DOCSLIB.ORG

Table 2 Region 4 Sensitive Species Not Carried Forward for Analysis

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Table 2 Region 4 Sensitive Species Not Carried Forward for Analysis TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 Introduction ....................................................................................................................................... 1 2.0 Current Management Direction ......................................................................................................... 1 3.0 Description of the Proposed Project .................................................................................................. 2 3.1 Proposed Project .................................................................................................................... 2 3.2 Project Area ............................................................................................................................ 2 3.3 Schedule ................................................................................................................................. 7 3.4 Design Features of the Project for Environmental Protection ................................................ 7 4.0 Existing Environment ........................................................................................................................ 7 4.1 Species Account, Life History, and Habitat Status ................................................................ 7 4.2 Methodology ........................................................................................................................ 12 4.3 Existing Habitat .................................................................................................................... 12 4.3.1 Ashley National Forest ............................................................................................ 12 4.3.2 Manti-La Sal National Forest .................................................................................. 13 4.3.3 Uinta National Forest .............................................................................................. 13 4.4 Existing Condition of Affected Species ............................................................................... 13 4.4.1 Plants ....................................................................................................................... 13 4.4.1.1 Canyon Sweet-vetch ............................................................................... 13 4.4.1.2 Goodrich’s Blazingstar ........................................................................... 14 4.4.1.3 Green River Greenthread ........................................................................ 14 4.4.1.4 Untermann’s Daisy ................................................................................. 14 4.4.1.5 Wheeler’s Angelica................................................................................. 15 4.4.2 Fish .......................................................................................................................... 15 4.4.2.1 Bonneville Cutthroat Trout ..................................................................... 15 4.4.2.2 Colorado River Cutthroat Trout .............................................................. 16 4.4.2.3 Southern Leatherside Chub ..................................................................... 16 4.4.3 Amphibians ............................................................................................................. 16 4.4.3.1 Western Boreal Toad .............................................................................. 16 4.4.3.2 Columbia Spotted Frog ........................................................................... 17 4.4.4 Wildlife ................................................................................................................... 17 4.4.4.1 Bald Eagle ............................................................................................... 17 4.4.4.2 Flammulated Owl ................................................................................... 17 4.4.4.3 Northern Goshawk .................................................................................. 18 4.4.4.4 Peregrine Falcon ..................................................................................... 18 4.4.4.5 Three-toed Woodpecker ......................................................................... 19 4.4.4.6 Spotted Bat and Townsend’s Big-eared Bat ........................................... 19 5.0 Effects of the Proposed Project ....................................................................................................... 19 5.1 Direct Effects ....................................................................................................................... 19 5.1.1 Plants ....................................................................................................................... 19 5.1.2 Fish and Amphibians .............................................................................................. 20 5.1.3 Wildlife ................................................................................................................... 20 5.2 Indirect Effects ..................................................................................................................... 20 5.2.1 Plants ....................................................................................................................... 20 5.2.2 Fish and Amphibians .............................................................................................. 21 5.2.3 Wildlife ................................................................................................................... 21 Energy Gateway South Transmission Project i November 2015 Biological Evaluation 5.3 Cumulative Effects ............................................................................................................... 21 5.3.1 Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Activities Relevant to Cumulative Effects Analysis ................................................................................... 23 5.3.1.1 Sensitive Plants ....................................................................................... 23 5.3.1.2 Fish and Amphibians .............................................................................. 23 5.3.1.3 Wildlife ................................................................................................... 23 5.4 Effects on Sensitive Plant Species ....................................................................................... 24 5.4.1 Effects Common to All Sensitive Plant Species ..................................................... 24 5.4.1.1 Direct Effects on Sensitive Plant Species ............................................... 24 5.4.1.2 Indirect Effects on Sensitive Plant Species ............................................. 24 5.4.1.3 Cumulative Effects on Sensitive Plant Species ...................................... 25 5.4.2 Canyon Sweet-vetch ............................................................................................... 25 5.4.2.1 Effects ..................................................................................................... 25 5.4.2.2 Mitigation Measures ............................................................................... 26 5.4.2.3 Cumulative Effects ................................................................................. 27 5.4.2.4 Determination ......................................................................................... 28 5.4.3 Goodrich’s Blazingstar ........................................................................................... 28 5.4.3.1 Effects ..................................................................................................... 28 5.4.3.2 Mitigation Measures ............................................................................... 28 5.4.3.3 Cumulative Effects ................................................................................. 29 5.4.3.4 Determination ......................................................................................... 29 5.4.4 Green River Greenthread ........................................................................................ 30 5.4.4.1 Effects ..................................................................................................... 30 5.4.4.2 Mitigation Measures ............................................................................... 30 5.4.4.3 Cumulative Effects ................................................................................. 31 5.4.4.4 Determination ......................................................................................... 32 5.4.5 Untermann’s Daisy ................................................................................................. 32 5.4.5.1 Effects ..................................................................................................... 32 5.4.5.2 Mitigation Measures ............................................................................... 32 5.4.5.3 Cumulative Effects ................................................................................. 33 5.4.5.4 Determination ......................................................................................... 34 5.4.6 Wheeler’s Angelica ................................................................................................. 34 5.4.6.1 Effects ..................................................................................................... 34 5.4.6.2 Mitigation Measures ............................................................................... 34 5.4.6.3 Cumulative Effects ................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Outline of Angiosperm Phylogeny
    Outline of angiosperm phylogeny: orders, families, and representative genera with emphasis on Oregon native plants Priscilla Spears December 2013 The following listing gives an introduction to the phylogenetic classification of the flowering plants that has emerged in recent decades, and which is based on nucleic acid sequences as well as morphological and developmental data. This listing emphasizes temperate families of the Northern Hemisphere and is meant as an overview with examples of Oregon native plants. It includes many exotic genera that are grown in Oregon as ornamentals plus other plants of interest worldwide. The genera that are Oregon natives are printed in a blue font. Genera that are exotics are shown in black, however genera in blue may also contain non-native species. Names separated by a slash are alternatives or else the nomenclature is in flux. When several genera have the same common name, the names are separated by commas. The order of the family names is from the linear listing of families in the APG III report. For further information, see the references on the last page. Basal Angiosperms (ANITA grade) Amborellales Amborellaceae, sole family, the earliest branch of flowering plants, a shrub native to New Caledonia – Amborella Nymphaeales Hydatellaceae – aquatics from Australasia, previously classified as a grass Cabombaceae (water shield – Brasenia, fanwort – Cabomba) Nymphaeaceae (water lilies – Nymphaea; pond lilies – Nuphar) Austrobaileyales Schisandraceae (wild sarsaparilla, star vine – Schisandra; Japanese
    [Show full text]
  • Idaho Goldenweed (Tonestus Aberrans) Predicted Suitable Habitat Modeling
    Idaho Goldenweed (Tonestus aberrans) Predicted Suitable Habitat Modeling Distribution Status: Present State Rank: S1S2 (Species of Concern) Global Rank: G3 Modeling Overview Created by: Braden Burkholder Creation Date: October 20, 2017 Evaluators: Andrea Pipp and Braden Burkholder Evaluation Date: October 27, 2017 Inductive Model Goal: To predict the distribution and relative suitability of general habitat for Idaho Goldenweed at large spatial scales across its presumed range in Montana. Inductive Model Performance: The model may poorly reflect the distribution of general habitat suitability for Idaho Goldenweed at larger spatial scales across its presumed range in Montana. Evaluation metrics indicate a poor model fit with high average deviance and variance and low AVIs. However, the delineation of habitat suitability classes is reasonable well supported by the data despite small sample sizes. The model is presented as a reference, but more observation records, site-specific data, and/or other environmental layers are needed in order to improve performance. Deductive Model Goal: To represent the ecological systems commonly and occasionally associated with Idaho Goldenweed, across its presumed range in Montana. Deductive Model Performance: Ecological systems that Idaho Goldenweed is commonly and occasionally associated with may adequately represent the amount of suitable habitat across its presumed range in Montana. Suggested Citation: Montana Natural Heritage Program. 2017. Idaho Goldenweed (Tonestus aberrans) predicted suitable habitat models created on October 20, 2017. Montana Natural Heritage Program, Helena, MT. 14 pp. Montana Field Guide Species Account: http://fieldguide.mt.gov/speciesDetail.aspx?elcode=PDASTE0010 page 1 of 14 Idaho Goldenweed (Tonestus aberrans) Predicted Suitable Habitat Modeling October 20, 2017 Inductive Modeling Model Limitations and Suggested Uses This model is based on statewide biotic and abiotic layers originally mapped at a variety of spatial scales and standardized to 90×90 meter raster pixels.
    [Show full text]
  • The Jepson Manual: Vascular Plants of California, Second Edition Supplement II December 2014
    The Jepson Manual: Vascular Plants of California, Second Edition Supplement II December 2014 In the pages that follow are treatments that have been revised since the publication of the Jepson eFlora, Revision 1 (July 2013). The information in these revisions is intended to supersede that in the second edition of The Jepson Manual (2012). The revised treatments, as well as errata and other small changes not noted here, are included in the Jepson eFlora (http://ucjeps.berkeley.edu/IJM.html). For a list of errata and small changes in treatments that are not included here, please see: http://ucjeps.berkeley.edu/JM12_errata.html Citation for the entire Jepson eFlora: Jepson Flora Project (eds.) [year] Jepson eFlora, http://ucjeps.berkeley.edu/IJM.html [accessed on month, day, year] Citation for an individual treatment in this supplement: [Author of taxon treatment] 2014. [Taxon name], Revision 2, in Jepson Flora Project (eds.) Jepson eFlora, [URL for treatment]. Accessed on [month, day, year]. Copyright © 2014 Regents of the University of California Supplement II, Page 1 Summary of changes made in Revision 2 of the Jepson eFlora, December 2014 PTERIDACEAE *Pteridaceae key to genera: All of the CA members of Cheilanthes transferred to Myriopteris *Cheilanthes: Cheilanthes clevelandii D. C. Eaton changed to Myriopteris clevelandii (D. C. Eaton) Grusz & Windham, as native Cheilanthes cooperae D. C. Eaton changed to Myriopteris cooperae (D. C. Eaton) Grusz & Windham, as native Cheilanthes covillei Maxon changed to Myriopteris covillei (Maxon) Á. Löve & D. Löve, as native Cheilanthes feei T. Moore changed to Myriopteris gracilis Fée, as native Cheilanthes gracillima D.
    [Show full text]
  • Manti-La Sal Ranger Stations
    United States Department of Agriculture Commodious Cabins & Forest Service Intermountain Region Handsome Structures MANTI-LA SAL NATIONAL FOREST MAY 2013 Administrative Facilities of the Manti-La Sal National Forest, 1905-1962 Historic Context Statement & Evaluations, Forest Service Report No. ML-13-1437 Cover: Ranger David Williams with his family at the Clay Springs Ranger Station, 1908 “A commodious cabin is being built, and other improvements which will be made will make the station a very convenient one.” – “Building New Ranger Station on Wilson Mesa,” Times Independent, November 18, 1920, 1 The new Moab building “is a handsome structure and affords ample space for the supervisor’s office. eventually the forest headquarters will be one of the most attractive locations in town.” – “Forest Service In New Building,” Times Independent, September 12, 1940, 1. Commodious Cabins and Handsome Structures Administrative Facilities of the Manti-La Sal National Forest, 1905-1962 Historic Context Statement and Evaluations Forest Service Report No. ML-13-1437 By Richa Wilson Regional Architectural Historian USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Region 324 25th Street Ogden, UT 84401 May 2013 TABLE OF CONTENTS PREFACE .................................................................................................................................................. V CHAPTER 1: OVERVIEW ........................................................................................................................... 1 SPATIAL BOUNDARIES ......................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • 1 C M 2 B H 3 B M 4 C M 5 B L 6 B M 7 B M 8
    SPECIES EVALUATION Haplopappus pygmaeus, Priority 1. Tonestus pygmaeus (Torrey & Gray) A. Nelson (TOPY). pygmy goldenweed. CNHP G4 / SR, Track N G4 N?. CO SR, WY S1. WY Peripheral 2 MBNF Confi- Criteria Rank dence Rationale Sources of Information Distribution (see map below) is “nearly continuous,” so rating C was chosen, but Specimens at COLO and RM, Dorn 2001, 1 none of the pictures or descriptions really fit this species. Tracked by WY, but not Weber & Wittmann 2001ab, PLANTS 2002, Distribution C M tracked by CO or NM. WYNDD 2002. within R2 Tonestus pygmaeus is known principally from Colorado, but also from adjacent Specimens at COLO and RM, Harrington 2 southern Wyoming and northern New Mexico, and disjunct in southwestern Montana. 1954, Dorn 2001, Weber & Wittmann Distribution B H 2001ab, PLANTS 2002, WYNDD 2002, outside R2 MTNHP 2002. Seeds are lightly hairy and pappus is deciduous, so seeds probably cannot disperse Harrington 1954. 3 long distances; viability unknown. Pollen viability and dispersal unknown. Dispersal B M Capability Tonestus pygmaeus is found moderately frequently in the Alpine zone, but is not Fertig 2000, specimens at COLO and RM, really common in the normal sense. “Demographic stochasticity” is probably irrelevant Harrington 1954, Dorn 2001, Weber & 4 to this species. About 50 recorded occurrences in Colorado, three in Wyoming, two or Wittmann 2001ab, PLANTS 2002, WYNDD Abundance in C M three in New Mexico. “Abundance not known. Population censuses have not been 2002, MTNHP 2002. R2 undertaken, but the species is believed to be at least moderately common within its restricted range” (Fertig 2000).
    [Show full text]
  • Reclassification of North American Haplopappus (Compositae: Astereae) Completed: Rayjacksonia Gen
    AmericanJournal of Botany 83(3): 356-370. 1996. RECLASSIFICATION OF NORTH AMERICAN HAPLOPAPPUS (COMPOSITAE: ASTEREAE) COMPLETED: RAYJACKSONIA GEN. NOV.1 MEREDITH A. LANE2 AND RONALD L. HARTMAN R. L. McGregor Herbarium(University of Kansas NaturalHistory Museum Division of Botany) and Departmentof Botany,University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas 66047-3729; and Rocky MountainHerbarium, Department of Botany,University of Wyoming,Laramie, Wyoming82071-3165 Rayjacksonia R. L. Hartman& M. A. Lane, gen. nov. (Compositae: Astereae), is named to accommodate the "phyllo- cephalus complex," formerlyof Haplopappus Cass. sect. Blepharodon DC. The new combinationsare R. phyllocephalus (DC.) R. L. Hartman& M. A. Lane, R. annua (Rydb.) R. L. Hartman& M. A. Lane, and R. aurea (A. Gray) R. L. Hartman & M. A. Lane. This transfercompletes the reclassificationof the North American species of Haplopappus sensu Hall, leaving that genus exclusively South American.Rayjacksonia has a base chromosomenumber of x = 6. Furthermore,it shares abruptlyampliate disk corollas, deltatedisk style-branchappendages, and corolla epidermalcell type,among other features,with Grindelia, Isocoma, Olivaea, Prionopsis, Stephanodoria, and Xanthocephalum.Phylogenetic analyses of morphologicaland chloroplastDNA restrictionsite data, taken together,demonstrate that these genera are closely related but distinct. Key words: Astereae; Asteraceae; Compositae; Haplopappus; Rayjacksonia. During the past seven decades, taxonomic application lopappus sensu Hall (1928) are reclassifiedand are cur-
    [Show full text]
  • Annotated Checklist of Vascular Flora, Bryce
    National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior Natural Resource Program Center Annotated Checklist of Vascular Flora Bryce Canyon National Park Natural Resource Technical Report NPS/NCPN/NRTR–2009/153 ON THE COVER Matted prickly-phlox (Leptodactylon caespitosum), Bryce Canyon National Park, Utah. Photograph by Walter Fertig. Annotated Checklist of Vascular Flora Bryce Canyon National Park Natural Resource Technical Report NPS/NCPN/NRTR–2009/153 Author Walter Fertig Moenave Botanical Consulting 1117 W. Grand Canyon Dr. Kanab, UT 84741 Sarah Topp Northern Colorado Plateau Network P.O. Box 848 Moab, UT 84532 Editing and Design Alice Wondrak Biel Northern Colorado Plateau Network P.O. Box 848 Moab, UT 84532 January 2009 U.S. Department of the Interior National Park Service Natural Resource Program Center Fort Collins, Colorado The Natural Resource Publication series addresses natural resource topics that are of interest and applicability to a broad readership in the National Park Service and to others in the management of natural resources, including the scientifi c community, the public, and the NPS conservation and environmental constituencies. Manuscripts are peer-reviewed to ensure that the information is scientifi cally credible, technically accurate, appropriately written for the intended audience, and is designed and published in a professional manner. The Natural Resource Technical Report series is used to disseminate the peer-reviewed results of scientifi c studies in the physical, biological, and social sciences for both the advancement of science and the achievement of the National Park Service’s mission. The reports provide contributors with a forum for displaying comprehensive data that are often deleted from journals because of page limitations.
    [Show full text]
  • Botanice Est Scientia Naturalis Quae Vegetabilium Cognitiorem Tradit
    Number 31 October 19, 2004 A Newsletter for the flora Plant Distribution Reports of New Mexico, from the New records and significant distribution reports for New Mexico plants should be documented by complete Range Science Herbarium and collection information and disposition of a specimen (herbarium). Exotic taxa are indicated by an asterisk (*), Cooperative Extension endemic taxa by a cross (+). Service, College of — Baird, G.I. [Baird, G.I. 2004. Two new varieties of Yarborough s.n. (UNM). [This substantiates an Agriculture and Home Agoseris (Asteraceae: Lactuceae). Sida 29(1):267- undocumented report of this taxon for NM in Economics, New Mexico 274.] Kartesz & Meacham, Synthesis of the North Agoseris heterophylla (Nuttall) Greene var. State University. American Flora, 1999. Much thanks to Jane quentinii Baird (Asteraceae): Catron, Grant, & Mygatt and the UNM herbarium for assistance Hidalgo counties (NMC). in documenting this species.] — George Cox [13 Vuelta Maria, Santa Fe, NM — Welsh et al. [Welsh, S.L., N.D. Atwood, S. 87501] Goodrich, & L.C. Higgins (eds.). 2003. A Utah Flora. *Prunus armeniaca Linnaeus (Rosaceae, apricot): 3rd ed, revised. Provo, Utah: Brigham Young Santa Fe County: La Tierra Subdivision, about University Press.] In This Issue — 7 miles WNW of Santa Fe (N 35 44' 10.7", W Astragalus cliffordii Welsh & Atwood 106 01' 54.3"), 2065 m, in bed of sandy wash (Fabaceae): McKinley County: head of passing through large meadow, 17 May 2002, Wildberry Canyon, s of Coyote and hwy, 2126 • Plant Reports ..............1 G.W. Cox 02-3 (UNM). m, 11 June 2001, S.L. O’Kane 5350 (BRY). • What’s In a Name? ....2 *Caragana arborescens Lamarck (Fabaceae, Astragalus heilii Welsh & Atwood (Fabaceae): • Botanical Literature ...3 Siberian pea-shrub): Santa Fe County: Las Dos McKinley County: Navajo Nation, County Subdivision, about 9 miles WNW of Santa Fe Road 19, ca.
    [Show full text]
  • Southwestern Rare and Endangered Plants: Proceedings of the Fourth Conference
    Southwestern Rare and Endangered Plants : UnitedUnited States States DepartmentDepartment ofof Agriculture Agriculture ForestForest Service Service Proceedings of the Fourth RockyRocky Mountain Mountain ResearchResearch Station Station Conference ProceedingsProceedings RMRS-P-48CD RMRS-P-48CD JulyJuly 2007 2007 March 22-26, 2004 Las Cruces, New Mexico Barlow-Irick, P., J.J. AndersonAnderson andand C.C. McDonald,McDonald, techtech eds.eds. 2007.2006. SouthwesternSouthwestern rarerare andand endangered plants: Proceedings of the fourth conference; March 22-26, 2004; Las Cruces, New Mexico. Proceedings RMRS-P-XX.RMRS-P-48CD. Fort Fort Collins, Collins, CO: CO: U.S. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,Service, Rocky Mountain ResearchResearch Station.Station. 135 pp.p. Abstract These contributed papers review the current status of plant conservation in the southwestern U.S. Key Words: plant conservation, conservation partnerships, endangered plants, plant taxonomy, genetics, demography, reproductive biology, biogeography, plant surveys, plant monitoring These manuscripts received technical and statistical review. Views expressed in each paper are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the sponsoring organizations or the USDA Forest Service. Cover illustration: Have Plant Press, Will Travel by Patricia Barlow-Irick You may order additional copies of this publication by sending your mailing information in label form through one of the following media. Please specify the publication title and series number. Fort Collins Service Center Telephone (970) 498-1392 FAX (970) 498-1122 E-mail [email protected] Web site http://www.fs.fed.us/rmrs Mailing address Publications Distribution Rocky Mountain Research Station 240 West Prospect Road Fort Collins, CO 80526 USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-XXRMRS-P-48CD Southwestern Rare and Endangered Plants: Proceedings of the Fourth Conference March 22-26, 2004 Las Cruces, New Mexico Technical Coordinators: Patricia Barlow-Irick Largo Canyon School Counselor, NM John Anderson U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Suitability of Brush Lands in the Inter-Mountain Region for The
    28 2 5 2 5 :; 1111/ . 11111 . 1.0 :; /////2.8 11111 . W IIIII~ 2.2 I~ ~F2 I:.l I:.l ~ I~ ~ I~~ w w ~ ~ I~ l- S~ I.. • 1U1.1.L.:. I.. " 1.1 1.1 toil.:, .... - - I 111111.25 111111.4 '"" 1.6 111111.25 111111.4 1111,1.6 MICROCOPY RESOLUTION TEST CHART MICROCOPY RESOLUTION TEST CHART NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS·l9&l·A NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANOARDS·l90J A - ~ ~====~.~~=~~~======'T:l!CI!NlCAL-BUI.L1!TIN No. 256 :~. AUGUST, 1931 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE WASHINGTON, D. C. SUITABILITY OF BRUSH LANDS IN THE INTER­ ··MOUNTAIN REGION FOR THE GROWTH OF NATURAL OR PLANTED WESTERN YELLOW PINE FORESTS By F. S. BAlQlR, formerly Forest JjJ:caminer. !ntermountai?b Region, and CLAJIto ENCE F. KOBBTIAN, formerly Senior SiLVicuzt1trist, .t1ppaUrohian Forest JjJrcperi­ ?nent Station, .Forest Service CONTE.."lTS Page Page Introdnction ____________________ _ 1 Results of plantlngs-Continned. NatU1'1l,1 range and occurrence of Conclusionstations___________________ from study of plan­ _ wes~ern yellow 9Ine____________ 8 48 Temperature, moisture, and Boll in Native vegetation ILB an tndication of .brnshthe western lands __________________yellow pine type and_ the suitability of planting sites__ 49 6 Failure of successional stage IlB ·Temperature-____________~__ _ an .1ndicator______________ Moisture___________________ _ 6 51 SoiL_______________________ _ 9 Indicator signlficance of brusb­ 18 land sbrubs based on root A specific test of the influence de\"elollment ______________ _ 54 of moisture and sol1_______ _ 25 Leaf characters as an indication :RemIts of plantlngs______________ 28 of Boll moisture____________ 68 Experimental plantations______ 28 Summary and conclusions ________ _ '17 More extensive plantations ___ _ 47 Literature •cited _________________ _ 80 INTRODUCTION The considerable areas ~\Upporting brush vegetation or various types that a re found throughout the mountainou'l portions of northern Utah, eastern Idaho, and western WYQming, on sites that would normally be expected to support western yellow pine forests, present to the forester.
    [Show full text]
  • Shrubland Ecosystem Genetics and Biodiversity: Proceedings; 2000 June 13–15; Provo, Suite of Locations
    Plant Diversity at Box-Death Hollow Wilderness Area, Garfield County, Utah Wendy Rosler Janet G. Cooper Renee Van Buren Kimball T. Harper Abstract—“The Box” is a canyon located in the western portion of Under the direction of Janet Cooper, the Provo High Box-Death Hollow Wilderness Area, Garfield County, southern School Botany Club initiated this study in the fall of 1993. Utah. The objectives of this study included: (1) collect, identify and During the following 2 years (1994 and 1995) five collection make a checklist of the species of vascular plants found in “The trips were taken at different times of the year to provide a Box,” (2) search for threatened and endangered species within the reliable sample of the canyon’s flora. Each collection trip area, (3) provide an opportunity for high school students to develop emphasized a different section of the canyon, but on each research skills that contribute to the reservoir of scientific informa- trip, specimens of species previously unknown in the area tion. During a period of 2 years, students of the Provo High School were collected throughout the canyon. Plants collected were Botany Club, the club advisor, and others collected and identified either immediately identified and pressed or collected in 304 species in 63 families. Twenty plant taxa collected during this plastic bags and pressed as soon as the group arrived back study had not previously been reported for Garfield County, UT. at camp. Identification and classification followed “A Utah Species-area relationships at this area are compared to selected Flora” (Welsh and others 1993).
    [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]