished Postdoctoral Fellow, Savannah River Ecology Laboratory 1988-1989 NSF–NATO Postdoctoral Fellow, Estación Biológica de Doñana, Spain 1987-1988 Postdoctoral Research Associate, University of Iowa 1987 Co-coordinator, Organization for Tropical Studies field course, “Tropical biology: an ecological approach,” Costa Rica 2 Curriculum Vitae, Eugene W. Schupp Grants and Contracts Funded: External, at USU: 2017-2019 USDI Bureau of Indian Affairs, “Range Inventory of the Uintah and Ouray Reservation,” Co-PI, $254,000 2015-2020 USDA Forest Service/USDI Bureau of Land Management, “Ongoing funding for SageSTEP regional experiment,” PI, $427,225 2015-2016 Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, “Interactive effects of soils and browsing on sagebrush: implications for restoration success,” K. Veblen, PI, $137,000; (co- investigator with K. Nehring, J. Boettinger, E. Schupp, E. Thacker, J.
    [Show full text]
  • A New Species of Dialictus from Sombrero Island, Anguilla (Hymenoptera, Halictidae)
    A peer-reviewed open-access journal ZooKeys 86:A 61–68New Species(2011) of Dialictus from Sombrero Island, Anguilla (Hymenoptera, Halictidae) 61 doi: 10.3897/zookeys.86.909 RESEARCH ARTICLE www.zookeys.org Launched to accelerate biodiversity research A New Species of Dialictus from Sombrero Island, Anguilla (Hymenoptera, Halictidae) Michael S. Engel Division of Entomology, Natural History Museum, and Department of Ecology & Evolutionary Biology, 1501 Crestline Drive – Suite 140, University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas 66049–2811, USA urn:lsid:zoobank.org:author:3714A7FF-E19E-495A-AAF9-98D2F597B757 Corresponding author : Michael S. Engel ( [email protected] ) Academic editor: Michael Ohl | Received 15 January 2011 | Accepted 9 March 2011 | Published 19 March 2011 urn:lsid:zoobank.org:pub:48BE1134-8166-4E1D-A95A-CFD0167475FD Citation: Engel MS (2011) A New Species of Dialictus from Sombrero Island, Anguilla (Hymenoptera, Halictidae). ZooKeys 86 : 61 – 68 . doi: 10.3897/zookeys.86.909 Abstract A new species of Lasioglossum Curtis subgenus Dialictus Robertson (Halictinae, Halictini) is described and fi gured from a series of female and males collected on Sombrero Island, Anguilla; the northernmost island of the Lesser Antilles. Lasioglossum (Dialictus) sombrerense sp. n. is distinguished from its congeners and the name made available for a forthcoming work on the arthropod diversity of Sombrero Island. Keywords Apoidea, Anthophila, Halictidae, Halictinae, Halictini, taxonomy, Anguilla, West Indies Introduction Since the overview by Eickwort (1988), work has steadily increased on the West Indian halictine fauna (e.g., Snelling 2005; Genaro 2006, 2007, 2008; Genaro and Franz 2008; Smith-Pardo 2009) and it is greatly hoped that a new synthesis of this entire region is undertaken.
    [Show full text]
  • 7669 / Sect. III Grasshoppers
    III.5 The Reproductive Biology of Rare Rangeland Plants and Their Vulnerability to Insecticides Vincent J. Tepedino The Western United States is an area of high plant and animal diversity. Many of the plants on this vast expanse B of mountain, plain, and desert occur nowhere else in the world (Cronquist et al. 1972, Barbour and Billings 1988). Currently about 150 of these plant species are so rare that they have been listed under the Endangered Species Act as either threatened or endangered. Four are shown in figure III.5–1 (a–d). Most of these rare plants have been found on public rangelands (fig. III.5–2). A C D Figure III.5–1—Rare rangeland plants. A = Blowout penstemon (Nebraska), B = Dwarf bear-poppy (Utah), C = Dudley Bluffs twinpod (Colorado), D = San Rafael cactus (Utah). III.5–1 Preserving rare plant species means removing or reducing In seed plants, sexual reproduction depends on the move- threats to existing individuals and ensuring that those ment of mature pollen from the anthers to a receptive individuals can reproduce. Plants reproduce both asexu- stigma (pollination). To complete the process, pollen ally and sexually. For example, the rare plants grains must germinate and send pollen tubes down the Cycladenia humilis var. jonesii in Utah and Mirabilis style to fertilize one or more ovules in the ovary (fertili- macfarlaneii in Idaho and Oregon both reproduce sexu- zation). Sexual reproduction may take place between in- ally by seeds and asexually by the production of rhi- dividuals, or individuals may fertilize themselves if they zomes.
    [Show full text]
  • UNIVERSITY of CALIFORNIA, SAN DIEGO Effects of Habitat Fragmentation and Introduced Species on the Structure and Function Of
    UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN DIEGO Effects of Habitat Fragmentation and Introduced Species on the Structure and Function of Plant-Pollinator Interactions A dissertation submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree Doctor of Philosophy in Biology by Keng-Lou James Hung Committee in charge: Professor David A. Holway, Chair Professor Joshua R. Kohn Professor Lisa A. Levin Professor Jean-Bernard H. Minster Professor James C. Nieh 2017 © Keng-Lou James Hung, 2017 All rights reserved. The Dissertation of Keng-Lou James Hung is approved, and it is acceptable in quality and form for publication on microfilm and electronically: Chair University of California, San Diego 2017 iii DEDICATION This dissertation is dedicated to my parents, who stopped at nothing to nurture my intellectual curiosity; to my brother, who was my ever-reliable field assistant and encourager; and to my wife, who gave up everything she had to make this venture a reality. This dissertation is as much a product of my hard work as it is your unconditional love, support, and prayers. This dissertation is also dedicated to the 43,000 bees, wasps, flies, and other insects whose curtailed lives will be forever immortalized in data that will one day be used to secure a brighter future for their kind. You took one for the team; thank you for your sacrifice. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS Signature Page ................................................................................................................. iii Dedication .......................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Vascular Type Specimens
    University of Colorado Herbarium (COLO) 1201 Record(s) Page 1 of 322 COLO Type Specimens Acanthaceae Family: Acanthaceae Beloperone fragilis Robinson Type Status: Isotype Accession No: 422655 Bar Code: 351023 Proofed: none. Location: San Luis Potosi, Mexico. Las Canoas. Habitat: Limestone ledges. Collector: C.G. Pringle #3933. Date: 30 October, 5 December 1891. Miscellaneous: Plantae Mexicanae. Gift from Colorado College 1984. Repr. Status: Flr. Annotations: = Beloperone tenera (Rob.) Turrill. References: Proc. Amer. Acad. 27:183. 1892. Beloperone pringlei S. Watson Type Status: Isotype Accession No: 422657 Bar Code: 351031 Proofed: none. Location: Nuevo Leon, Mexico. Hills near Monterey. Habitat: none. Collector: C.G. Pringle #2548. Date: 15 July & 1 August 1889. Miscellaneous: Plantae Mexicanae. Gift from Colorado College 1984. Repr. Status: Flr. Annotations: = Justicia straminea D. Gibson. References: Proc. Amer. Acad. 25:160. 1890. Carlowrightia glandulosa Rob. & Greenm. Type Status: Isotype Accession No: 422658 Bar Code: 356568 Proofed: none. Location: Oaxaca, Mexico. Monte Alban near Oaxaca. Habitat: none. 5500 ft. Collector: C.G. Pringle #6276. Date: 5 December 1895. Miscellaneous: 1-3 feet. Plantae Mexicanae. Gift from Colorado College 1984. Repr. Status: Flr & Frt. Annotations: none. References: Proc. Amer. Acad. 32:40. 1896. Carlowrightia ovata Gray Type Status: Isotype Accession No: 422659 Bar Code: 356576 Proofed: none. Location: Chihuahua, Mexico. Ledges near Chihuahua. Habitat: none. Collector: C.G. Pringle #932. Date: 30 August 1885. Miscellaneous: Plantae Mexicanae. Gift from Colorado College 1984. Repr. Status: Flr & Frt. Annotations: none. References: Proc. Amer. Acad. 21:406. 1886. Page 2 of 322 COLO Type Specimens Acanthaceae Carlowrightia pringlei Rob. & Greenm. Type Status: Isotype Accession No: 422660 Bar Code: 356584 Proofed: none.
    [Show full text]
  • Designation of Critical Habitat for Ipomopsis Polyantha
    Vol. 77 Monday, No. 156 August 13, 2012 Part III Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service 50 CFR Part 17 Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of Critical Habitat for Ipomopsis polyantha (Pagosa skyrocket), Penstemon debilis (Parachute beardtongue), and Phacelia submutica (DeBeque phacelia); Final Rule VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:27 Aug 10, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4717 Sfmt 4717 E:\FR\FM\13AUR3.SGM 13AUR3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3 48368 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 156 / Monday, August 13, 2012 / Rules and Regulations DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR (TDD), call the Federal Information and are completed the final Relay Service (FIRS) at 800–877–8339. environmental assessment concurrently Fish and Wildlife Service SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: with this final determination. Peer reviewers support our methods. 50 CFR Part 17 Executive Summary We obtained opinions from four Why we need to publish a rule and knowledgeable individuals with [Docket No. FWS–R6–ES–2011–0040: the basis for our action. Under the Act, scientific expertise to review our 4500030114] any species that is determined to be technical assumptions, analysis, RIN 1018–AX75 threatened or endangered shall, to the adherence to regulations, and whether maximum extent prudent and or not we had used the best available Endangered and Threatened Wildlife determinable, have habitat designated information. These peer reviewers and Plants; Designation of Critical that is considered to be critical habitat. generally concurred with our methods Habitat for Ipomopsis polyantha We listed these three plant species on and conclusions and provided (Pagosa skyrocket), Penstemon debilis July 27, 2011 (76 FR 45054).
    [Show full text]