DOCSLIB.ORG

Rare Species Surveys of the Manitoba Conservation Data Centre, 2001

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Rare Species Surveys of the Manitoba Conservation Data Centre, 2001 RARE SPECIES SURVEYS OF THE MANITOBA CONSERVATION DATA CENTRE, 2001 Manitoba Conservation Data Centre MS Report 02-02 March 2002 Elizabeth Reimer, Assistant Botanist and Cary D. Hamel, Assistant Biologist Manitoba Conservation Data Centre 200 Saulteaux Crescent Winnipeg, Manitoba R3J 3W3 (204) 945-7743 Fax (204) 945-3077 Please cite as: Reimer, E. and Hamel, C. D. 2002. Rare species surveys of the Manitoba Conservation Data Centre, 2001. Manitoba Conservation Data Centre MS Report Number 02-02, Winnipeg, Manitoba. 37 p. RARE SPECIES SURVEYS OF THE MANITOBA CONSERVATION DATA CENTRE, 2001 Elizabeth Reimer and Cary D. Hamel March 2002 Executive Summary Cataloguing the location of rare species occurrences and describing abundance, habitat, and possible threats are critical to the sound stewardship of Manitoba’s biodiversity. Informed decisions relating to land use, protection, species status, and the direction of future research depend on the availability of these basic data. Staff of the Manitoba Conservation Data Centre conducted extensive surveys of rare species in southern Manitoba between May 11 and September 21, 2001. Priority activities included monitoring known rare species occurrences and surveying for new records. Targeted surveys of 22 species were conducted; surveys of seven of these species (Buchloë dactyloides, Celtis occidentalis, Dalea villosa var. villosa, Krigia biflora, Mimulus glabratus, Spiranthes magnicamporum, and Symphyotrichum sericeum) comprised the majority of field work. A summary of field activities, current status, species description, habitat preferences, current protection, management issues, and future work required is presented for each of these seven species. Brief descriptions, limited to a summary of field work conducted and related issues, follows for the 15 additional targeted species. Rare species encountered incidentally are also reported. In total, field work in 2001 resulted in the update of 61 previously known rare species occurrences and the documentation of 79 new occurrences. Each surveyed species possesses unique biological features that influence distribution and abundance in Manitoba. Habitat, phenology, and historic and current land use practices influence the possible threats to these rare species, and the management practices required to maintain them. Many rare species in Manitoba are limited by the distribution and abundance of the habitat upon which they depend. Habitat loss (historic and continued) has had a significant, negative impact on a number of species reported herein. The historic extent of tall-grass and mixed-grass prairie, for example, has declined dramatically since European settlement. Other habitats, such as springs and sandhills, are naturally rare landscape features. All information collected has been incorporated into a rare species database maintained by the Conservation Data Centre. The information contained therein is available to parties engaged in making management decisions affecting the maintenance of biodiversity in Manitoba. Rare Species Surveys of the Manitoba Conservation Data Centre, 2001 Page i Manitoba Conservation Data Centre Acknowledgements Collection of the valuable information contained within this report would not have been possible without the support of the Habitat Stewardship Program, Canadian Wildlife Service, Environment Canada, Manitoba Conservation (Wildlife and Ecosystem Protection Branch), Critical Wildlife Habitat Program, Manitoba Habitat Heritage Corporation, Manitoba Special Conservation Fund, and the Manitoba Museum of Man and Nature. Ken De Smet’s knowledge of the land and landowners of southwestern Manitoba greatly increased the efficiency and success of the extensive surveys conducted in that area of the province. Dr. Bruce Ford helped in the identification of target species and landscapes, and readily provided access to the resources available at the University of Manitoba herbarium. Elizabeth Punter also aided in focusing survey efforts, through both conversations and written recommendations made in previous rare plant survey reports. Laura Reeves, Christie Borkowsky, and John Tkachuck of the Tall Grass Prairie Preserve provided advice and assistance. Valuable volunteer field assistance was provided by Richard Caners, Lisa Matthias, and Janet Skavinski. Jason Greenall and Jim Duncan helped in the editing of this document. The advice and other aid provided by local landowners, land managers and resource users, too numerous to mention here, was invaluable in both the relocation of known records and in searching for new occurrences. Marjorie Hughes, under contract with the Canadian Wildlife Service and supported by the Manitoba Conservation Data Centre, conducted extensive surveys in 2001 for three species: silky prairie-clover (Dalea villosa var. villosa), small white ladies’-slipper (Cypripedium candidum), and western spiderwort (Tradescantia occidentalis). Due to extensive collaboration between Ms. Hughes and the authors of this report, in both field work and data management, the results of these surveys are summarized within. More detailed descriptions of field activities and results can be found in Hughes (2001). Rare Species Surveys of the Manitoba Conservation Data Centre, 2001 Page ii Manitoba Conservation Data Centre Table of Contents Executive Summary............................................................................................................. i Acknowledgements............................................................................................................. ii Table of Contents...............................................................................................................iii Introduction......................................................................................................................... 3 Methods............................................................................................................................... 2 Results................................................................................................................................. 4 Targeted Surveys ............................................................................................................ 4 Buffalo Grass (Buchloë dactyloides) .................................................................................................... 4 Common Hackberry (Celtis occidentalis)............................................................................................. 7 Silky Prairie-clover (Dalea villosa var. villosa)...................................................................................10 Two-flowered Dwarf-dandelion (Krigia biflora).................................................................................13 Round-leaf Monkey-flower (Mimulus glabratus)................................................................................16 Great Plains Ladies’-tresses (Spiranthes magnicamporum) ................................................................20 Western Silvery Aster (Symphyotrichum sericeum = Aster sericeus) .................................................23 Other Species Targeted........................................................................................................................26 Rare Species Surveyed Incidentally.............................................................................. 30 Conclusions....................................................................................................................... 31 References Cited ............................................................................................................... 32 Appendices........................................................................................................................ 34 Rare Species Surveys of the Manitoba Conservation Data Centre, 2001 Page iii Manitoba Conservation Data Centre Introduction Collecting information on rare species is an important tool in determining status and making management decisions. Land managers also benefit from information that helps them determine what activity or land use is appropriate for an area that contains rare species. This information also feeds into the general status assessments. General status ranks incorporate information on population size, number of occurrences, geographic distribution, trend in distribution, threats to population, and threats to habitat (Canadian Endangered Species Conservation Council (CESCC) 2001). This process identifies data gaps for groups that are assessed thereby increasing the profile of these species. Where data gaps are identified, these gaps can be addressed by gathering new information that will be incorporated into the general status ranks. Through these steps, species that may be at risk are identified, and can be targeted for conservation. Future studies into the biology or ecology of rare species could build on the information gathered in the course of this survey. In Manitoba, 24% of species tracked by the Conservation Data Centre (CDC) are rare (ranked between S1 and S3). Of these rare species, 2% are rare globally (ranked G1 to G3). Many Great Plains species reach the northern limit of their range in Manitoba, and these populations may represent remnants of formerly widespread plants. Peripheral populations may have unique adaptations to allow them to survive at the edge of their range; these adaptations represent important aspects of the genetic diversity of a species (White and Johnson 1980). Many rare species in Manitoba
Load more

Recommended publications
  • C10 Beano1senn.Mimosa.Amo-Des
    LEGUMINOSAE PART ONE Caesalpinioideae, Mimosoideae, Papilionoideae, Amorpha to Desmodium Revised 04 May 2015 BEAN FAMILY 1 Amphicarpaea CAESALPINIACEAE Cassia Anthyllis Cercis Apios Chamaecrista Astragalus Gleditsia Baptisia Gymnocladus Caragana Senna Cladrastus MIMOSACEAE Desmanthus Coronilla Mimosa Crotalaria Schrankia Dalea PAPILIONACEAE Amorpha Desmodium un-copyrighted draught --- “No family of the vegetable kingdom possesses a higher claim to the attention of the naturalist than the Leguminosae, wether we regard them as objects of ornament or utility. Of the former, we might mention the splendid varieties of Cercis, with their purple flowers, the Acacias, with their airy foliage and silky stamens, the Pride of India, Colutea, and Cæsalpina, with a host of others, which, like the Sweet Pea, are redolent with perfume. Of the latter, the beans, peas, lentils, clover, and lucerne, are too well known to require recommendation. Among timber trees, the Rosewood (a Brazilian species of Mimosa), the Laburnum, whose wood is durable and of an olive-green color, and the Locust of our own country are preëminent. The following are a few important officinal products of this order. In medicine; liquorice is the product of the root of Glycyrrhiza glabra of S. Europe. The purgative senna consists of leaves of Cassia Senna, C. acutifolia, C. Æthiopica, and other species of Egypt and Arabia. C. Marilandica is also a cathartic, but more mild than the former. The sweet pulp tamarind, is the product of a large and beautiful tree (Tamarindus Indica) of the E. and W. Indies. Resins and Balsams: Gum Senegal is yielded by Acacia Verek of the River Senegal; Gum Arabic, by several species of Acacia of Central Africa; Gum Tragacynth, by Astragalus verus, &c., Persia.
    [Show full text]
  • Natural Communities of Michigan: Classification and Description
    Natural Communities of Michigan: Classification and Description Prepared by: Michael A. Kost, Dennis A. Albert, Joshua G. Cohen, Bradford S. Slaughter, Rebecca K. Schillo, Christopher R. Weber, and Kim A. Chapman Michigan Natural Features Inventory P.O. Box 13036 Lansing, MI 48901-3036 For: Michigan Department of Natural Resources Wildlife Division and Forest, Mineral and Fire Management Division September 30, 2007 Report Number 2007-21 Version 1.2 Last Updated: July 9, 2010 Suggested Citation: Kost, M.A., D.A. Albert, J.G. Cohen, B.S. Slaughter, R.K. Schillo, C.R. Weber, and K.A. Chapman. 2007. Natural Communities of Michigan: Classification and Description. Michigan Natural Features Inventory, Report Number 2007-21, Lansing, MI. 314 pp. Copyright 2007 Michigan State University Board of Trustees. Michigan State University Extension programs and materials are open to all without regard to race, color, national origin, gender, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, marital status or family status. Cover photos: Top left, Dry Sand Prairie at Indian Lake, Newaygo County (M. Kost); top right, Limestone Bedrock Lakeshore, Summer Island, Delta County (J. Cohen); lower left, Muskeg, Luce County (J. Cohen); and lower right, Mesic Northern Forest as a matrix natural community, Porcupine Mountains Wilderness State Park, Ontonagon County (M. Kost). Acknowledgements We thank the Michigan Department of Natural Resources Wildlife Division and Forest, Mineral, and Fire Management Division for funding this effort to classify and describe the natural communities of Michigan. This work relied heavily on data collected by many present and former Michigan Natural Features Inventory (MNFI) field scientists and collaborators, including members of the Michigan Natural Areas Council.
    [Show full text]
  • Legumes of the North-Central States: C
    LEGUMES OF THE NORTH-CENTRAL STATES: C-ALEGEAE by Stanley Larson Welsh A Dissertation Submitted, to the Graduate Faculty in Partial Fulfillment of The Requirements for the Degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Major Subject: Systematic Botany Approved: Signature was redacted for privacy. Signature was redacted for privacy. artment Signature was redacted for privacy. Dean of Graduat College Iowa State University Of Science and Technology Ames, Iowa I960 ii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS iii INTRODUCTION 1 HISTORICAL ACCOUNT 3 MATERIALS AND METHODS 8 TAXONOMIC AND NOMENCLATURE TREATMENT 13 REFERENCES 158 APPENDIX A 176 APPENDIX B 202 iii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The writer wishes to express his deep gratitude to Professor Duane Isely for assistance in the selection of the problem and for the con­ structive criticisms and words of encouragement offered throughout the course of this investigation. Support through the Iowa Agricultural Experiment Station and through the Industrial Science Research Institute made possible the field work required in this problem. Thanks are due to the curators of the many herbaria consulted during this investigation. Special thanks are due the curators of the Missouri Botanical Garden, U. S. National Museum, University of Minnesota, North Dakota Agricultural College, University of South Dakota, University of Nebraska, and University of Michigan. The cooperation of the librarians at Iowa State University is deeply appreciated. Special thanks are due Dr. G. B. Van Schaack of the Missouri Botanical Garden library. His enthusiastic assistance in finding rare botanical volumes has proved invaluable in the preparation of this paper. To the writer's wife, Stella, deepest appreciation is expressed. Her untiring devotion, work, and cooperation have made this work possible.
    [Show full text]
  • State of New York City's Plants 2018
    STATE OF NEW YORK CITY’S PLANTS 2018 Daniel Atha & Brian Boom © 2018 The New York Botanical Garden All rights reserved ISBN 978-0-89327-955-4 Center for Conservation Strategy The New York Botanical Garden 2900 Southern Boulevard Bronx, NY 10458 All photos NYBG staff Citation: Atha, D. and B. Boom. 2018. State of New York City’s Plants 2018. Center for Conservation Strategy. The New York Botanical Garden, Bronx, NY. 132 pp. STATE OF NEW YORK CITY’S PLANTS 2018 4 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 6 INTRODUCTION 10 DOCUMENTING THE CITY’S PLANTS 10 The Flora of New York City 11 Rare Species 14 Focus on Specific Area 16 Botanical Spectacle: Summer Snow 18 CITIZEN SCIENCE 20 THREATS TO THE CITY’S PLANTS 24 NEW YORK STATE PROHIBITED AND REGULATED INVASIVE SPECIES FOUND IN NEW YORK CITY 26 LOOKING AHEAD 27 CONTRIBUTORS AND ACKNOWLEGMENTS 30 LITERATURE CITED 31 APPENDIX Checklist of the Spontaneous Vascular Plants of New York City 32 Ferns and Fern Allies 35 Gymnosperms 36 Nymphaeales and Magnoliids 37 Monocots 67 Dicots 3 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This report, State of New York City’s Plants 2018, is the first rankings of rare, threatened, endangered, and extinct species of what is envisioned by the Center for Conservation Strategy known from New York City, and based on this compilation of The New York Botanical Garden as annual updates thirteen percent of the City’s flora is imperiled or extinct in New summarizing the status of the spontaneous plant species of the York City. five boroughs of New York City. This year’s report deals with the City’s vascular plants (ferns and fern allies, gymnosperms, We have begun the process of assessing conservation status and flowering plants), but in the future it is planned to phase in at the local level for all species.
    [Show full text]
  • Checklist Flora of the Former Carden Township, City of Kawartha Lakes, on 2016
    Hairy Beardtongue (Penstemon hirsutus) Checklist Flora of the Former Carden Township, City of Kawartha Lakes, ON 2016 Compiled by Dale Leadbeater and Anne Barbour © 2016 Leadbeater and Barbour All Rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or database, or transmitted in any form or by any means, including photocopying, without written permission of the authors. Produced with financial assistance from The Couchiching Conservancy. The City of Kawartha Lakes Flora Project is sponsored by the Kawartha Field Naturalists based in Fenelon Falls, Ontario. In 2008, information about plants in CKL was scattered and scarce. At the urging of Michael Oldham, Biologist at the Natural Heritage Information Centre at the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry, Dale Leadbeater and Anne Barbour formed a committee with goals to: • Generate a list of species found in CKL and their distribution, vouchered by specimens to be housed at the Royal Ontario Museum in Toronto, making them available for future study by the scientific community; • Improve understanding of natural heritage systems in the CKL; • Provide insight into changes in the local plant communities as a result of pressures from introduced species, climate change and population growth; and, • Publish the findings of the project . Over eight years, more than 200 volunteers and landowners collected almost 2000 voucher specimens, with the permission of landowners. Over 10,000 observations and literature records have been databased. The project has documented 150 new species of which 60 are introduced, 90 are native and one species that had never been reported in Ontario to date.
    [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]
  • Illustration Sources
    APPENDIX ONE ILLUSTRATION SOURCES REF. CODE ABR Abrams, L. 1923–1960. Illustrated flora of the Pacific states. Stanford University Press, Stanford, CA. ADD Addisonia. 1916–1964. New York Botanical Garden, New York. Reprinted with permission from Addisonia, vol. 18, plate 579, Copyright © 1933, The New York Botanical Garden. ANDAnderson, E. and Woodson, R.E. 1935. The species of Tradescantia indigenous to the United States. Arnold Arboretum of Harvard University, Cambridge, MA. Reprinted with permission of the Arnold Arboretum of Harvard University. ANN Hollingworth A. 2005. Original illustrations. Published herein by the Botanical Research Institute of Texas, Fort Worth. Artist: Anne Hollingworth. ANO Anonymous. 1821. Medical botany. E. Cox and Sons, London. ARM Annual Rep. Missouri Bot. Gard. 1889–1912. Missouri Botanical Garden, St. Louis. BA1 Bailey, L.H. 1914–1917. The standard cyclopedia of horticulture. The Macmillan Company, New York. BA2 Bailey, L.H. and Bailey, E.Z. 1976. Hortus third: A concise dictionary of plants cultivated in the United States and Canada. Revised and expanded by the staff of the Liberty Hyde Bailey Hortorium. Cornell University. Macmillan Publishing Company, New York. Reprinted with permission from William Crepet and the L.H. Bailey Hortorium. Cornell University. BA3 Bailey, L.H. 1900–1902. Cyclopedia of American horticulture. Macmillan Publishing Company, New York. BB2 Britton, N.L. and Brown, A. 1913. An illustrated flora of the northern United States, Canada and the British posses- sions. Charles Scribner’s Sons, New York. BEA Beal, E.O. and Thieret, J.W. 1986. Aquatic and wetland plants of Kentucky. Kentucky Nature Preserves Commission, Frankfort. Reprinted with permission of Kentucky State Nature Preserves Commission.
    [Show full text]
  • A Data Compilation and Assessment of Coastal Wetlands of Wisconsin's Great Lakes
    A Data Compilation and Assessment of Coastal Wetlands of Wisconsin's Great Lakes March 2000 Primary Author: Nicole Merryfield Contributing Authors: Eric Epstein, Andrew Galvin, Emmet Judziewicz, William Smith Natural Heritage Inventory Program Bureau of Endangered Resources Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources P.O. Box 7921 Madison, WI 53707 Publication Number: PUBL-ER-002 00 Please write to the above address for copies of this report. Cover photos by Eric Epstein, Emmet Judziewicz, and Thomas Meyer, Bureau of Endangered Resources. Scanning completed by Robert Queen. 2 A Data Compilation and Assessment ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Funding for this project was provided by the Department of Administration's Coastal Management Program and the Department of Natural Resources Endangered Resources Fund. We gratefully acknowledge this support. Many individuals provided valuable insight, advice, and technical information necessary to complete this study. We wish to extend our thanks to the following persons for their assistance: i Department of Natural Resources Staff: Julie Bleser, Eric Epstein, Andy Galvin, Bob Hay, Randy Hoffman, Kelly Kearns, Ann Lacy, Calvin Lawrence, Betty Les, Emmet Judziewicz, Mark Martin, Sumner Matteson, Thomas Meyer, Mitch Moline, Dave Sample, Sonia Slemrod, William Smith, Lois Stoerzer, Kristin Westad, Darrell Zastrow, Barb Zellmer i Conservation Organizations: Roy Aiken from Door County Property Owners, Mike Grimm of The Nature Conservancy i Government Agencies: Dea Larsen Converse and Diana Toledo of the Wisconsin Coastal Management Program of Department of Administration, Candice Kasprzak and Mark Walter of the Bay-Lake Regional Planning Commission, Larry Leitner and John McDugle of the Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission, Joel Trick of the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Cirsium Hillii (Canby) Fern
    Cirsium hillii (Canby) Fern. Hill’s thistle State Distribution Best Survey Period Photo by Phyllis J. Higman Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Status: State special concern bracts at the base of the flower head are tipped by slender, short, and appressed spines. The elliptic-oblong leaves Global and state rank: G3/S3 form a basal rosette with only a few progressively smaller leaves on the stem. The leaf margins are typically Other common names: hollow-rooted thistle undulating to very shallowly lobed and sometimes Family: Asteraceae (aster family) slightly tomentose below, but often smooth on both surfaces. Synonyms: Cirsium pumilum (Nutt.) Sprengel Best survey time/phenology: Surveys are best conducted Total range: Hill’s thistle is centered in the Great Lakes during the flowering period from June through August, region, ranging from South Dakota and Minnesota to however with experience this species can be recognized southern Ontario and Pennsylvania. throughout the season both by the distinctive basal rosettes and fruiting heads. State distribution: Hill’s thistle is concentrated in three areas the state; the Shakey Lakes oak savanna region of Habitat: Throughout its range Hill’s thistle is known Menominee County in the Upper Peninsula, the jack pine from dry, sandy, gravelly soils in prairies, jack pine barrens of northern Lower Michigan, and in alvar habitat barrens, oak savanna, and open woods. In Michigan and on Drummond Island. Its stronghold is in the jack pine Wisconsin, it is also known from limestone pavement barrens of the northern Lower Peninsula in Crawford communities known as “alvar”.
    [Show full text]
  • Natural Heritage Resources of Virginia: Rare Vascular Plants
    NATURAL HERITAGE RESOURCES OF VIRGINIA: RARE PLANTS APRIL 2009 VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION AND RECREATION DIVISION OF NATURAL HERITAGE 217 GOVERNOR STREET, THIRD FLOOR RICHMOND, VIRGINIA 23219 (804) 786-7951 List Compiled by: John F. Townsend Staff Botanist Cover illustrations (l. to r.) of Swamp Pink (Helonias bullata), dwarf burhead (Echinodorus tenellus), and small whorled pogonia (Isotria medeoloides) by Megan Rollins This report should be cited as: Townsend, John F. 2009. Natural Heritage Resources of Virginia: Rare Plants. Natural Heritage Technical Report 09-07. Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation, Division of Natural Heritage, Richmond, Virginia. Unpublished report. April 2009. 62 pages plus appendices. INTRODUCTION The Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation's Division of Natural Heritage (DCR-DNH) was established to protect Virginia's Natural Heritage Resources. These Resources are defined in the Virginia Natural Area Preserves Act of 1989 (Section 10.1-209 through 217, Code of Virginia), as the habitat of rare, threatened, and endangered plant and animal species; exemplary natural communities, habitats, and ecosystems; and other natural features of the Commonwealth. DCR-DNH is the state's only comprehensive program for conservation of our natural heritage and includes an intensive statewide biological inventory, field surveys, electronic and manual database management, environmental review capabilities, and natural area protection and stewardship. Through such a comprehensive operation, the Division identifies Natural Heritage Resources which are in need of conservation attention while creating an efficient means of evaluating the impacts of economic growth. To achieve this protection, DCR-DNH maintains lists of the most significant elements of our natural diversity.
    [Show full text]
  • ICBEMP Analysis of Vascular Plants
    APPENDIX 1 Range Maps for Species of Concern APPENDIX 2 List of Species Conservation Reports APPENDIX 3 Rare Species Habitat Group Analysis APPENDIX 4 Rare Plant Communities APPENDIX 5 Plants of Cultural Importance APPENDIX 6 Research, Development, and Applications Database APPENDIX 7 Checklist of the Vascular Flora of the Interior Columbia River Basin 122 APPENDIX 1 Range Maps for Species of Conservation Concern These range maps were compiled from data from State Heritage Programs in Oregon, Washington, Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, Utah, and Nevada. This information represents what was known at the end of the 1994 field season. These maps may not represent the most recent information on distribution and range for these taxa but it does illustrate geographic distribution across the assessment area. For many of these species, this is the first time information has been compiled on this scale. For the continued viability of many of these taxa, it is imperative that we begin to manage for them across their range and across administrative boundaries. Of the 173 taxa analyzed, there are maps for 153 taxa. For those taxa that were not tracked by heritage programs, we were not able to generate range maps. (Antmnnrin aromatica) ( ,a-’(,. .e-~pi~] i----j \ T--- d-,/‘-- L-J?.,: . ey SAP?E%. %!?:,KnC,$ESS -,,-a-c--- --y-- I -&zII~ County Boundaries w1. ~~~~ State Boundaries <ii&-----\ \m;qw,er Columbia River Basin .---__ ,$ 4 i- +--pa ‘,,, ;[- ;-J-k, Assessment Area 1 /./ .*#a , --% C-p ,, , Suecies Locations ‘V 7 ‘\ I, !. / :L __---_- r--j -.---.- Columbia River Basin s-5: ts I, ,e: I’ 7 j ;\ ‘-3 “.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 6134 Department of Natural Resources Endangered and Threatened Species
    MINNESOTA RULES 1991 5887 ENDANGERED AND THREATENED SPECIES 6134.0200 CHAPTER 6134 DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES ENDANGERED AND THREATENED SPECIES 6134.0100 STATUTORY AUTHORITY. 6134.0300 VASCULAR PLANTS. 6134.0200 ANIMAL SPECIES. 6134.0400 LICHENS; MOSSES. 6134.0100 STATUTORY AUTHORITY. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 84.0895, the species of wild animals and plants listed in parts 6134.0200 to 6134.0400 are designated as endangered, threatened, or of special concern, as indicated in those parts. Statutory Authority: MS s 84.0895 History: 8 SR 1921; L 1986 c 386 art 4 s 9 6134.0200 ANIMAL SPECIES. Subpart 1. Mammals. The scientific names and the common names in this subpart are according to the Revised Checklist of North American Mammals North of Mexico, J. K. Jones, et al., 1982. The following species of mammals are designated as: A. Endangered: none. B. Threatened: Canis lupus, gray wolf. C. Of special concern: (1) Cervus elaphus, American elk; (2) Cryptotis parva, least shrew; (3) Felis concolor, mountain lion; (4) Gulo gulo, wolverine; (5) Martes americana, marten; (6) Microtus chrotorrhinus, rock vole; (7) Microtus ochrogaster, prairie vole; (8) Microtus pinetorum, woodland vole; (9) Myotis keenii, Keens' myotis; (10) Odocoileus hemionus, mule deer; (11) Phenacomys intermedius, heather vole; (12) Pipistrellus subflavus, eastern pipistrelle; (13) Rangifer tarandus, caribou; (14) Spilogale putorius, spotted skunk; (15) Synaptomys borealis, northern bog lemming; (16) Thomomys talpoides, northern pocket gopher. Subp. 2. Birds. The scientific names and the common names in this subpart are according to the American Ornithologists Union Checklist, 1983. The follow­ ing species of birds are designated as: A.
    [Show full text]