DOCSLIB.ORG

FOREST INSECT and DISEASE CONDITIONS in the ROCKY MOUNTAIN REGION 2005

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
FOREST INSECT and DISEASE CONDITIONS in the ROCKY MOUNTAIN REGION 2005 United States Rocky Renewable Department of Mountain Resources - Agriculture Region Forest Health FOREST INSECT and DISEASE CONDITIONS in the ROCKY MOUNTAIN REGION 2005 Lodgepole pine beetle, Dendroctonous murrayanae killed lodgepole pines on the Medicine Bow National Forest. This beetle is similar to spruce beetle in both physical appearance of the adults and in their gallery construction. Lodgepole pine beetle attacks at the base of the tree. A. Vertical egg gallery of lodgepole pine beetle. B. Horizontal larval galleries FOREST INSECT AND DISEASE CONDITIONS IN THE ROCKY MOUNTAIN REGION 2005 R2-06-07 USDA Forest Service Rocky Mountain Region Renewable Resources, Forest Health Management 740 Simms Street Golden, Colorado 80401-4720 Visit our website at www.fs.fed.us/r2/fhm State Forest Health Monitoring Highlights at http://fhm.fs.fed.us by The Rocky Mountain Region Forest Health Management Staff, and State Forest Health Specialists of Colorado, Kansas, Nebraska, South Dakota, and Wyoming The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, or marital or family status. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternate means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA Director, Office of Civil Rights, Room 326-W, Whitten Building, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20250-9410 or call (202) 720-5964 (voice and TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity employer.” 2 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The Forest Health Management (FHM) Staff extends its appreciation to all cooperators who contributed to forest health efforts in the Rocky Mountain Region. COLORADO Jeff Jahnke, State Forester Vacant --- Forest Health Specialist Colorado State Forest Service Forestry Building Colorado State Univ. Fort Collins, CO 80523 Phone: 970/491-6303 Fax: 970/491-7736 KANSAS Raymond G. Aslin, State Forester Vacant --- Forest Health Specialist Kansas Forest Service 2610 Claflin Road Manhattan, KS 66502 Phone: 785/532-3300 Fax: 785/532-3305 NEBRASKA Dr. Scott Josiah, State Forester Mark Harrell, Entomologist Nebraska Forest Service Laurie Stepanek, Forest Pest Mgmt. 103 Plant Industry – Univ. of Nebraska Assistant Lincoln, NE 68583 103 Plant Industry – Univ. of NE Phone : 402/472-1467 Lincoln, NE 68583 Fax: 402/472-2964 Phone: 402/472-6635 or -5503 Fax: 402/472-2964 SOUTH DAKOTA Ray Sowers, State Forester John Ball, Entomologist Division of Resource Conservation and South Dakota State University – Dept. Forestry – of Horticulture and Forestry Foss Building, 523 E. Capitol Avenue NPB 201 - Box 2140A Pierre, South Dakota 57501-3182 Brookings, SD 57007 Phone: 605/773-3623 Phone: 605/688-4737 Fax: 605/773-4003 Fax: 605/688-4713 WYOMING Bill Crapser, State Forester Les Koch, Forest Health Specialist Wyoming State Forestry Division Wyoming State Forestry Division 1100 West 22nd Street 1100 West 22nd Street Cheyenne, Wyoming 82002 Cheyenne, Wyoming 82002 Phone: 307/777-7586 Phone: 307/777-5495 Fax: 307/637-8726 Fax: 307/637-8726 3 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Acknowledgements 2 Table of Contents and Disclaimers 3 Rocky Mountain Region-Forest Health Management Staff and 4 Service Center Zones Status of Major Forest Damaging Insects, Diseases, and Other 5 Agents in the Rocky Mountain Region during 2005 (Mountain Pine Beetle – pg 5; Spruce Beetle – 8; Douglas-fir Beetle – 9; Pine Engraver Beetle – 9; Subalpine Fir Mortality, Western Balsam Bark Beetle, and Root Diseases – 11; Dwarf Mistletoe – 12; White Pine Blister Rust – 13) Insects, Diseases, and Other Damaging Forest Agents of 16 Concern in Colorado, Kansas, Nebraska, South Dakota, & Wyoming (Insects – 16; Diseases – 19; Other – 21) 2005 Rocky Mountain Region Aerial Survey 23 Forest Health Management Special Projects 28 Recent Publications 30 Data, Aerial Survey, and Map Disclaimers These insect and disease data are available digitally from the USDA Forest Service, Region Two Forest Health Management group. The cooperators reserve the right to correct, update, modify or replace GIS products. Using these data for purposes other than those for which it was intended may yield inaccurate or misleading results. Only rough estimates of location, intensity and the resulting trend information for any given damaging agent are provided with aerial survey data. The data presented should only be used as indicators of insect and disease activity, and validated on the ground for actual location and casual agent. Many of the most destructive diseases are not represented in these data because these agents are not detectable from aerial surveys. Maps in this product are reproduced from geospatial information prepared by the USDA Forest Service. GIS data and product accuracy may vary. They may be: developed from sources of differing accuracy, accurate only at certain scales, based on modeling or interpretation, incomplete while being created or revised, etc. Using GIS products for purposes other than those for which they were created, may yield inaccurate or misleading results. The Forest Service reserves the right to correct, update, modify, or replace, GIS products without notification. For more information, please contact the Rocky Mountain Regional Office 303-275-5367. 4 Rocky Mountain Region (R2), Forest Health Management 2005 Forest Health (FH) Management is responsible for the detection, evaluation, and suppression of insects and diseases on forested Federal lands in the Rocky Mountain Region (Figure 1). FH Management also administers financial and technical assistance programs with State Foresters of Colorado, Kansas, Nebraska, South Dakota, and Wyoming for insect and disease detection, evaluation, and suppression. In addition, management for range pests and non-native forest insects and diseases is shared with the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS). Federal and State agencies coordinate and cooperate in forest health management for effective program execution. Three Service Centers and the Regional Office address forest health concerns for the Rocky Mountain Region. Questions concerning operations and requests for service can be directed to the Forest Health Management Group Leader in the Regional Office or the respective Service Center Leaders. Figure 1 SERVICE CENTERS, OFFICES, and STAFF Rapid City Service Jim Blodgett – Plant Lakewood Service Bernard Benton - Center (RCSC) Pathologist Center (LSC) Computer Specialist 1730 Samco Road, Al Dymerski – Aerial P.O. Box 25127 Kelly S. Burns – Plant Rapid City, SD 57702 Survey Technician Lakewood, CO 80225 Pathologist Ph: 605/343-1960 Denise Hardesty – Ph: 303/236/9541 Sheryl Costello – Fax: 605/394-6627 Technician Fax: 303/236-9542 Entomologist Dan Long –Technician Brian Howell – Technician Kurt Allen – RCSC Bill Schaupp – Jeff Witcosky - LSC Leader, Entomologist Entomologist Leader, Entomologist Gunnison Service Tom Eager - Regional Office Pat Ahern – Aerial Survey Center (GSC) Entomologist 740 Simms Street, Technician 108E. Georgia St., Leanne Egeland – Golden, CO 80401 Bob Cain – Regional Mail to: 216 N. Technician Ph: 303/275-5061 Entomologist Colorado Caley Gasch – Fax: 303/275-5075 Jeri Lyn Harris – FH Gunnison, CO 81230 Biological Aide Monitoring Coordinator Ph: 970/642-1199 Kerry Spetter – Admin. Renewable Resources Erik Johnson – Aerial Fax:970/642-1919 Support Director (Vacant) Survey Program Manager Jim Worrall - Plant Tom McClure – Noxious Roy Mask – GSC Pathologist Frank Cross – FH weeds, Invasive species, Leader, Entomologist Group Leader Pesticide coordinator Jennifer Ross – GIS specialist 5 Status of Major Forest Damaging Insects, Diseases, and Other Agents in the Rocky Mountain Region during 2005 Mountain Pine Beetle along the Williams Fork. Along these Dendroctonus ponderosae riparian areas, the mountain pine beetle is attacking and infesting Engelmann Mountain Pine Beetle again was the spruce trees along with lodgepole pine most damaging agent in the Region in trees. Mountain pine beetle larvae are 2005. Large outbreaks continued to developing in these trees and are devastate pines in the region from reaching late larval instars. Whether Colorado’s San Luis Valley to the these mountain pine beetles will survive Absaroka Mountains in northwest to emerge as adults has not been Wyoming and over into the Black Hills in determined. South Dakota. In an unusual twist, mountain pine Colorado beetle-infested Engelmann spruce are Mountain pine beetle populations being attacked at their base by the remained at epidemic levels in spruce beetle, Dendroctonus rufipennis. lodgepole pine stands throughout This sort of interaction between these northern Colorado. The following two Dendroctonus species may lead to counties were severely impacted: Eagle, an increasing problem associated with Grand, Jackson, Routt and Summit. building spruce beetle populations as Large amounts of dead and dying the mountain pine beetle population lodgepole pines adjacent to towns collapses due to a depletion of the prompted efforts by federal, state and lodgepole pine resource in the Williams local homeowners to manage beetle Fork area. impacts and fire risk in the wildland- urban interface. These communities In Colorado, mountain pine beetles included Breckenridge, Silverthorn, successfully completed their lifecycle
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Page 5 of the 2020 Antelope, Deer and Elk Regulations
    WYOMING GAME AND FISH COMMISSION Antelope, 2020 Deer and Elk Hunting Regulations Don't forget your conservation stamp Hunters and anglers must purchase a conservation stamp to hunt and fish in Wyoming. (See page 6) See page 18 for more information. wgfd.wyo.gov Wyoming Hunting Regulations | 1 CONTENTS Access on Lands Enrolled in the Department’s Walk-in Areas Elk or Hunter Management Areas .................................................... 4 Hunt area map ............................................................................. 46 Access Yes Program .......................................................................... 4 Hunting seasons .......................................................................... 47 Age Restrictions ................................................................................. 4 Characteristics ............................................................................. 47 Antelope Special archery seasons.............................................................. 57 Hunt area map ..............................................................................12 Disabled hunter season extension.............................................. 57 Hunting seasons ...........................................................................13 Elk Special Management Permit ................................................. 57 Characteristics ..............................................................................13 Youth elk hunters........................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Aerial Survey Highlights for Colorado 2014
    Aerial Survey Highlights for Colorado 2014 Aerial detection surveys of tree killing or damaging insects and diseases are conducted annually over Colorado’s forest lands. This is a cooperative effort between the US Forest Service and the Colorado State Forest Service. In 2014, 28 million acres were surveyed by 7 trained federal and state surveyors. Highlights of the survey by damage agent are reported below. In 2014, all reported agents are insects that kill and/or defoliate trees. This report includes only forest damage that is visible from the air. Spruce Beetle • Since 1996, spruce beetle has affected approximately 1,397,000 acres to varying degrees in Colorado. • Spruce beetle activity was detected on 485,000 acres in Colorado in 2014. Of these, 253,000 acres are in areas not previously mapped as having spruce beetle activity (new acres). This epidemic continues to expand rapidly (Figures 1, 2). In some areas, the outbreak has moved through entire drainages in the course of one year. In the most heavily impacted drainages, nearly every mature spruce has been killed (Figure 3). • The spruce beetle epidemic is expanding most rapidly in southern Colorado’s Forests and impacts many thousands of acres. Areas affected are found from the La Garita Wilderness Area to north of Cottonwood Pass, the Sangre de Cristo and Wet Mountains, as well as south to the Colorado border and into New Mexico. Aerial survey in south central Colorado showed spruce beetle epidemics expanded on the San Juan (26,000 new acres on 53,000 active acres), Rio Grande (78,000 new acres on 192,000 active acres), Gunnison (54,000 new acres on 79,000 active acres), and San Isabel (26,000 new acres on 31,000 active acres) National Forests.
    [Show full text]
  • PEAK to PRAIRIE: BOTANICAL LANDSCAPES of the PIKES PEAK REGION Tass Kelso Dept of Biology Colorado College 2012
    !"#$%&'%!(#)()"*%+'&#,)-#.%.#,/0-#!"0%'1%&2"%!)$"0% !"#$%("3)',% &455%$6758% /69:%8;%+<878=>% -878?4@8%-8776=6% ABCA% Kelso-Peak to Prairie Biodiversity and Place: Landscape’s Coat of Many Colors Mountain peaks often capture our imaginations, spark our instincts to explore and conquer, or heighten our artistic senses. Mt. Olympus, mythological home of the Greek gods, Yosemite’s Half Dome, the ever-classic Matterhorn, Alaska’s Denali, and Colorado’s Pikes Peak all share the quality of compelling attraction that a charismatic alpine profile evokes. At the base of our peak along the confluence of two small, nondescript streams, Native Americans gathered thousands of years ago. Explorers, immigrants, city-visionaries and fortune-seekers arrived successively, all shaping in turn the region and communities that today spread from the flanks of Pikes Peak. From any vantage point along the Interstate 25 corridor, the Colorado plains, or the Arkansas River Valley escarpments, Pikes Peak looms as the dominant feature of a diverse “bioregion”, a geographical area with a distinct flora and fauna, that stretches from alpine tundra to desert grasslands. “Biodiversity” is shorthand for biological diversity: a term covering a broad array of contexts from the genetics of individual organisms to ecosystem interactions. The news tells us daily of ongoing threats from the loss of biodiversity on global and regional levels as humans extend their influence across the face of the earth and into its sustaining processes. On a regional level, biologists look for measures of biodiversity, celebrate when they find sites where those measures are high and mourn when they diminish; conservation organizations and in some cases, legal statutes, try to protect biodiversity, and communities often struggle to balance human needs for social infrastructure with desirable elements of the natural landscape.
    [Show full text]
  • Denudation History and Internal Structure of the Front Range and Wet Mountains, Colorado, Based on Apatite-Fission-Track Thermoc
    NEW MEXICO BUREAU OF GEOLOGY & MINERAL RESOURCES, BULLETIN 160, 2004 41 Denudation history and internal structure of the Front Range and Wet Mountains, Colorado, based on apatite­fission­track thermochronology 1 2 1Department of Earth and Environmental Science, New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology, Socorro, NM 87801Shari A. Kelley and Charles E. Chapin 2New Mexico Bureau of Geology and Mineral Resources, New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology, Socorro, NM 87801 Abstract An apatite fission­track (AFT) partial annealing zone (PAZ) that developed during Late Cretaceous time provides a structural datum for addressing questions concerning the timing and magnitude of denudation, as well as the structural style of Laramide deformation, in the Front Range and Wet Mountains of Colorado. AFT cooling ages are also used to estimate the magnitude and sense of dis­ placement across faults and to differentiate between exhumation and fault­generated topography. AFT ages at low elevationX along the eastern margin of the southern Front Range between Golden and Colorado Springs are from 100 to 270 Ma, and the mean track lengths are short (10–12.5 µm). Old AFT ages (> 100 Ma) are also found along the western margin of the Front Range along the Elkhorn thrust fault. In contrast AFT ages of 45–75 Ma and relatively long mean track lengths (12.5–14 µm) are common in the interior of the range. The AFT ages generally decrease across northwest­trending faults toward the center of the range. The base of a fossil PAZ, which separates AFT cooling ages of 45– 70 Ma at low elevations from AFT ages > 100 Ma at higher elevations, is exposed on the south side of Pikes Peak, on Mt.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 5 – Complexes: Area-Specific Management Recommendations
    Wild Connections Conservation Plan for the Pike & San Isabel National Forests Chapter 5 – Complexes: Area-Specific Management Recommendations This section contains our detailed, area-specific proposal utilizing the theme based approach to land management. As an organizational tool, this proposal divides the Pike-San Isabel National Forest into eleven separate Complexes, based on geo-physical characteristics of the land such as mountain ranges, parklands, or canyon systems. Each complex narrative provides details and justifications for our management recommendations for specific areas. In order to emphasize the larger landscape and connectivity of these lands with the ecoregion, commentary on relationships to adjacent non-Forest lands are also included. Evaluations of ecological value across public and private lands are used throughout this chapter. The Colorado Natural Heritage Programs rates the biodiversity of Potential Conservation Areas (PCAs) as General Biodiversity, Moderate, High, Very High, and Outranking Significance. The Nature Conservancy assesses the conservation value of its Conservation Blueprint areas as Low, Moderately Low, Moderate, Moderately High and High. The Southern Rockies Ecosystem Project's Wildlands Network Vision recommends land use designations of Core Wilderness, Core Agency, Low and Moderate Compatible Use, and Wildlife Linkages. Detailed explanations are available from the respective organizations. Complexes – Summary List by Watershed Table 5.1: Summary of WCCP Complexes Watershed Complex Ranger District
    [Show full text]
  • Geochronology Database for Central Colorado
    Geochronology Database for Central Colorado Data Series 489 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey Geochronology Database for Central Colorado By T.L. Klein, K.V. Evans, and E.H. DeWitt Data Series 489 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey U.S. Department of the Interior KEN SALAZAR, Secretary U.S. Geological Survey Marcia K. McNutt, Director U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia: 2010 For more information on the USGS—the Federal source for science about the Earth, its natural and living resources, natural hazards, and the environment, visit http://www.usgs.gov or call 1-888-ASK-USGS For an overview of USGS information products, including maps, imagery, and publications, visit http://www.usgs.gov/pubprod To order this and other USGS information products, visit http://store.usgs.gov Any use of trade, product, or firm names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government. Although this report is in the public domain, permission must be secured from the individual copyright owners to reproduce any copyrighted materials contained within this report. Suggested citation: T.L. Klein, K.V. Evans, and E.H. DeWitt, 2009, Geochronology database for central Colorado: U.S. Geological Survey Data Series 489, 13 p. iii Contents Abstract ...........................................................................................................................................................1 Introduction.....................................................................................................................................................1
    [Show full text]
  • Wilderness Study Areas
    I ___- .-ll..l .“..l..““l.--..- I. _.^.___” _^.__.._._ - ._____.-.-.. ------ FEDERAL LAND M.ANAGEMENT Status and Uses of Wilderness Study Areas I 150156 RESTRICTED--Not to be released outside the General Accounting Wice unless specifically approved by the Office of Congressional Relations. ssBO4’8 RELEASED ---- ---. - (;Ao/li:( ‘I:I)-!L~-l~~lL - United States General Accounting OfTice GAO Washington, D.C. 20548 Resources, Community, and Economic Development Division B-262989 September 23,1993 The Honorable Bruce F. Vento Chairman, Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests, and Public Lands Committee on Natural Resources House of Representatives Dear Mr. Chairman: Concerned about alleged degradation of areas being considered for possible inclusion in the National Wilderness Preservation System (wilderness study areas), you requested that we provide you with information on the types and effects of activities in these study areas. As agreed with your office, we gathered information on areas managed by two agencies: the Department of the Interior’s Bureau of Land Management (BLN) and the Department of Agriculture’s Forest Service. Specifically, this report provides information on (1) legislative guidance and the agency policies governing wilderness study area management, (2) the various activities and uses occurring in the agencies’ study areas, (3) the ways these activities and uses affect the areas, and (4) agency actions to monitor and restrict these uses and to repair damage resulting from them. Appendixes I and II provide data on the number, acreage, and locations of wilderness study areas managed by BLM and the Forest Service, as well as data on the types of uses occurring in the areas.
    [Show full text]
  • Mineral Resources of the Ferris Mountains Wilderness Study Area, Carbon County, Wyoming
    Mineral Resources of the Ferris Mountains Wilderness Study Area, Carbon County, Wyoming &£ %r^ U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY BULLETIN 1757-C .r WYOMING Chapter C Mineral Resources of the Ferris Mountains Wilderness Study Area, Carbon County, Wyoming By MITCHELL W. REYNOLDS U.S. Geological Survey JOHN T. NEUBERT U.S. Bureau of Mines U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY BULLETIN 1757 MINERAL RESOURCES OF WILDERNESS STUDY AREAS- SOUTHERN WYOMING DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR DONALD PAUL MODEL, Secretary U. S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Dallas L. Peck, Director UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1988 For sale by the Books and Open-File Reports Section U.S. Geological Survey Federal Center Box 25425 Denver, CO 80225 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Reynolds, Mitchell W. Mineral resources of the Ferris Mountains Wilderness Study Area, Carbon County, Wyoming. (Mineral resources of wilderness study areas southern Wyoming ; ch. C) (U.S. Geological Survey bulletin ; 1757-C) Bibliography: p. Supt. of Docs, no.: I 19.3:1757-C 1. Mines and mineral resources Wyoming Ferris Mountains Wilderness. 2. Ferris Mountains Wilderness (Wyo.) I. Neubert, John T. II. Series. III. Series: U.S. Geological Survey bulletin ; 1757-C. QE75.B9 no. 1757-C 557.3 s [553'.09787'86] 87-600485 [TN24.W8] STUDIES RELATED TO WILDERNESS Bureau of Land Management Wilderness Study Areas The Federal Land Policy and Management Act (Public Law 94-579, October 21, 1976) requires the U.S. Geological Survey and the U.S. Bureau of Mines to conduct mineral surveys on certain areas to determine the mineral values, if any, that may be present. Results must be made available to the public and be submitted to the President and the Congress.
    [Show full text]
  • 36 CFR Ch. II (7–1–13 Edition) § 294.49
    § 294.49 36 CFR Ch. II (7–1–13 Edition) subpart shall prohibit a responsible of- Line Includes ficial from further restricting activi- Colorado roadless area name upper tier No. acres ties allowed within Colorado Roadless Areas. This subpart does not compel 22 North St. Vrain ............................................ X the amendment or revision of any land 23 Rawah Adjacent Areas ............................... X 24 Square Top Mountain ................................. X management plan. 25 Troublesome ............................................... X (d) The prohibitions and restrictions 26 Vasquez Adjacent Area .............................. X established in this subpart are not sub- 27 White Pine Mountain. ject to reconsideration, revision, or re- 28 Williams Fork.............................................. X scission in subsequent project decisions Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre, Gunnison National Forest or land management plan amendments 29 Agate Creek. or revisions undertaken pursuant to 36 30 American Flag Mountain. CFR part 219. 31 Baldy. (e) Nothing in this subpart waives 32 Battlements. any applicable requirements regarding 33 Beaver ........................................................ X 34 Beckwiths. site specific environmental analysis, 35 Calamity Basin. public involvement, consultation with 36 Cannibal Plateau. Tribes and other agencies, or compli- 37 Canyon Creek-Antero. 38 Canyon Creek. ance with applicable laws. 39 Carson ........................................................ X (f) If any provision in this subpart
    [Show full text]
  • Profiles of Colorado Roadless Areas
    PROFILES OF COLORADO ROADLESS AREAS Prepared by the USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region July 23, 2008 INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 2 3 TABLE OF CONTENTS ARAPAHO-ROOSEVELT NATIONAL FOREST ......................................................................................................10 Bard Creek (23,000 acres) .......................................................................................................................................10 Byers Peak (10,200 acres)........................................................................................................................................12 Cache la Poudre Adjacent Area (3,200 acres)..........................................................................................................13 Cherokee Park (7,600 acres) ....................................................................................................................................14 Comanche Peak Adjacent Areas A - H (45,200 acres).............................................................................................15 Copper Mountain (13,500 acres) .............................................................................................................................19 Crosier Mountain (7,200 acres) ...............................................................................................................................20 Gold Run (6,600 acres) ............................................................................................................................................21
    [Show full text]
  • Mineral Occurrence and Development Potential Report Rawlins Resource
    CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION......................................................................................................................1-1 1.1 Purpose of Report ............................................................................................................1-1 1.2 Lands Involved and Record Data ....................................................................................1-2 2.0 DESCRIPTION OF GEOLOGY ...............................................................................................2-1 2.1 Physiography....................................................................................................................2-1 2.2 Stratigraphy ......................................................................................................................2-3 2.2.1 Precambrian Era....................................................................................................2-3 2.2.2 Paleozoic Era ........................................................................................................2-3 2.2.2.1 Cambrian System...................................................................................2-3 2.2.2.2 Ordovician, Silurian, and Devonian Systems ........................................2-5 2.2.2.3 Mississippian System.............................................................................2-5 2.2.2.4 Pennsylvanian System...........................................................................2-5 2.2.2.5 Permian System.....................................................................................2-6
    [Show full text]
  • Status of Plant Species of Special Concern in US Forest Service
    Status of Plant Species of Special Concern In US Forest Service Region 4 In Wyoming Report prepared for the US Forest Service By Walter Fertig Wyoming Natural Diversity Database University of Wyoming PO Box 3381 Laramie, WY 82071 20 January 2000 INTRODUCTION The US Forest Service is directed by the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and internal policy (through the Forest Service Manual) to manage for listed and candidate Threatened and Endangered plant species on lands under its jurisdiction. The Intermountain Region of the Forest Service (USFS Region 4) has developed a Sensitive species policy to address the management needs of rare plants that might qualify for listing under the ESA (Joslin 1994). The objective of this policy is to prevent Forest Service actions from contributing to the further endangerment of Sensitive species and their subsequent listing under the ESA. In addition, the Forest Service is required to manage for other rare species and biological diversity under provisions of the National Forest Management Act. The current Sensitive plant species list for Region 4 (covering Ashley, Bridger-Teton, Caribou, Targhee, and Wasatch-Cache National Forests and Flaming Gorge National Recreation Area in Wyoming) was last revised in 1994 (Joslin 1994). Field studies by botanists with the Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Herbarium, Wyoming Natural Diversity Database (WYNDD), and private consulting firms since 1994 have shown that several currently listed species may no longer warrant Sensitive designation, while some new species should be considered for listing. Region 4 is currently reviewing its Sensitive plant list and criteria for listing. This report has been prepared to provide baseline information on the statewide distribution and abundance of 127 plants listed as “species of special concern” by WYNDD (Table 1) (Fertig and Beauvais 1999).
    [Show full text]