DOCSLIB.ORG

Survey of Seeps and Springs Within the Bureau of Land Management’S Grand Junction Field Office Management Area (Mesa County, CO)

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Survey of Seeps and Springs Within the Bureau of Land Management’S Grand Junction Field Office Management Area (Mesa County, CO) Survey of Selected Seeps and Springs within the Bureau of Land Management’s Gunnison Field Office Management Area (Gunnison and Saguache Counties, CO) Colorado Natural Heritage Program Colorado State University 8002 Campus Delivery Fort Collins, Colorado 80523-8002 April 18, 2003 Survey of Selected Seeps and Springs within the Bureau of Land Management’s Gunnison Field Office Management Area (Gunnison and Saguache Counties, CO) Prepared for: Bureau of Land Management, Gunnison Field Office 216 N. Colorado Gunnison, Colorado 81230 Prepared by: Georgia Doyle April 18, 2003 Colorado Natural Heritage Program Colorado State University Campus Delivery 8002 Fort Collins, Colorado 80523-8002 970-491-1309 Email: heritage @lamar.colostate.edu http://www.cnhp.colostate.edu Copyright 2003 by Colorado Natural Heritage Program 2 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Financial support for this study was provided by the Bureau of Land Management’s State Office. We greatly appreciate the support and assistance of Jay Thompson at the BLM State Office and Art Hayes and Sandy Hayes of the BLM Gunnison Field Office. The Gunnison Wetlands Focus Area Committee of the Colorado Division of Wildlife Wetlands Program was helpful in recommending high quality springs to include in the survey. Special thanks go to Lynn Cudlip of the Wetlands Focus Area Committee for sharing her local expertise. We also are very appreciative of the time and effort Dr. Rob Guralnick and Gene Hall of the University of Colorado Museum of Natural History – Invertebrate Zoology and Paleontology –contributied in identifying the snails collected during this project. Cover photos: Cabin Creek spring C-311 (left) and Willow Creek spring C-805 (right). 3 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Springs and seeps are unique habitats and serve many important hydrological, biological, and biogeochemical functions. In addition to serving as water sources, specific interest in seeps and springs in the Gunnison Basin is driven by their potential importance as brood rearing habitat for Gunnison Sage Grouse (Centrocercus minimus). The range and number of individuals of Gunnison Sage Grouse have been undergoing long-term decline and the largest remaining population is within the Gunnison Basin. The Gunnison Sage Grouse use riparian areas, wet meadows, seeps, and springs as brood rearing habitat (Gunnison Sage Grouse Working Group 1997). All of the seeps and springs presented in this report are within the Gunnison Sage Grouse overall habitat range and the Colorado Natural Heritage Program Gunnison Basin Potential Conservation Area (PCA) (Appendix A). The Gunnison Basin PCA is considered of Irreplaceable Biodiversity Significance (CNHP Biodiversity Rank B1) due to its importance as Gunnison Sage Grouse habitat. The objective of this project was to survey selected seeps and springs within two miles of known Gunnison Sage Grouse leks and comment on their condition and restoration potential. These seeps and springs are within the BLM Gunnison Field Office Management Area in Gunnison and Saguache counties. The project was completed in conjunction with a Survey of Critical Wetlands and Riparian Areas in Gunnison County (Rocchio et al. 2003). A total of 74 seeps and springs were visited during the 2002 field season. Of these, seven are new springs not included in the 1983 BLM Water Source Inventory. Site assessments include a general description, grazing exclosure recommendation, notes on Gunnison Sage Grouse, plant species list, rating of Proper Functioning Condition, collection of water chemistry data and macroinvertebrates, and restoration and management needs. Factors affecting the quality of the seeps and springs in the Gunnison Basin include spring development and livestock grazing. Most of the seeps and springs on BLM land in the Gunnison Basin have been developed for use as livestock water sources. Many changes occur at seeps and springs that are developed or disturbed from their natural condition. For example, non-native taxa comprise a greater proportion of the riparian vegetation at disturbed springs. Because human activity has been focused on these ecosystems, leading to alteration and loss of native species, it is important to identify any seeps and springs in good condition, and to assess impacted areas for restoration potential. The highest quality springs from a hydrologic and vegetative standpoint are listed in the following table. These springs are undeveloped (not excavated or bermed or piped to a tank) and support relatively dense wetland vegetation. Surveys conducted in the Great Basin have shown that seeps and springs are often hot spots of biological diversity, especially for rare and endemic species of springsnails (Sada et al. 2001). However, snails collected from Gunnison Basin seeps and springs are from genera that have widespread distributions and are common in Colorado. 4 Highest quality seeps and springs Spring Water Source Top Priority Comments ID Inventory Spring Grazing Exclosure Name Recommendation B-868 State X Excavated pond at source but large stand of wet sedges remains – evidence of sage grouse use B-925 Hondo X Nice stand of aspen with alder – spring undeveloped and within an exclosure – threatened by channel entrenchment and bare ground (grazing) at additional springs immediately outside of exclosure B-965 Cochetopa Needle Large willow/sedge stand – undeveloped spring - some hummocking and willow hedging C-311 Taylor Park 32 Above Cabin Creek – spring in good condition – historic pond downhill from spring silted in and now sedge stand F-452 Down the Line X Large willow and sedge stand along spring-fed creek. Banks compacted – evidence of sage grouse use Birch New to WSI Undeveloped spring with river birch, giant angelica, and hops Cabin 1 New to WSI Undeveloped spring with aspen and giant angelica 5 TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ............................................................................................................ 3 PROJECT BACKGROUND........................................................................................................... 9 Location and Physical Characteristics of Study Area.................................................................. 9 Seeps/Springs Ecology ................................................................................................................ 9 METHODS.................................................................................................................................... 13 Survey Site Selection................................................................................................................. 13 Site Assessment ......................................................................................................................... 13 RESULTS...................................................................................................................................... 15 Seep/Spring Surveys.................................................................................................................. 20 REFERENCES CITED ............................................................................................................... 130 APPENDICES............................................................................................................................. 133 APPENDIX A: Gunnison Basin Potential Conservation Area............................................. 1344 APPENDIX B: Natural Heritage Methodology…………………………………...………….138 LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Highest quality seeps and springs................................................................................... 15 Table 2. Mollusks collected from seeps and springs…………………………………………….15 Table 3. Seeps and springs surveyed 2002 .................................................................................. 17 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Gunnison Basin BLM seeps and springs visited by CNHP in 2002……………..……12 6 INTRODUCTION Springs and seeps are unique habitats and provide many important hydrological, biological, and biogeochemical functions. In dry regions, such as the Gunnison Basin, springs and seeps may be the only water source within miles. In addition to serving as water sources, specific interest in seeps and springs in the Gunnison Basin is driven by their potential importance as brood rearing habitat for Gunnison Sage Grouse (Centrocercus minimus). The range and number of individuals of Gunnison Sage Grouse have been undergoing long-term decline. Currently, the species occurs in 8 isolated populations with a total estimated spring breeding population of less than 4,000 individuals with the largest population (~2,500) in the Gunnison Basin (Gunnison and Saguache counties) (Young 2002). The sage grouse use riparian areas, wet meadows, seeps, and springs as brood rearing habitat from early June into the fall (Gunnison Sage Grouse Working Group 1997). The seeps and springs presented in this report are within the Gunnison Sage Grouse overall habitat range as outlined by the Colorado Division of Wildlife (CDOW 2002a). This area has been designated a Potential Conservation Area (PCA) of Irreplaceable Biodiversity Significance (B1) by the Colorado Natural Heritage Program (CNHP) and is within the portfolio of conservation areas designated by The Nature Conservancy (Neely et al. 2001). The Gunnison Basin PCA, presented in Rocchio et al. (2003) and included in this report as Appendix A, summarizes the biological importance of the area. CNHP methodology is summarized in Appendix B. Wetlands perform many functions beyond providing
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]
  • Special Status Species List
    APPENDIX J SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES LIST SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES LIST APPENDIX J SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES LIST Common Name Scientific Name State Class Status1 A Caddisfly Farula constricta OR Insect BS Adder’s-tongue Ophioglossum pusillum OR Plant BS Agave, Arizona Agave arizonica AZ Plant FE Agave, Murphey Agave murpheyi AZ Plant BS Agave, Santa Cruz Striped Agave parviflora AZ Plant BS Agoseris, Pink Agoseris lackschewitzii ID Plant BS Albatross, Short-tailed Phoebastris albatrus AK, CA Bird FE Alkaligrass, Howell’s Puccinellia howelli CA Plant BS Alkaligrass, Lemon’s Puccinellia lemmonii CA Plant BS Alkaligrass, Parish’s Puccinellia parishii CA, MT Plant BS Alpine-aster, Tall Oreostemma elatum CA Plant BS Alpine-parsley, Trotter’s Oreoxis trotteri UT Plant BS Alumroot, Duran’s Heuchera duranii CA Plant BS Amaranth, California Amaranthus californicus MT Plant BS Ambersnail, Kanab Oxyloma haydeni kanabensis AZ, UT Snail FE Ambrosia, San Diego Ambrosia pumila CA Plant FE Chlorogalum purpureum var. Amole, Purple CA Plant FT purpureum Amphipod, Malheur Cave Stygobromus hubbsi OR Crustacean BS Amphipod, Noel’s Gammarus desperatus NM Crustacean PE Angelica, King’s Angelica kingii ID Plant BS Angelica, Rough Angelica scabrida NV Plant BS Apachebush Apacheria chircahuensis NM Plant BS Apple, Indian Peraphyllum ramosissimum ID Plant BS Arrowhead, Sanford’s Sagittaria sanfordii CA Plant BS Aster, Gorman’s Eucephalus gormanii OR Plant BS Aster, Pygmy Eurybia pygmaea AK Plant BS Aster, Red Rock Canyon Ionactis caelestis NV Plant BS Avens, Mountain Senecio moresbiensis AK Plant BS Baccharis, Encinitis Baccharis vanessae CA Plant FT Balloonvine Cardiospermum corindum AZ Plant BS Balsamorhiza macrolepis var. Balsamroot, Big-scale CA Plant BS macrolepis Balsamroot, Large-leaved Balsamorhiza macrophylla MT Plant BS Balsamroot, Silky Balsamorhiza sericea CA Plant BS Balsamroot, Woolly Balsamorhiza hookeri var.
    [Show full text]
  • Digitalcommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln
    University of Nebraska - Lincoln DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln U.S. Department of Agriculture: Agricultural Publications from USDA-ARS / UNL Faculty Research Service, Lincoln, Nebraska 1996 Bromegrasses Kenneth P. Vogel University of Nebraska-Lincoln, [email protected] K. J. Moore Iowa State University Lowell E. Moser University of Nebraska-Lincoln, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/usdaarsfacpub Vogel, Kenneth P.; Moore, K. J.; and Moser, Lowell E., "Bromegrasses" (1996). Publications from USDA- ARS / UNL Faculty. 2097. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/usdaarsfacpub/2097 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the U.S. Department of Agriculture: Agricultural Research Service, Lincoln, Nebraska at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. It has been accepted for inclusion in Publications from USDA-ARS / UNL Faculty by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. Published 1996 17 Bromegrasses1 K.P. VOGEL USDA-ARS Lincoln, Nebraska K.J.MOORE Iowa State University Ames, Iowa LOWELL E. MOSER University of Nebraska Lincoln, Nebraska The bromegrasses belong to the genus Bromus of which there are some 100 spe­ cies (Gould & Shaw, 1983). The genus includes both annual and perennial cool­ season species adapted to temperate climates. Hitchcock (1971) described 42 bro­ megrass species found in the USA and Canada of which 22 were native (Gould & Shaw, 1983). Bromus is the Greek word for oat and refers to the panicle inflo­ rescence characteristic of the genus. The bromegrasses are C3 species (Krenzer et aI., 1975; Waller & Lewis, 1979). Of all the bromegrass species, only two are cultivated for permanent pas­ tures to any extent in North America.
    [Show full text]
  • Integrated Noxious Weed Management Plan: US Air Force Academy and Farish Recreation Area, El Paso County, CO
    Integrated Noxious Weed Management Plan US Air Force Academy and Farish Recreation Area August 2015 CNHP’s mission is to preserve the natural diversity of life by contributing the essential scientific foundation that leads to lasting conservation of Colorado's biological wealth. Colorado Natural Heritage Program Warner College of Natural Resources Colorado State University 1475 Campus Delivery Fort Collins, CO 80523 (970) 491-7331 Report Prepared for: United States Air Force Academy Department of Natural Resources Recommended Citation: Smith, P., S. S. Panjabi, and J. Handwerk. 2015. Integrated Noxious Weed Management Plan: US Air Force Academy and Farish Recreation Area, El Paso County, CO. Colorado Natural Heritage Program, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado. Front Cover: Documenting weeds at the US Air Force Academy. Photos courtesy of the Colorado Natural Heritage Program © Integrated Noxious Weed Management Plan US Air Force Academy and Farish Recreation Area El Paso County, CO Pam Smith, Susan Spackman Panjabi, and Jill Handwerk Colorado Natural Heritage Program Warner College of Natural Resources Colorado State University Fort Collins, Colorado 80523 August 2015 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Various federal, state, and local laws, ordinances, orders, and policies require land managers to control noxious weeds. The purpose of this plan is to provide a guide to manage, in the most efficient and effective manner, the noxious weeds on the US Air Force Academy (Academy) and Farish Recreation Area (Farish) over the next 10 years (through 2025), in accordance with their respective integrated natural resources management plans. This plan pertains to the “natural” portions of the Academy and excludes highly developed areas, such as around buildings, recreation fields, and lawns.
    [Show full text]
  • SMOOTH BROME (Bromus Inermis) Description: Smooth Brome, Also
    SMOOTH BROME (Bromus inermis) Smooth brome Description: Smooth brome, also referred to as Hungarian brome, Austrian brome, Russian brome, and awnless brome, is a member of the Poaceae or grass family. Smooth brome is a strongly, rhizomatous, sod- forming perennial grass that can reach heights up to 4 feet. Culms of the plant are smooth and have an erect to decumbent growth form. Basal and stem leaves are numerous, flat, somewhat firm, glabrous, 3 to 5 inches long, and approximately 1/8 to 1/2 inch wide. Leaves may have a distinctive W-shaped water mark on the leaf blade. Sheaths are glabrous and round. Ligules are less than 1/8 inch long, membranous, and lacerate. Smooth brome Inflorescence is a loosely contracted panicle that is 4 to 8 inches long, only moderately open, with the upper branches often ascending while lower branches are reflexed. Spikelets are four to ten-flowered, pale green to slightly purple-tinged in color, 3/4 to 2 inches long and 1/16 to 1/4 inch wide. Glumes are acute, the lower is one-nerved and 1/8 to 1/4 inch long, the upper is three-nerved and 1/4 to 1/2 inch long. Lemmas are awnless or are short- awned up to about 1/16 inch long. Anthers are linear, orange-yellow in color, and 1/8 inch in length. Plant Images: Spikelets W-shaped water mark Panicle Distribution and Habitat: Smooth brome is native to Eurasia and now occurs from the northeast United States, south to Tennessee, west to the Pacific Coast, south to northern and central New Mexico and Arizona, north to Alaska, and throughout Canada.
    [Show full text]
  • Gunnison Milkvetch
    SENSITIVE SPECIES EVALUATION FORM Astragalus anisus, Priority 1. Astragalus anisus M.E. Jones (ASAN4). Gunnison milkvetch. CNHP G2 / S2, Track A FS: R2. BLM: CO-GN -- G2 N2. CO S2. GMUG-Paonia, Taylor River-Cebolla Confi- Criteria Rank dence Rationale Sources of Information Doesn’t match any of the described ratings, distribution in R-2 doesn’t look like any My observations, Weber and Wittmann 1 of the diagrams. One polygon on the R-2 map. Concepts such as “dispersal among 2001a, Barneby 1964, herbaria DENF- patches” and “population isolation” are not important for vascular plants. CS-COLO-RM, CNHP 1999-2002, Distribution NA L NFS available habitat and populations usually occur near the Forest Boundary, and Spackman and others 1999. within R2 across it from larger populations on public lands below. Species only occurs in Colorado: Gunnison and Saguache Counties. My observations, Weber and Wittmann 2 2001a, Barneby 1964, herbaria DENF- Distribution A H CS-COLO-RM, CNHP 1999-2002, outside R2 Spackman and others 1999. Moderate dispersal capability: seeds are large, without any mechanical aids to My observations, Weber and Wittmann dispersal. Pollen dispersal unknown. Mature fruit fuzzy with hairs, but usually on or 2001a, Barneby 1964, Spackman and 3 near ground surface – unlikely to be aided by animals. No ground-dwelling animals on others 1999. Dispersal B M these sites, because they are usually very shallow to a hard clay-rock mix. I have Capability observed a slight amount of wind and water dispersal of the fruit, less than 5 m. Doesn’t match any of the described ratings, “demographic stochasticity” is My observations, Weber and Wittmann apparently irrelevant for vascular plants.
    [Show full text]
  • Summits on the Air – ARM for USA - Colorado (WØC)
    Summits on the Air – ARM for USA - Colorado (WØC) Summits on the Air USA - Colorado (WØC) Association Reference Manual Document Reference S46.1 Issue number 3.2 Date of issue 15-June-2021 Participation start date 01-May-2010 Authorised Date: 15-June-2021 obo SOTA Management Team Association Manager Matt Schnizer KØMOS Summits-on-the-Air an original concept by G3WGV and developed with G3CWI Notice “Summits on the Air” SOTA and the SOTA logo are trademarks of the Programme. This document is copyright of the Programme. All other trademarks and copyrights referenced herein are acknowledged. Page 1 of 11 Document S46.1 V3.2 Summits on the Air – ARM for USA - Colorado (WØC) Change Control Date Version Details 01-May-10 1.0 First formal issue of this document 01-Aug-11 2.0 Updated Version including all qualified CO Peaks, North Dakota, and South Dakota Peaks 01-Dec-11 2.1 Corrections to document for consistency between sections. 31-Mar-14 2.2 Convert WØ to WØC for Colorado only Association. Remove South Dakota and North Dakota Regions. Minor grammatical changes. Clarification of SOTA Rule 3.7.3 “Final Access”. Matt Schnizer K0MOS becomes the new W0C Association Manager. 04/30/16 2.3 Updated Disclaimer Updated 2.0 Program Derivation: Changed prominence from 500 ft to 150m (492 ft) Updated 3.0 General information: Added valid FCC license Corrected conversion factor (ft to m) and recalculated all summits 1-Apr-2017 3.0 Acquired new Summit List from ListsofJohn.com: 64 new summits (37 for P500 ft to P150 m change and 27 new) and 3 deletes due to prom corrections.
    [Show full text]
  • Colorado Topographic Maps, Scale 1:24,000 This List Contains The
    Colorado Topographic Maps, scale 1:24,000 This list contains the quadrangle names and publication dates of all Colorado topographic maps published at the scale of 1:24,000 by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). One, non-circulating copy of each map is held in the Map Room Office. The Library does not own maps labeled "lacking." The maps are sorted alphabetically by sheet name. Colorado 1:24,000 Topos -- A Abarr 1974 printed 1977 Abarr SE 1968 printed 1971 1968 (without color) printed 1971 Abeyta 1971 printed 1974 1971 (without color) printed 1974 Adams Lake 1974 printed 1978 (dark), 1978 (light) 1974 (without color) printed 1978 1987 printed 1988 Adena 1963 printed 1965, 1975 1963 (without color) printed 1965 1984 printed 1984 1984 (without color) printed 1984 Adler Creek 1968 printed 1971 1968 (without color) printed 1971 Adobe Downs Ranch, New Mexico-Colorado 1963 printed 1965 1963 (without color) printed 1965 1979 printed 1980 (dark), 1980 (light) Adobe Springs 1969 printed 1972, 1992 1969 (without color) printed 1972 Agate 1970 printed 1973 (dark), 1973 (light) 1970 (without color) printed 1973 Agate Mountain 1983 printed 1983 1994 printed 1998 Aguilar 1971 printed 1974 1971 (without color) printed 1974 Akron 1973 printed 1976 1973 (without color) printed 1976 Akron SE 1973 printed 1976 Akron SW 1973 printed 1976 Alamosa East 1966 printed 1968, 1975 1966 (without color) printed 1968 Alamosa West 1966 printed 1969, 1971 1966 (without color) printed 1969 Aldrich Gulch 1957 printed 1958, 1964, 1975 (dark), 1975 (light) 1957 (without color)
    [Show full text]
  • USGS Quadrangle and Trails Illustrated Index
    GunnisonGunnison CountyCounty ComprehensiveComprehensive PlanPlan RecreationalRecreational ResourcesResources PanelPanel 11 ofof 33 CO O C ESA N M SO NI GUN A S E M R E USGS Quadrangle and K A U Q B Trails Illustrated Index A T O I N C K A K L L P E N N I S IN I A S A A T A T N S K K P T E L A A N N U L E L O E E U U B E P P C O B O R M K N M S N E M A S N E R D L IR M A O D O L O Y N A M Y E U R A P B H W W C A H E E O M N D N N S N I IR I 265B O A V T T R N L D 47 E U U S K R 56 E S S O F S E A E C E R M Y I A D V E R O P R T L A J H C N R M IA - T L I E A O N E O N A S N I B L F H O L - G AR I A P N A L E E I T 265 P H P L I N !9 E O A P W McClure C T U 4567 I O PITKIN R C R O A 133 131 I M K M N O E I V Pass SNOWMASS MOUNTAIN S A G N A S I R E N E T E A P T A P A L T N S !( H R L T N U E T E X A I E E U U O R L T B T O P A W I M K U GUN O D M Y !F NIS K C S R ON S CO AXT E C E C A .
    [Show full text]
  • Astragalus Missouriensis Nutt. Var. Humistratus Isely (Missouri Milkvetch): a Technical Conservation Assessment
    Astragalus missouriensis Nutt. var. humistratus Isely (Missouri milkvetch): A Technical Conservation Assessment Prepared for the USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region, Species Conservation Project July 13, 2006 Karin Decker Colorado Natural Heritage Program Colorado State University Fort Collins, CO Peer Review Administered by Society for Conservation Biology Decker, K. (2006, July 13). Astragalus missouriensis Nutt. var. humistratus Isely (Missouri milkvetch): a technical conservation assessment. [Online]. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. Available: http:// www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/astragalusmissouriensisvarhumistratus.pdf [date of access]. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This work benefited greatly from the input of Colorado Natural Heritage Program botanists Dave Anderson and Peggy Lyon. Thanks also to Jill Handwerk for assistance in the preparation of this document. Nan Lederer at University of Colorado Museum Herbarium provided helpful information on Astragalus missouriensis var. humistratus specimens. AUTHOR’S BIOGRAPHY Karin Decker is an ecologist with the Colorado Natural Heritage Program (CNHP). She works with CNHP’s Ecology and Botany teams, providing ecological, statistical, GIS, and computing expertise for a variety of projects. She has worked with CNHP since 2000. Prior to this, she was an ecologist with the Colorado Natural Areas Program in Denver for four years. She is a Colorado native who has been working in the field of ecology since 1990. Before returning to school to become an ecologist she graduated from the University of Northern Colorado with a B.A. in Music (1982). She received an M.S. in Ecology from the University of Nebraska (1997), where her thesis research investigated sex ratios and sex allocation in a dioecious annual plant.
    [Show full text]
  • Silica Bodies in the Early Cretaceous Programinis Laminatus (Angiospermae: Poales)
    Palaeodiversity 4: 1–6; Stuttgart 30 December 2011. 1 Silica bodies in the Early Cretaceous Programinis laminatus (Angiospermae: Poales) GEORGE POINAR, JR. Abstract Silica bodies in short cell epidermal leaf cells of the Early Cretaceous Programinis laminatus (Poales) in Burmese amber are characterized. The great majority are rondels and elongated quadrates aligned horizontally in relation to the leaf axis. Rondel types include circular, elliptical, oblong, long and short forms. Quadrate types include short and long rectangles, trapezoids and pentagons. A comparison of P. laminatus silica bodies with those in extant epidermal leaf cells of the Poales aligns the fossil with the family Poaceae and representatives of the sub- family Pooidae. K e y w o r d s : Cretaceous phytoliths, Burmese amber, Programinis laminatus, Grass silica bodies. Zusammenfassung Silikatkörper in kurzen Zellen der epidermalen Blattzellen werden für die unterkreidezeitliche Süßgrasartige Programinis laminatus (Poales) aus dem Burma Bernstein beschrieben. Die Mehrzahl sind Rondelle und horizon- tal verlängerte Quader. Die Rondell-Typen beinhalten kreisförmige, elliptische, längliche, lange und kurze Formen. Die Quader-Typen beinhalten kurze und lange Rechtecke, Trapezoide und Fünfecke. Eine Vergleich der Silikat- körper von P. laminatus mit solchen in rezenten epidermalen Blattzellen der Poales ist im Einklang mit einer Zuord- nung zur Familie Poaceae und Vertretern der Unterfamilie Pooidae. Contents 1. Introduction .............................................................................................................................................................1
    [Show full text]
  • Plant Species of the Upper Gunnison Basin
    Appendix B. Management of Plant Species Contents Federal Interagency Committee for Wetland Delineation I Trees........................................................................................... 788 (1989). II Shrubs ........................................................................................ 791 III Graminoids (Grasses and Grasslike Plants).............................. 806 Descriptive Terminology Code IV Forbs........................................................................................... 819 “Never found in wetlands” not listed or UPL V Ferns and Fern-allies.................................................................. 831 “Generally an upland, nonwetland species” FACU VI Weeds, Introduced Plants, and Poison Plants........................... 831 “Equally likely to be found in wetlands FAC 1. Invasive Plants and Poison Plants.................................... 832 and nonwetlands” 2. Introduced Plants............................................................... 838 “Usually found in wetlands” FACW Table of species and their sites.................................................. 838 “Always found in wetlands” OBL Index to plant species................................................................. 852 2. When production is given below, the units are pounds Notes per acre per year (lb/ac/yr), air-dry weight. Unless otherwise 1. The following words have been used to describe stated, production is given for the above-ground portion of wetland classes found in Reed (1988). “Wetland” as used in live
    [Show full text]