DOCSLIB.ORG

Prescott AMA Low Water Use/Drought Tolerant Plant List

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Prescott AMA Low Water Use/Drought Tolerant Plant List Arizona Department of Water Resources Prescott Active Management Area Low Water Use/ Drought Tolerant Plant List Official Regulatory List for the Prescott Active Management Area Fourth Management Plan Arizona Department of Water Resources 1110 W. Washington St, Suite 310 Phoenix, AZ 85007 www.azwater.gov 602-771-8585 Prescott Active Management Area Low Water Use/Drought Tolerant Plant List Low Water Use/Drought Tolerant Plant List Official Regulatory List for the Prescott Active Management Area Arizona Department of Water Resources Acknowledgements The list of plants in this document was prepared in November 2006 by the Arizona Department of Water Resources (ADWR) in cooperation with plant and landscape plant specialists from the Prescott AMA and other experts. ADWR extends its gratitude to the following members of the Prescott AMA Plant List Advisory Committee for their generous contribution of time and expertise: Dusty Eiker, Mountain West Landscape Resources Charlie Hildebrant, Mountain Path Landscaping Steve Morgan, T. Barnabas Kane & Associates Jeff Schalau, University of Arizona - Yavapai County Cooperative Extension Nichole Trushell, Highland Center for Natural History Harold Watters, Watters Design and Garden Center Cover Photo: Mexican Cliff Rose, Cowania mexicana stansburiana, courtesy of Jim Morgan, Wings of Nature Wildlife Photography and Recordings A Resource for Regulated Water Users The use of low water use/drought tolerant plants is required in public rights of way and in other instances as described in the Fourth Management Plan1 . The Low Water Use/Drought Tolerant Plant List was developed to assist regulated water users in selecting landscaping plants that meet these requirements. Following are the sections in the Fourth Management Plan of the Prescott Active Management Area in which the list is referenced: − Section 5-701(4) and (39) Definitions, Low Water Use/Drought Tolerant Plant List for the PRAMA and Water-intensive landscaped area − Section 5-709(A)(3), Individual User Requirements for Municipal Providers and Individual Users, requirements for public rights-of way − Section 6.6.1, Introduction to All Industrial Users Conservation Program − Section 6.6.3, All Industrial User Program Description − Section 6-1301(6), Definitions, Low Water Use/Drought Tolerant Plant List − Section 6-1302(3) and (4), Conservation Requirements − Section 6-1303(A)(6), Monitoring and Reporting Requirements − Section 6-1401(8) and (16), Definitions − Section 6-1402(C)(2), Conservation Requirements for Turf-Related Facilities − Section 6-1403(D)(2)(a) Calculation of Maximum Annual Water Allotment for Turf-Related Facilities − Section 6-1801(5)(a), Definitions − Section 6-1803(3), Monitoring and Reporting Requirements 1 The 1980 Groundwater Code requires the preparation of a series of water management plans for each AMA that include mandatory conservation programs. The proposed Fourth Management Plan for the Prescott Active Management Area was issued on May 14, 2014. 1 Prescott Active Management Area Low Water Use/Drought Tolerant Plant List A Resource for Communities, Residents and Businesses The Low Water Use/Drought Tolerant Plant List is a valuable resource for communities, residents and businesses that are interested in conserving water through low water- use landscaping. Plants on the Prescott AMA list meet the criteria of requiring less than a maximum of 12 inches of supplemental irrigation on an annual basis, not including rainfall. This is significantly less than many high water-use plants traditionally grown in the Prescott area. Once established, the plants on the list can be grown in the Prescott area with no to moderate supplemental irrigation. Request to Waive the Requirement Pursuant to the Fourth Management Plan for the Prescott Active Management Area sections 5-709(A)(3) and 6-1302(4), the ADWR Director may waive the requirement to use plants on the Low-Water-Use/Drought- Tolerant Plant List if the water user demonstrates to the satisfaction of the Director that the plants on the list cannot grow in a publicly owned right-of-way because of high elevation or low light conditions, such as a freeway underpass. Those who wish to request a waiver of the list should submit their request in writing or by email to the ADWR Director including the following information: 1. Description of the location of the publicly owned right-of-way 2. Map showing the location of the right-of-way and the place where plants will be located 3. Botanical and common name of the plant under consideration 4. Description of plant’s water needs, including references Additionally, anyone wishing to add, delete or modify information on the list is encouraged to submit their request to the ADWR Director in writing or email. Waiver and modification requests can be sent to: Lori Cason, AMA Section Arizona Department of Water Resources 1110 W. Washington St, Suite 310 Phoenix, AZ 85007 [email protected] ~JUNE 2014 rev.~ 2 Prescott Active Management Area Low Water Use/Drought Tolerant Plant List DEFINITIONS AND KEY TO SYMBOLS Water Use The amount of supplemental irrigation that may be needed on an annual basis under normal precipitation conditions once the plant is established. During an abnormally dry year, it may be necessary to increase irrigation to achieve average annual precipitation in addition to the suggested supplemental irrigation. 1 = 0 – 4 inches 2 = 5 – 8 inches 3 = 9 – 12 inches Note: 0.62 gallons of water is equivalent to one inch of precipitation on one square foot of soil. Botanical Name International binomial system in which the first name represents genus, and the second, species. Additional words may be added to the name to describe further subdivisions. Common Name The non-scientific name by which a species of plant is known. Local Zone Area(s) within the Prescott AMA where the plant will usually succeed and where it should not require more water than the amount of supplemental irrigation indicated under Water Use: G = Grassland: 4,400 - 5,000 ft. (average annual rainfall 10 - 14 in.) T = Transition: Pinyon Juniper/Chaparral/Oak Woodland – 4,400 - 6,000 ft. (average annual rainfall 12 - 16 in.) P = Ponderosa/Montane: 5,500 – 7,800 ft. (average annual rainfall 16 - 20 in.) Spreads in Cultivated Areas Plant may aggressively spread by seed, sucker or other method in prepared, irrigated areas. Invasive species have been purposely left off this list. Seasonal Color The season(s) in which the plant shows color in the form of blooms or foliage. Details regarding bloom and foliage color are included in the “Comments” column. W = Winter SP = Spring SU = Summer F = Fall Evergreen or Deciduous E = Evergreen – has foliage that persists and remains green throughout the year D = Deciduous – loses foliage at the end of the growing season S = Semi-deciduous – partially loses foliage at the end of the growing season SC = Succulent – has thick, fleshy, water-storing leaves or stems Origin Area or country to which the plant is native N = North S = South E = East W = West C = Central MW = Midwest CA = California Mtn = Mountain U.S. = United States N Am = North America S Am = South America Mex = Mexico Med = Mediterranean Comments Includes notable information about the plant 3 Prescott Active Management Area Low Water Use/Drought Tolerant Plant List Spreads Evergreen Water Local in Seasonal Botanical Name Common Name or Origin Comments Use Zone Cultivated Color Deciduous Areas TREES: Perennial woody plants having a main trunk and usually a distinct crown Silk Tree, 2 Albizia julibrissin G,T No SU D Asia Pink flower clusters Mimosa 2 Calocedrus decurrens Incense Cedar G,T,P No E W U.S. 2 Cedrus atlantica Atlas Cedar G,T,P No E Middle East 2 Cedrus deodara Deodar Cedar G,T,P No E Asia Common 2 Celtis occidentalis G,T,P No F D E U.S. Gold foliage in Fall Hackberry Western 1 Celtis reticulata G,T,P No F D W U.S. Gold foliage in Fall Hackberry Cercis canadensis Oklahoma 3 T,P No SP D MW U.S. Intense fuchsia blooms, waxy green leaves ‘Oklahoma’ Redbud 1 Chilopsis linearis Desert Willow G No SP/SU D SW U.S. White to pink blooms 2 Chitalpa tashkentensis Chitalpa G,T No SP/SU D Hybrid Pink blooms, Chilopsis/Catalpa cross Purple Smoke 3 Cotinus coggygria G,T,P No SU/F D Eurasia Purple foliage, red to orange in Fall, smoke-like flowers Tree 3 Crataegus laevigata English Hawthorn G,T,P No SP/F D Med White to pink blooms in spring, yellow foliage in fall 3 Crataegus coccinea Scarlet Hawthorn G,T,P No SP/F D MW U.S. Rosy pink blooms in spring, yellow foliage in fall 2 Cupressus arizonica Arizona Cypress G,T No E SW U.S. 3 Fraxinus velutina Arizona Ash G,T No F D SW U.S. Gold foliage in fall, F. velutina Modesto is a popular variety Gleditsia triacanthos Thornless Honey 3 G,T,P No F D MW U.S. Yellow foliage in fall, colored leafed varieties available inermis Locust 2 Juglans major Arizona Walnut G,T,P No F D SW U.S. Yellow foliage in fall 1 Juniperus deppeana Alligator Juniper G,T,P No E SW U.S. One-seed 1 Juniperus monosperma G,T,P No E SW U.S. Juniper 4 Prescott Active Management Area Low Water Use/Drought Tolerant Plant List Spreads Evergreen Water Local in Seasonal Botanical Name Common Name or Origin Comments Use Zone Cultivated Color Deciduous Areas 1 Juniperus osteosperma Utah Juniper G,T,P No E SW U.S. Rocky Mountain 1 Juniperus scopulorum G,T,P No E W U.S. Juniper Juniperus virginiana 2 Hillspire Juniper G,T,P No E E U.S. ‘Cupressifolia’ Bright yellow blooms in spring, gold foliage and reddish seed 3 Koelreuteria paniculata Goldenrain Tree G,T,P No SP/F D Asia pods in fall Flowering N 3 Malus spp.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Department of Planning and Zoning
    Department of Planning and Zoning Subject: Howard County Landscape Manual Updates: Recommended Street Tree List (Appendix B) and Recommended Plant List (Appendix C) - Effective July 1, 2010 To: DLD Review Staff Homebuilders Committee From: Kent Sheubrooks, Acting Chief Division of Land Development Date: July 1, 2010 Purpose: The purpose of this policy memorandum is to update the Recommended Plant Lists presently contained in the Landscape Manual. The plant lists were created for the first edition of the Manual in 1993 before information was available about invasive qualities of certain recommended plants contained in those lists (Norway Maple, Bradford Pear, etc.). Additionally, diseases and pests have made some other plants undesirable (Ash, Austrian Pine, etc.). The Howard County General Plan 2000 and subsequent environmental and community planning publications such as the Route 1 and Route 40 Manuals and the Green Neighborhood Design Guidelines have promoted the desirability of using native plants in landscape plantings. Therefore, this policy seeks to update the Recommended Plant Lists by identifying invasive plant species and disease or pest ridden plants for their removal and prohibition from further planting in Howard County and to add other available native plants which have desirable characteristics for street tree or general landscape use for inclusion on the Recommended Plant Lists. Please note that a comprehensive review of the street tree and landscape tree lists were conducted for the purpose of this update, however, only
    [Show full text]
  • Interior Arizona Chaparral
    Rapid Assessment Reference Condition Model The Rapid Assessment is a component of the LANDFIRE project. Reference condition models for the Rapid Assessment were created through a series of expert workshops and a peer-review process in 2004 and 2005. For more information, please visit www.landfire.gov. Please direct questions to [email protected]. Potential Natural Vegetation Group (PNVG) R3CHAPsw Interior Arizona Chaparral General Information Contributors (additional contributors may be listed under "Model Evolution and Comments") Modelers Reviewers Tyson Swetnam [email protected] Linda Wadleigh [email protected] Reese Lolley [email protected] Vegetation Type General Model Sources Rapid AssessmentModel Zones Shrubland Literature California Pacific Northwest Local Data Great Basin South Central Dominant Species* Expert Estimate Great Lakes Southeast Northeast S. Appalachians QUTU LANDFIRE Mapping Zones CEGR Northern Plains Southwest 14 24 28 N-Cent.Rockies APPR 15 25 13 QUPU 23 27 Geographic Range Central and Northern Arizona, Central New Mexico. Some patches associated with Sky Islands of Southern Arizona and New Mexico. Also extends into the Mojave Desert and southern Great Basin. Biophysical Site Description Occurs across central Arizona (Mogollon Rim), and western New Mexico. It dominates along the mid- elevation transition from the Mojave, Sonoran, and Northern Chihuahuan deserts into mountains (1000- 2200 m). It occurs along foothills, mountain slopes and canyons in drier habitats below the encinal and Pinus Ponderosa woodlands. Stands are often associated with xeric coarse-textured substrates such as limestone, basalt or alluvium, especially in transition areas with more mesic woodlands (NatureServe 2004). Vegetation Description Vegetation is less dense than California chaparral, with aerial coverage of 35-80% ground surface in Arizona (Cable 1957, Carmichael et al.
    [Show full text]
  • P L a N T L I S T Water-Wise Trees and Shrubs for the High Plains
    P L A N T L I S T Water-Wise Trees and Shrubs for the High Plains By Steve Scott, Cheyenne Botanic Gardens Horticulturist 03302004 © Cheyenne Botanic Gardens 2003 710 S. Lions Park Dr., Cheyenne WY, 82001 www.botanic.org The following is a list of suitable water-wise trees and shrubs that are suitable for water- wise landscaping also known as xeriscapes. Many of these plants may suffer if they are placed in areas receiving more than ¾ of an inch of water per week in summer. Even drought tolerant trees and shrubs are doomed to failure if grasses or weeds are growing directly under and around the plant, especially during the first few years. It is best to practice tillage, hoeing, hand pulling or an approved herbicide to kill all competing vegetation for the first five to eight years of establishment. Avoid sweetening the planting hole with manure or compost. If the soil is needs improvement, improve the whole area, not just the planting hole. Trees and shrubs generally do best well with no amendments. Many of the plants listed here are not available in department type stores. Your best bets for finding these plants will be in local nurseries- shop your hometown first! Take this list with you. Encourage nurseries and landscapers to carry these plants! For more information on any of these plants please contact the Cheyenne Botanic Gardens (307-637-6458), the Cheyenne Forestry Department (307-637-6428) or your favorite local nursery. CODE KEY- The code key below will assist you in selecting for appropriate characteristics.
    [Show full text]
  • Amelanchierspp. Family: Rosaceae Serviceberry
    Amelanchier spp. Family: Rosaceae Serviceberry The genus Amelanchier contains about 16 species native to North America [5], Mexico [2], and Eurasia to northern Africa [4]. The word amelanchier is derived from the French common name amelanche of the European serviceberry, Amelanchier ovalis. Amelanchier alnifolia-juneberry, Pacific serviceberry, pigeonberry, rocky mountain servicetree, sarvice, sarviceberry, saskatoon, saskatoon serviceberry, western service, western serviceberry , western shadbush Amelanchier arborea-Allegheny serviceberry, apple shadbush, downy serviceberry , northern smooth shadbush, shadblow, shadblown serviceberry, shadbush, shadbush serviceberry Amelanchier bartramiana-Bartram serviceberry Amelanchier canadensis-American lancewood, currant-tree, downy serviceberry, Indian cherry, Indian pear, Indian wild pear, juice plum, juneberry, may cherry, sugar plum, sarvice, servicetree, shadberry, shadblow, shadbush, shadbush serviceberry, shadflower, thicket serviceberry Amelanchier florida-Pacific serviceberry Amelanchier interior-inland serviceberry Amelanchier sanguinea-Huron serviceberry, roundleaf juneberry, roundleaf serviceberry , shore shadbush Amelanchier utahensis-Utah serviceberry Distribution In North America throughout upper elevations and temperate forests. The Tree Serviceberry is a shrub or tree that reaches a height of 40 ft (12 m) and a diameter of 2 ft (0.6 m). It grows in many soil types and occurs from swamps to mountainous hillsides. It flowers in early spring, producing delicate white flowers, making
    [Show full text]
  • Sahnish (Arikara) Ethnobotany
    Kindscher, L. Yellow Bird, M. Yellow Bird & Sutton Yellow M. Bird, Yellow L. Kindscher, Sahnish (Arikara) Ethnobotany This book describes the traditional use of wild plants among the Arikara (Sahnish) for food, medicine, craft, and other uses. The Arikara grew corn, hunted and foraged, and traded with other tribes in the northern Great Plains. Their villages were located along the Sahnish (Arikara) Missouri River in northern South Dakota and North Dakota. Today, many of them live at Fort Berthold Reservation, North Dakota, as part of the MHA (Mandan, Hidatsa, Arikara) Ethnobotany Nation. We document the use of 106 species from 31 plant families, based primarily on the work of Melvin Gilmore, who recorded Arikara ethnobotany from 1916 to 1935. Gilmore interviewed elders for their stories and accounts of traditional plant use, collected material goods, and wrote a draft manuscript, but was not able to complete it due to debilitating illness. Fortunately, his field notes, manuscripts, and papers were archived and form the core of the present volume. Gilmore’s detailed description is augmented here with historical accounts of the Arikara gleaned from the journals of Great Plains explorers—Lewis and Clark, John Bradbury, Pierre Tabeau, and others. Additional plant uses and nomenclature is based on the field notes of linguist Douglas R. Parks, who carried out detailed documentation of the Sahnish (Arikara) Ethnobotany tribe’s language from 1970–2001. Although based on these historical sources, the present volume features updated modern botanical nomenclature, contemporary spelling and interpretation of Arikara plant names, and color photographs and range maps of each species.
    [Show full text]
  • A Vegetation Map of Carlsbad Caverns National Park, New Mexico 1
    ______________________________________________________________________________ A Vegetation Map of Carlsbad Caverns National Park, New Mexico ______________________________________________________________________________ 2003 A Vegetation Map of Carlsbad Caverns National Park, New Mexico 1 Esteban Muldavin, Paul Neville, Paul Arbetan, Yvonne Chauvin, Amanda Browder, and Teri Neville2 ABSTRACT A vegetation classification and high resolution vegetation map was developed for Carlsbad Caverns National Park, New Mexico to support natural resources management, particularly fire management and rare species habitat analysis. The classification and map were based on 400 field plots collected between 1999 and 2002. The vegetation communities of Carlsbad Caverns NP are diverse. They range from desert shrublands and semi-grasslands of the lowland basins and foothills up through montane grasslands, shrublands, and woodlands of the highest elevations. Using various multivariate statistical tools, we identified 85 plant associations for the park, many of them unique in the Southwest. The vegetation map was developed using a combination of automated digital processing (supervised classifications) and direct image interpretation of high-resolution satellite imagery (Landsat Thematic Mapper and IKONOS). The map is composed of 34 map units derived from the vegetation classification, and is designed to facilitate ecologically based natural resources management at a 1:24,000 scale with 0.5 ha minimum map unit size (NPS national standard). Along with an overview of the vegetation ecology of the park in the context of the classification, descriptions of the composition and distribution of each map unit are provided. The map was delivered both in hard copy and in digital form as part of a geographic information system (GIS) compatible with that used in the park.
    [Show full text]
  • An Ethnographicsurvey
    SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin 186 Anthropological Papers, No. 65 THE WARIHIO INDIANS OF SONORA-CHIHUAHUA: AN ETHNOGRAPHIC SURVEY By Howard Scott Gentry 61 623-738—63- CONTENTS PAGE Preface 65 Introduction 69 Informants and acknowledgments 69 Nominal note 71 Peoples of the Rio Mayo and Warihio distribution 73 Habitat 78 Arroyos 78 Canyon features 79 Hills 79 Cliffs 80 Sierra features - 80 Plants utilized 82 Cultivated plants 82 Wild plants 89 Root and herbage foods 89 Seed foods 92 Fruits 94 Construction and fuel 96 Medicinal and miscellaneous uses 99 Use of animals 105 Domestic animals 105 Wild animals and methods of capture 106 Division of labor 108 Shelter 109 Granaries 110 Storage caves 111 Elevated structures 112 Substructures 112 Furnishings and tools 112 Handiwork 113 Pottery 113 The oUa 114 The small bowl 115 Firing 115 Weaving 115 Woodwork 116 Rope work 117 Petroglyphs 117 Transportation 118 Dress and ornament 119 Games 120 Social institutions 120 Marriage 120 The selyeme 121 Birth 122 Warihio names 123 Burial 124 63 64 CONTENTS PAGE Ceremony 125 Tuwuri 128 Pascola 131 The concluding ceremony 132 Myths 133 Creation myth 133 Myth of San Jose 134 The cross myth 134 Tales of his fathers 135 Fighting days 135 History of Tu\\njri 135 Songs of Juan Campa 136 Song of Emiliano Bourbon 136 Metamorphosis in animals 136 The Carbunco 136 Story of Juan Antonio Chapapoa 136 Social customs, ceremonial groups, and extraneous influences 137 Summary and conclusions 141 References cited 143 ILLUSTEATIONS PLATES (All plates follow p. 144) 28. a, Juan Campa and Warihio boy.
    [Show full text]
  • CDFG Natural Communities List
    Department of Fish and Game Biogeographic Data Branch The Vegetation Classification and Mapping Program List of California Terrestrial Natural Communities Recognized by The California Natural Diversity Database September 2003 Edition Introduction: This document supersedes all other lists of terrestrial natural communities developed by the Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB). It is based on the classification put forth in “A Manual of California Vegetation” (Sawyer and Keeler-Wolf 1995 and upcoming new edition). However, it is structured to be compatible with previous CNDDB lists (e.g., Holland 1986). For those familiar with the Holland numerical coding system you will see a general similarity in the upper levels of the hierarchy. You will also see a greater detail at the lower levels of the hierarchy. The numbering system has been modified to incorporate this richer detail. Decimal points have been added to separate major groupings and two additional digits have been added to encompass the finest hierarchal detail. One of the objectives of the Manual of California Vegetation (MCV) was to apply a uniform hierarchical structure to the State’s vegetation types. Quantifiable classification rules were established to define the major floristic groups, called alliances and associations in the National Vegetation Classification (Grossman et al. 1998). In this document, the alliance level is denoted in the center triplet of the coding system and the associations in the right hand pair of numbers to the left of the final decimal. The numbers of the alliance in the center triplet attempt to denote relationships in floristic similarity. For example, the Chamise-Eastwood Manzanita alliance (37.106.00) is more closely related to the Chamise- Cupleaf Ceanothus alliance (37.105.00) than it is to the Chaparral Whitethorn alliance (37.205.00).
    [Show full text]
  • WHITE SAGE Fire
    Plant Guide or sweat lodge) with the flowering end toward the WHITE SAGE fire. The leaves were burned as an incense to cleanse and drive away bad spirits, evil influences, bad Artemisia ludoviciana Nutt. Plant Symbol = ARLU dreams, bad thoughts, and sickness. A small pinch of baneberry (Actea rubra) was often mixed with it for Contributed By: USDA NRCS National Plant Data this purpose. The smoke was used to purify people, Center & University of California-Davis Arboretum spaces, implements, utensils, horses, and rifles in various ceremonies. The Lakota also make bracelets for the Sun Dance from white sage (Rogers 1980). The Cheyenne use the white sage in their Sun Dance and Standing Against Thunder ceremonies (Hart 1976). Other tribes who used white sage include the Arapaho, Comanche, Gros Ventre, Creek, Navaho, Tewa, and Ute (Nickerson 1966, Carlson and Jones 1939, Hart 1976, Thwaites 1905, Denig 1855, Elmore 1944, Robbins et al. 1916, Chamberlin 1909). The Dakota and other tribes used white sage tea for stomach troubles and many other ailments (Gilmore 1977). The Cheyenne used the crushed leaves as snuff for sinus attacks, nosebleeds, and headaches (Hart 1976). The Crow made a salve for use on sores by mixing white sage with neck-muscle fat (probably from buffalo) (Hart 1976). They used a strong tea as an astringent for eczema and as a deodorant and an antiperspirant for underarms and feet. The Kiowa made a bitter drink from white sage, which they used to reduce phlegm and to relieve a variety of lung and stomach complaints (Vestal and Shultes 1939).
    [Show full text]
  • F.3 References for Appendix F
    F-1 APPENDIX F: ECOREGIONS OF THE 11 WESTERN STATES AND DISTRIBUTION BY ECOREGION OF WIND ENERGY RESOURCES ON BLM-ADMINISTERED LANDS WITHIN EACH STATE F-2 F-3 APPENDIX F: ECOREGIONS OF THE 11 WESTERN STATES AND DISTRIBUTION BY ECOREGION OF WIND ENERGY RESOURCES ON BLM-ADMINISTERED LANDS WITHIN EACH STATE F.1 DESCRIPTIONS OF THE ECOREGIONS Ecoregions delineate areas that have a general similarity in their ecosystems and in the types, qualities, and quantities of their environmental resources. They are based on unique combinations of geology, physiography, vegetation, climate, soils, land use, wildlife, and hydrology (EPA 2004). Ecoregions are defined as areas having relative homogeneity in their ecological systems and their components. Factors associated with spatial differences in the quality and quantity of ecosystem components (including soils, vegetation, climate, geology, and physiography) are relatively homogeneous within an ecoregion. A number of individuals and organizations have characterized North America on the basis of ecoregions (e.g., Omernik 1987; CEC 1997; Bailey 1997). The intent of such ecoregion classifications has been to provide a spatial framework for the research, assessment, management, and monitoring of ecosystems and ecosystem components. The ecoregion discussions presented in this programmatic environmental impact statement (PEIS) follow the Level III ecoregion classification based on Omernik (1987) and refined through collaborations among U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regional offices, state resource management agencies, and other federal agencies (EPA 2004). The following sections provide brief descriptions of each of the Level III ecoregions that have been identified for the 11 western states in which potential wind energy development may occur on BLM-administered lands.
    [Show full text]
  • Literature Cited
    Literature Cited Robert W. Kiger, Editor This is a consolidated list of all works cited in volumes 19, 20, and 21, whether as selected references, in text, or in nomenclatural contexts. In citations of articles, both here and in the taxonomic treatments, and also in nomenclatural citations, the titles of serials are rendered in the forms recommended in G. D. R. Bridson and E. R. Smith (1991). When those forms are abbre- viated, as most are, cross references to the corresponding full serial titles are interpolated here alphabetically by abbreviated form. In nomenclatural citations (only), book titles are rendered in the abbreviated forms recommended in F. A. Stafleu and R. S. Cowan (1976–1988) and F. A. Stafleu and E. A. Mennega (1992+). Here, those abbreviated forms are indicated parenthetically following the full citations of the corresponding works, and cross references to the full citations are interpolated in the list alphabetically by abbreviated form. Two or more works published in the same year by the same author or group of coauthors will be distinguished uniquely and consistently throughout all volumes of Flora of North America by lower-case letters (b, c, d, ...) suffixed to the date for the second and subsequent works in the set. The suffixes are assigned in order of editorial encounter and do not reflect chronological sequence of publication. The first work by any particular author or group from any given year carries the implicit date suffix “a”; thus, the sequence of explicit suffixes begins with “b”. Works missing from any suffixed sequence here are ones cited elsewhere in the Flora that are not pertinent in these volumes.
    [Show full text]
  • Responses of Plant Communities to Grazing in the Southwestern United States Department of Agriculture United States Forest Service
    Responses of Plant Communities to Grazing in the Southwestern United States Department of Agriculture United States Forest Service Rocky Mountain Research Station Daniel G. Milchunas General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-169 April 2006 Milchunas, Daniel G. 2006. Responses of plant communities to grazing in the southwestern United States. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-169. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 126 p. Abstract Grazing by wild and domestic mammals can have small to large effects on plant communities, depend- ing on characteristics of the particular community and of the type and intensity of grazing. The broad objective of this report was to extensively review literature on the effects of grazing on 25 plant commu- nities of the southwestern U.S. in terms of plant species composition, aboveground primary productiv- ity, and root and soil attributes. Livestock grazing management and grazing systems are assessed, as are effects of small and large native mammals and feral species, when data are available. Emphasis is placed on the evolutionary history of grazing and productivity of the particular communities as deter- minants of response. After reviewing available studies for each community type, we compare changes in species composition with grazing among community types. Comparisons are also made between southwestern communities with a relatively short history of grazing and communities of the adjacent Great Plains with a long evolutionary history of grazing. Evidence for grazing as a factor in shifts from grasslands to shrublands is considered. An appendix outlines a new community classification system, which is followed in describing grazing impacts in prior sections.
    [Show full text]