DOCSLIB.ORG

Bighorn Canyon National Recreation Area Vegetation Classification And

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Bighorn Canyon National Recreation Area Vegetation Classification And National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior Natural Resource Stewardship and Science Vegetation Classification and Mapping Project Report Bighorn Canyon National Recreation Area Natural Resource Report NPS/GRYN/NRR—2015/1070 ON THE COVER Bighorn Canyon, Wyoming, Bighorn Canyon National Recreation Area Photograph by: Dan Shryock Vegetation Classification and Mapping Project Report Bighorn Canyon National Recreation Area Natural Resource Report NPS/GRYN/NRR—2015/1070 Joe Stevens Colorado Natural Heritage Program Colorado State University Fort Collins, CO 80523 David Jones and Jay Benner Center for Environmental Management of Military Lands Colorado State University Fort Collins, CO 80523 October 2015 U.S. Department of the Interior National Park Service Natural Resource Stewardship and Science Fort Collins, Colorado The National Park Service, Natural Resource Stewardship and Science office in Fort Collins, Colorado, publishes a range of reports that address natural resource topics. These reports are of interest and applicability to a broad audience in the National Park Service and others in natural resource management, including scientists, conservation and environmental constituencies, and the public. The Natural Resource Report Series is used to disseminate comprehensive information and analysis about natural resources and related topics concerning lands managed by the National Park Service. The series supports the advancement of science, informed decision-making, and the achievement of the National Park Service mission. The series also provides a forum for presenting more lengthy results that may not be accepted by publications with page limitations. All manuscripts in the series receive the appropriate level of peer review to ensure that the information is scientifically credible, technically accurate, appropriately written for the intended audience, and designed and published in a professional manner. Data in this report were collected and analyzed using methods based on established, peer-reviewed protocols and were analyzed and interpreted within the guidelines of the protocols. Views, statements, findings, conclusions, recommendations, and data in this report do not necessarily reflect views and policies of the National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior. Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use by the U.S. Government. This report is available in digital format from the Greater Yellowstone Network website (http://science.nature.nps.gov/im/units/gryn/) and the Natural Resource Publications Management website (http://www.nature.nps.gov/publications/nrpm/). To receive this report in a format optimized for screen readers, please email [email protected]. Please cite this publication as: Stevens, J. E., D. S. Jones, and K. J. Benner. 2015. Vegetation classification and mapping project report: Bighorn Canyon National Recreation Area. Natural Resource Report NPS/GRYN/NRR— 2015/1070. National Park Service, Fort Collins, Colorado. NPS 617/130287, October 2015 ii Contents Page Figures.................................................................................................................................................... v Tables ................................................................................................................................................... vii List of Abbreviations and Acronyms .................................................................................................... ix Executive Summary .............................................................................................................................. xi Acknowledgments ................................................................................................................................ xv 1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 NPS Vegetation Mapping Inventory Program ................................................................... 1 1.2 Bighorn Canyon NRA Vegetation Mapping Project ......................................................... 1 1.2.1 The United States National Vegetation Classification (USNVC) and National Vegetation Classification Standard (NVCS) .................................................................. 3 1.2.2 Location and Administrative Setting .................................................................... 6 1.2.3 Physiographic Setting ........................................................................................... 6 1.2.4 Climate .................................................................................................................. 8 1.2.5 Geology ................................................................................................................ 9 1.2.6 Soils .................................................................................................................... 11 1.2.7 Hydrology and Water Resources ........................................................................ 11 1.2.8 Flora and Fauna .................................................................................................. 12 2 Vegetation Inventory and Classification ..................................................................................... 17 2.1 Methods ............................................................................................................................ 17 2.1.1 Planning and Scoping ......................................................................................... 17 2.1.2 Sample Design .................................................................................................... 19 2.1.3 Vegetation Data Collection ................................................................................ 22 2.1.4 Vegetation Classification .................................................................................... 25 2.2 Results .............................................................................................................................. 28 2.2.1 Vegetation Data Collection ................................................................................ 28 2.2.2 Vegetation Classification .................................................................................... 28 2.2.3 Photographic Database Results .......................................................................... 34 3 Vegetation Mapping .................................................................................................................... 35 3.1 Methods ............................................................................................................................ 35 3.1.1 Map Specifications ............................................................................................. 35 3.1.2 Imagery Acquisition and Data Management ...................................................... 35 3.1.3 Legacy Data ........................................................................................................ 36 iii Contents (continued) Page 3.1.4 Map Classes and Mapping Model ...................................................................... 38 3.1.5 Imagery Interpretation ........................................................................................ 39 3.1.6 Validation of Map Thematic Accuracy .............................................................. 40 3.1.7 Interpretation Challenges .................................................................................... 40 3.2 Results .............................................................................................................................. 44 3.2.1 Map Classes ........................................................................................................ 44 3.2.2 Summary Statistics ............................................................................................. 45 3.2.3 Map Layer Development .................................................................................... 51 4 Accuracy Assessment .................................................................................................................. 53 4.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 53 4.2 Methods ............................................................................................................................ 53 4.2.1 Sample Design .................................................................................................... 53 4.2.2 Field AA Data Collection ................................................................................... 55 4.2.3 Data Quality Control .......................................................................................... 57 4.2.4 Accuracy Assessment Data Analysis.................................................................. 57 4.2.5 Map Class Aggregation ...................................................................................... 59 4.3 Results .............................................................................................................................. 60 4.3.1 Accuracy Assessment Field Data Collection ...................................................... 60 4.3.2 Accuracy Assessment Data Analysis.................................................................. 60 4.3.3 Map Class Aggregation .....................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • ANTC Environmental Assessment
    U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management Environmental Assessment DOI-BLM-NV-B010-2013-0024-EA Telecommunication Facilities at Kingston, Dyer, and Hickison Summit July 2013 Applicant: Arizona Nevada Tower Corporation 6220 McLeod Drive Ste. 100 Las Vegas, Nevada 89120 Battle Mountain District Bureau of Land Management 50 Bastian Road Battle Mountain, Nevada 89820 Table of Contents Page Chapter 1 Introduction 1 1.1 Introduction 1 1.2 Background 1 1.3 Identifying Information 2 1.4 Location of Proposed Action 2 1.5 Preparing Office 2 1.6 Case File Numbers 2 1.7 Applicant 2 1.8 Proposed Action Summary 3 1.9 Conformance 3 1.10 Purpose & Need 3 1.11 Scoping, Public Involvement & Issues 4 Chapter 2 Proposed Action & Alternatives 11 2.1 Proposed Action 11 2.1.1 Best Management Practices 13 2.2 No Action Alternative 13 2.3 Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Analysis 14 Chapter 3 Affected Environment & Environmental Consequences 15 3.1 Project Site Descriptions 15 3.2 Issues 16 3.2.1 Air Quality 18 3.2.1.1 Affected Environment 18 3.2.1.2 Environmental Consequences 18 3.2.2 Cultural/Historical Resources 18 3.2.2.1 Affected Environment 18 3.2.2.2 Environmental Consequences 18 3.2.3 Noxious Weeds/Invasive Non-native Plants 19 3.2.3.1 Affected Environment 19 3.2.3.2 Environmental Consequences 20 3.2.4 Native American Religious Concerns 20 3.2.4.1 Affected Environment 20 3.2.4.2 Environmental Consequences 20 3.2.5 Migratory Birds 21 3.2.5.1 Affected Environment 21 3.2.5.2 Environmental Consequences 22 3.2.6 Solid/Hazardous
    [Show full text]
  • 31295015064529.Pdf (3.477Mb)
    POPULATION DYNAMICS, REPRODUCTION, AND ACTIVITIES OF THE KANGAROO RAT, DIPODOMYS ORDII, IN WESTERN TEXAS by HERSCHEL VJHITAKER GARNER, B.S., M.S. A DISSERTATION IN ZOOLOGY Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of Texas Tech University in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Approved Accepted August, 1970 ACKNOWL EDGMENTS I am especially grateful to Professor Robert L. Packard for advising in research methods, aiding in collecting data, and critically reading the manuscript. Additional appreciated suggestions were made by Professors Archie C. Allen, John S. Mecham, Robert W.. Mitchell, Paul V. Prior (now at the University of Nebraska- Omaha), and Chester M. Rowell. Mr. Robert B. Wadley pro­ vided useful help in developing computer programs used in sorting and analysis of the data. An honorarium from the Department of Biology defrayed some of the cost of travel to the field. My wife, Anita, aided in making collections and recording data. Additional thanks are extended to fellow graduate students who provided help and ideas.' 11 TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ii LIST OF TABLES ; . iv LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS V I. INTRODUCTION 1 II. METHODS AND MATERIALS 3 III. REPRODUCTION 15 IV. ACTIVITIES 35 V. POPULATION DYNAMICS 43 VI. SUMlvlARY AND CONCLUSIONS 72 LITERATURE CITED 76 111 LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1. Estimation of number of D. ordii on the Kermit area 51 IV LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS Figure Page 1. The intensive study area viewed from the southern periphery June, 1956 .... 5 2. Diagram of study area showing position of activity center values of animals used in the experimental activity studies 12 3.
    [Show full text]
  • Final Report: Lesser Prairie-Chicken Survey − Kiowa and Rita Blanca National Grasslands, 2014
    Final Report: Lesser Prairie-Chicken Survey − Kiowa and Rita Blanca National Grasslands, 2014 Project Manager: Angela Dwyer, Rocky Mountain Bird Observatory, 230 Cherry St., Fort Collins, CO 80521 ([email protected]) Project Director: David Hanni, Rocky Mountain Bird Observatory, 230 Cherry St., Fort Collins, CO 80521 ([email protected]) Introduction The Lesser Prairie-Chicken (Tympanuchus pallidicinctus) (LEPC) occupies grassland habitat consisting of sand sagebrush (Artemisia filifolia), sand shinnery oak (Quercus havardii) and mixed grass vegetation communities of the southern Great Plains. Since the 19th century, LEPC and the habitat upon which they depend has diminished across their historical range (Crawford and Bolen 1976, Taylor and Guthery 1980a), with recent estimates of current occupied range totaling approximately 17% of the estimated area of their historical range. Causes for this reduction in occupied range are primarily attributed to habitat loss and fragmentation (USFWS 2012). Habitat loss has been caused by conversion of native prairie to cropland (Bent 1932, Copelin 1963, Taylor and Guthery 1980) and long term fire suppression (Woodward et al. 2001) leading to tree invasion (Fuhlendorf et al. 2002). Grazing management practices would help improve habitat if managed to benefit LEPC. Heavily grazed fields that leave no residual vegetation for broods can be detrimental to LEPC (Sell 1979, Hunt and Best 2010). Habitat fragmentation has resulted from a combination of habitat loss and degradation caused by oil and gas development (Hunt 2004) and suspected effects of wind energy development (Pruett et al. 2009). The LEPC is not thought to occur in Kiowa and Rita Blanca National Grasslands (KRB) (Giesen 2003), however some parcels within the grasslands are managed for LEPC.
    [Show full text]
  • July 2008 Volume 31 Number 4
    Sego Lily July 2008 31 (4) July 2008 Volume 31 Number 4 Salt Lake Chapter Trek to the Beaver Dam Mountains By Bill Gray In April, eight Salt Lake Chapter members took a break from their long winter and headed south as far as they could get, actually ending up just over the border in Arizona. Somehow the Virgin River gorge and that part of the Beaver Dam Moun- tains feel as though they really be- long in Utah. Most of you have probably driven through the gorge on Interstate 15 en route to/from Las Vegas or Southern California, and have ad- mired the steep rugged cliffs where the river has carved its way down. From a speeding car it is possible to spot a few of the obvious standout plants of the Mojave Desert – Joshua tree (Yucca brevifolia), Above: Crevice penstemon, Penstemon petiolatus, grows in Creosote bush (Larrea tridentata) mostly inaccessible crevices in rugged limestone cliffs in and rather modest specimens of Le- Utah’s Beaver Dam Mountains. Photo by Bill Gray conte's barrel cactus (Ferocactus acanthodes var. lecontei). But we wanted to take time to get In this issue: out and really experience first hand the other unusual plants from this Salt Lake Chapter Trek to the Beaver Dam Mountains . 1 area. In this we were very fortunate UNPS and Chapter News . 2 to have one of the best possible Bulletin Board . 3 guides in Dr. Larry Higgins. Larry Q and A: Growing Sego Lilies . 6 grew up in the area, getting to know Richard Joshua Shaw (1923-2008) .
    [Show full text]
  • Plant Species of Special Concern and Vascular Plant Flora of the National
    Plant Species of Special Concern and Vascular Plant Flora of the National Elk Refuge Prepared for the US Fish and Wildlife Service National Elk Refuge By Walter Fertig Wyoming Natural Diversity Database The Nature Conservancy 1604 Grand Avenue Laramie, WY 82070 February 28, 1998 Acknowledgements I would like to thank the following individuals for their assistance with this project: Jim Ozenberger, ecologist with the Jackson Ranger District of Bridger-Teton National Forest, for guiding me in his canoe on Flat Creek and for providing aerial photographs and lodging; Jennifer Whipple, Yellowstone National Park botanist, for field assistance and help with field identification of rare Carex species; Dr. David Cooper of Colorado State University, for sharing field information from his 1994 studies; Dr. Ron Hartman and Ernie Nelson of the Rocky Mountain Herbarium, for providing access to unmounted collections by Michele Potkin and others from the National Elk Refuge; Dr. Anton Reznicek of the University of Michigan, for confirming the identification of several problematic Carex specimens; Dr. Robert Dorn for confirming the identification of several vegetative Salix specimens; and lastly Bruce Smith and the staff of the National Elk Refuge for providing funding and logistical support and for allowing me free rein to roam the refuge for plants. 2 Table of Contents Page Introduction . 6 Study Area . 6 Methods . 8 Results . 10 Vascular Plant Flora of the National Elk Refuge . 10 Plant Species of Special Concern . 10 Species Summaries . 23 Aster borealis . 24 Astragalus terminalis . 26 Carex buxbaumii . 28 Carex parryana var. parryana . 30 Carex sartwellii . 32 Carex scirpoidea var. scirpiformis .
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter Vii Table of Contents
    CHAPTER VII TABLE OF CONTENTS VII. APPENDICES AND REFERENCES CITED........................................................................1 Appendix 1: Description of Vegetation Databases......................................................................1 Appendix 2: Suggested Stocking Levels......................................................................................8 Appendix 3: Known Plants of the Desolation Watershed.........................................................15 Literature Cited............................................................................................................................25 CHAPTER VII - APPENDICES & REFERENCES - DESOLATION ECOSYSTEM ANALYSIS i VII. APPENDICES AND REFERENCES CITED Appendix 1: Description of Vegetation Databases Vegetation data for the Desolation ecosystem analysis was stored in three different databases. This document serves as a data dictionary for the existing vegetation, historical vegetation, and potential natural vegetation databases, as described below: • Interpretation of aerial photography acquired in 1995, 1996, and 1997 was used to characterize existing (current) conditions. The 1996 and 1997 photography was obtained after cessation of the Bull and Summit wildfires in order to characterize post-fire conditions. The database name is: 97veg. • Interpretation of late-1930s and early-1940s photography was used to characterize historical conditions. The database name is: 39veg. • The potential natural vegetation was determined for each polygon in the analysis
    [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]
  • Facilitation of Yucca Brevifolia Recruitment by Mojave Desert Shrubs
    UNLV Retrospective Theses & Dissertations 1-1-1998 Facilitation of Yucca brevifolia recruitment by Mojave Desert shrubs Steve B Brittingham University of Nevada, Las Vegas Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalscholarship.unlv.edu/rtds Repository Citation Brittingham, Steve B, "Facilitation of Yucca brevifolia recruitment by Mojave Desert shrubs" (1998). UNLV Retrospective Theses & Dissertations. 950. http://dx.doi.org/10.25669/ms22-zauw This Thesis is protected by copyright and/or related rights. It has been brought to you by Digital Scholarship@UNLV with permission from the rights-holder(s). You are free to use this Thesis in any way that is permitted by the copyright and related rights legislation that applies to your use. For other uses you need to obtain permission from the rights-holder(s) directly, unless additional rights are indicated by a Creative Commons license in the record and/ or on the work itself. This Thesis has been accepted for inclusion in UNLV Retrospective Theses & Dissertations by an authorized administrator of Digital Scholarship@UNLV. For more information, please contact [email protected]. INFORMATION TO USERS This manuscript has been reproduced from the microfilm master. UMI films the text directly from the original or copy submitted. Thus, some thesis and dissertation copies are in typewriter free, while others may be from any type of computer printer. The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and photographs, print bleedthrough, substandard margins, and improper alignment can adversely affect reproduction. In the unlikely event that the author did not send UMI a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted.
    [Show full text]
  • Sagebrush Establishment on Mine Lands
    2000 Billings Land Reclamation Symposium BIG SAGEBRUSH (ARTEMISIA TRIDENTATA) COMMUNITIES - ECOLOGY, IMPORTANCE AND RESTORATION POTENTIAL Stephen B. Monsen and Nancy L. Shaw Abstract Big sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata Nutt.) is the most common and widespread sagebrush species in the Intermountain region. Climatic patterns, elevation gradients, soil characteristics and fire are among the factors regulating the distribution of its three major subspecies. Each of these subspecies is considered a topographic climax dominant. Reproductive strategies of big sagebrush subspecies have evolved that favor the development of both regional and localized populations. Sagebrush communities are extremely valuable natural resources. They provide ground cover and soil stability as well as habitat for various ungulates, birds, reptiles and invertebrates. Species composition of these communities is quite complex and includes plants that interface with more arid and more mesic environments. Large areas of big sagebrush rangelands have been altered by destructive grazing, conversion to introduced perennial grasses through artificial seeding and invasion of annual weeds, principally cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum L.). Dried cheatgrass forms continuous mats of fine fuels that ignite and burn more frequently than native herbs. As a result, extensive tracts of sagebrush between the Sierra Nevada and Rocky Mountains are rapidly being converted to annual grasslands. In some areas recent introductions of perennial weeds are now displacing the annuals. The current weed invasions and their impacts on native ecosystems are recent ecological events of unprecedented magnitude. Restoration of degraded big sagebrush communities and reduction of further losses pose major challenges to land managers. Loss of wildlife habitat and recent invasion of perennial weeds into seedings of introduced species highlight the need to stem losses and restore native vegetation where possible.
    [Show full text]
  • Shrubland Ecotones Proceedings RMRS-P-11 September1999 Abstract
    Some pages in this file were created by scanning the printed publication. Errors identified by the software have been corrected; however, some errors may remain. United States Department of Agriculture Proceedings: Forest Service Rocky Mountain Research Station Shrubland Ecotones Proceedings RMRS-P-11 September1999 Abstract McArthur, E. Durant; Ostler, W. Kent; Wambolt, Carl L., comps. 1999. Proceedings: shrubland ecotones; 1998 August 12–14; Ephraim, UT. Proc. RMRS-P-11. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 299 p. The 51 papers in this proceedings include an introductory keynote paper on ecotones and hybrid zones and a final paper describing the mid-symposium field trip as well as collections of papers on ecotones and hybrid zones (15), population biology (6), community ecology (19), and community rehabilitation and restoration (9). All of the papers focus on wildland shrub ecosystems; 14 of the papers deal with one aspect or another of sagebrush (subgenus Tridentatae of Artemisia) ecosystems. The field trip consisted of descriptions of biology, ecology, and geology of a big sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata) hybrid zone between two subspecies (A. tridentata ssp. tridentata and A. t. ssp. vaseyana) in Salt Creek Canyon, Wasatch Mountains, Uinta National Forest, Utah, and the ecotonal or clinal vegetation gradient of the Great Basin Experimental Range, Manti-La Sal National Forest, Utah, together with its historical significance. The papers were presented at the 10th Wildland Shrub Symposium: Shrubland Ecotones, at Snow College, Ephraim, UT, August 12–14, 1998. Keywords: wildland shrubs, ecotone, hybrid zone, population biology, community ecology, restoration, rehabilitation. Acknowledgments The symposium, field trip, and subsequent publication of these proceedings were facilitated by many people and organizations.
    [Show full text]
  • Washington Plant List Douglas County by Scientific Name
    The NatureMapping Program Washington Plant List Revised: 9/15/2011 Douglas County by Scientific Name (1) Non- native, (2) ID Scientific Name Common Name Plant Family Invasive √ 763 Acer glabrum Douglas maple Aceraceae 800 Alisma graminium Narrowleaf waterplantain Alismataceae 19 Alisma plantago-aquatica American waterplantain Alismataceae 1087 Rhus glabra Sumac Anacardiaceae 650 Rhus radicans Poison ivy Anacardiaceae 29 Angelica arguta Sharp-tooth angelica Apiaceae 809 Angelica canbyi Canby's angelica Apiaceae 915 Cymopteris terebinthinus Turpentine spring-parsley Apiaceae 167 Heracleum lanatum Cow parsnip Apiaceae 991 Ligusticum grayi Gray's lovage Apiaceae 709 Lomatium ambiguum Swale desert-parsley Apiaceae 997 Lomatium canbyi Canby's desert-parsley Apiaceae 573 Lomatium dissectum Fern-leaf biscuit-root Apiaceae 582 Lomatium geyeri Geyer's desert-parsley Apiaceae 586 Lomatium gormanii Gorman's desert-parsley Apiaceae 998 Lomatium grayi Gray's desert-parsley Apiaceae 999 Lomatium hambleniae Hamblen's desert-parsley Apiaceae 609 Lomatium macrocarpum Large-fruited lomatium Apiaceae 1000 Lomatium nudicaule Pestle parsnip Apiaceae 634 Lomatium triternatum Nine-leaf lomatium Apiaceae 474 Osmorhiza chilensis Sweet-cicely Apiaceae 264 Osmorhiza occidentalis Western sweet-cicely Apiaceae 1044 Osmorhiza purpurea Purple sweet-cicely Apiaceae 492 Sanicula graveolens Northern Sierra) sanicle Apiaceae 699 Apocynum androsaemifolium Spreading dogbane Apocynaceae 813 Apocynum cannabinum Hemp dogbane Apocynaceae 681 Asclepias speciosa Showy milkweed Asclepiadaceae
    [Show full text]
  • Eriogonum Visheri A
    Eriogonum visheri A. Nelson (Visher’s buckwheat): A Technical Conservation Assessment Prepared for the USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region, Species Conservation Project December 18, 2006 Juanita A. R. Ladyman, Ph.D. JnJ Associates LLC 6760 S. Kit Carson Cir E. Centennial, CO 80122 Peer Review Administered by Center for Plant Conservation Ladyman, J.A.R. (2006, December 18). Eriogonum visheri A. Nelson (Visher’s buckwheat): a technical conservation assessment. [Online]. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/ projects/scp/assessments/eriogonumvisheri.pdf [date of access]. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The time spent and help given by all the people and institutions listed in the reference section are gratefully acknowledged. I would also like to thank the North Dakota Parks and Recreation Department, in particular Christine Dirk, and the South Dakota Natural Heritage Program, in particular David Ode, for their generosity in making their records, reports, and photographs available. I thank the Montana Natural Heritage Program, particularly Martin Miller, Mark Gabel of the Black Hills University Herbarium, Robert Tatina of the Dakota Wesleyan University, Christine Niezgoda of the Field Museum of Natural History, Carrie Kiel Academy of Natural Sciences, Dave Dyer of the University of Montana Herbarium, Caleb Morse of the R.L. McGregor Herbarium, Robert Kaul of the C. E. Bessey Herbarium, John La Duke of the University of North Dakota Herbarium, Joe Washington of the Dakota National Grasslands, and Doug Sargent of the Buffalo Gap National Grasslands - Region 2, for the information they provided. I also appreciate the access to files and assistance given to me by Andrew Kratz, Region 2 USDA Forest Service, and Chuck Davis, U.S.
    [Show full text]