DOCSLIB.ORG

Final Environmental Assessment Thunder Basin Grasslands Prairie Ecosystem Association CCAA/CCA/CA

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Final Environmental Assessment Thunder Basin Grasslands Prairie Ecosystem Association CCAA/CCA/CA Final Environmental Assessment Thunder Basin Grasslands Prairie Ecosystem Association Conservation Strategy U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Wyoming Ecological Services Field Office Cheyenne, Wyoming and Cooperating Agencies: U.S. Department of Agriculture Medicine Bow – Routt National Forests and Thunder Basin National Grassland U.S. Department of Interior Wyoming Bureau of Land Management February 2017 Final Environmental Assessment Thunder Basin Grasslands Prairie Ecosystem Association CCAA/CCA/CA TABLE OF CONTENTS Abbreviations and Acronyms ........................................................................................................ vi Glossary ........................................................................................................................................ vii 1.0 INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................................1 1.1 Proposed Action ................................................................................................................1 1.2 The Purpose of the Action .................................................................................................3 1.3 The Need for the Action ....................................................................................................3 1.4 The Association’s Conservation Strategy .........................................................................4 1.5 Conservation Status of Covered Species ...........................................................................5 1.5.1 Sagebrush Steppe .......................................................................................................5 1.5.2 Shortgrass Prairie .......................................................................................................6 1.6 Conservation Strategy Coverage Area ..............................................................................8 1.7 Approvals to be Made .......................................................................................................8 1.8 Legal Authorities and Policy ...........................................................................................11 1.8.1 Authorities Related to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) .................11 1.8.2. Authorities Related to Interagency Agreements and Collaborative Conservation ..12 1.9 Public Participation .........................................................................................................14 2.0 DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES ............................................................................16 2.1 Alternative A – No Action ..............................................................................................17 2.2 Alternative B – Proposed Action – Issuance of a Section 10(a)(1)(A) Permit – Implementation of the Association’s Conservation Strategy ..........................................18 2.3 Alternative C – Issuance of Individual Permits - Implementation of Individual CCAAs / CCAs ...............................................................................................................................28 2.4 Alternatives Considered But Not Fully Evaluated – Alternative D ................................28 3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT .........................................................................................29 3.1 Physical Characteristics of the Action Area ....................................................................30 3.1.1 Regional Characteristics ..........................................................................................31 3.1.2 Soils..........................................................................................................................34 3.1.3 Vegetation ................................................................................................................35 3.2 Wildlife............................................................................................................................38 3.2.1 Covered Species .......................................................................................................38 February 2017 Page i Final Environmental Assessment Thunder Basin Grasslands Prairie Ecosystem Association CCAA/CCA/CA 3.2.1.1 Sagebrush Steppe Assemblage ........................................................................ 39 3.2.1.2 Shortgrass Prairie Assemblage ........................................................................ 48 3.2.2 Species of Special Concern ......................................................................................53 3.2.2.1 ESA Listed, Proposed, and Candidate Species................................................ 53 3.2.2.2 BLM and USFS Sensitive Species .................................................................. 60 3.2.2.3 USFS Management Indicator Species (MIS) .................................................. 87 3.2.2.4 Birds of Conservation Concern ....................................................................... 90 3.2.2.5 Wyoming and Montana Species of Greatest Conservation Need.................... 91 3.2.2.6 Other Wildlife .................................................................................................. 92 3.3 Farm and Ranch Lands ....................................................................................................96 3.4 Environmental Justice .....................................................................................................97 3.5 Socioeconomics ...............................................................................................................98 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES ........................................................................99 4.1 Covered Species ............................................................................................................101 4.1.1 Sagebrush Steppe Assemblage ..............................................................................101 4.1.2 Shortgrass Prairie Assemblage ..............................................................................101 4.1.3 Alternative A – No Action Alternative ..................................................................102 4.1.4 Alternative B – Proposed Action ...........................................................................104 4.1.5 Alternative C – Individual Agreements and Permits .............................................114 4.2 Endangered, Threatened, Proposed, and Candidate Species .........................................114 4.2.1 Alternative A – No Action Alternative ..................................................................115 4.2.1.1 Black-footed ferret ......................................................................................... 116 4.2.1.2 Ute ladies’-tresses .......................................................................................... 116 4.2.1.3 Northern long-eared bat ................................................................................. 117 4.2.2 Alternative B – Proposed Action ...........................................................................117 4.2.2.1 Black-footed Ferret ........................................................................................ 117 4.2.2.2 Ute ladies’-tresses .......................................................................................... 119 4.2.2.3 Northern Long-eared Bat ............................................................................... 121 4.2.3 Alternative C – Individual Agreements and Permits .............................................123 4.2.3.1 Black-footed ferret ......................................................................................... 123 4.2.3.2 Ute Ladies’-tresses ........................................................................................ 123 February 2017 Page ii Final Environmental Assessment Thunder Basin Grasslands Prairie Ecosystem Association CCAA/CCA/CA 4.2.3.3 Northern Long-eared Bat ............................................................................... 124 4.3 Sensitive Species and other Vertebrate Species of Concern .........................................124 4.3.1 BLM and USFS Sensitive Species .........................................................................124 4.3.1.1 Alternative A – No Action Alternative .......................................................... 125 4.3.1.2 Alternative B – Proposed Action ................................................................... 125 4.3.1.3 Alternative C – Individual Agreements and Permits ..................................... 126 4.3.2 USFS Management Indicator Species (MIS) .........................................................126 4.3.2.1 Alternative A – No Action Alternative .......................................................... 127 4.3.2.2 Alternative B – Proposed Action ................................................................... 127 4.3.2.3 Alternative C – Individual Agreements and Permits ..................................... 127 4.3.3 Birds of Conservation Concern, Species of Greatest Conservation Need, and Other Wildlife ..................................................................................................................128 4.3.3.1 Alternative A – No Action Alternative .......................................................... 128 4.3.3.2 Alternative B – Proposed Action ................................................................... 129 4.3.3.3 Alternative C – Individual Agreements and Permits ....................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Smithsonian Institution Archives (SIA)
    SMITHSONIAN OPPORTUNITIES FOR RESEARCH AND STUDY 2020 Office of Fellowships and Internships Smithsonian Institution Washington, DC The Smithsonian Opportunities for Research and Study Guide Can be Found Online at http://www.smithsonianofi.com/sors-introduction/ Version 2.0 (Updated January 2020) Copyright © 2020 by Smithsonian Institution Table of Contents Table of Contents .................................................................................................................................................................................................. 1 How to Use This Book .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 1 Anacostia Community Museum (ACM) ........................................................................................................................................................ 2 Archives of American Art (AAA) ....................................................................................................................................................................... 4 Asian Pacific American Center (APAC) .......................................................................................................................................................... 6 Center for Folklife and Cultural Heritage (CFCH) ...................................................................................................................................... 7 Cooper-Hewitt,
    [Show full text]
  • Proceedings of the Seventeenth Wildlife Damage Management Conference, Orange Beach, AL, February 26-March 1, 2017
    PROCEEDINGS SEVENTEENTH WILDLIFE DAMAGE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE Perdido Beach Resort Orange Beach, AL February 26 – March 1, 2017 Sponsored by USDA APHIS Wildlife Services Tomahawk Live Trap ALFA Alabama Farmers Federation Facilitated by Wildlife Damage Management Working Group of The Wildlife Society Alabama Cooperative Extension System School of Forestry and Wildlife Sciences, Auburn University USDA Wildlife Services-Alabama Editors Dana J. Morin Michael J. Cherry Published at Southern Illinois University, Carbondale, IL USA i Conference Committees Conference Chair Mark D. Smith, Alabama Cooperative Extension System, School of Forestry and Wildlife Sciences, Auburn University Program Committee Jim Armstrong (Chair)—Alabama Cooperative Extension System, School of Forestry and Wildlife Sciences, Auburn University Ken Gruver—UDSA Wildlife Services-Alabama Bronson Strickland—Mississippi State University Extension, Department of Wildlife, Fisheries, and Aquaculture, Mississippi State University Brian Dorr—USDA/APHIS/Wildlife Services, National Wildlife Research Center Michael Mengak—Warnell School of Forestry and Natural Resources, University of Georgia Field Trip Coordinator Leif Stephens—UDSA Wildlife Services-Alabama Proceedings Co-Editors Dana J. Morin, Cooperative Wildlife Research Laboratory, Southern Illinois University Michael J. Cherry, Department of Fish and Wildlife Conservation, Virginia Tech ii The Wildlife Society - Wildlife Damage Management Working Group Officers and Board Members Chair – Joe Caudell; Indiana Department of
    [Show full text]
  • Alplains 2013 Seed Catalog P.O
    ALPLAINS 2013 SEED CATALOG P.O. BOX 489, KIOWA, CO 80117-0489, U.S.A. Three ways to contact us: FAX: (303) 621-2864 (24 HRS.) email: [email protected] website: www.alplains.com Dear Growing Friends: Welcome to our 23rd annual seed catalog! The summer of 2012 was long, hot and brutal, with drought afflicting most of the U.S. Most of my botanical explorations were restricted to Idaho, Wash- ington, Oregon and northern California but even there moisture was below average. In a year like this, seeps, swales, springs, vestigial snowbanks and localized rainstorms became much more important in my search for seeding plants. On the Snake River Plains of southern Idaho and the scab- lands of eastern Washington, early bloomers such as Viola beckwithii, V. trinervata, Ranunculus glaberrimus, Ranunculus andersonii, Fritillaria pudica and Primula cusickiana put on quite a show in mid-April but many populations could not set seed. In northern Idaho, Erythronium idahoense flowered extensively, whole meadows were covered with thousands of the creamy, pendant blossoms. One of my most satisfying finds in the Hells Canyon area had to be Sedum valens. The tiny glaucous rosettes, surround- ed by a ring of red leaves, are a succulent connoisseur’s dream. Higher up, the brilliant blue spikes of Synthyris missurica punctuated the canyon walls. In southern Oregon, the brilliant red spikes of Pedicularis densiflora lit up the Siskiyou forest floor. Further north in Oregon, large populations of Erythronium elegans, Erythronium oregonum ssp. leucandrum, Erythro- nium revolutum, trilliums and sedums provided wonderful picture-taking opportunities. Eriogonum species did well despite the drought, many of them true xerics.
    [Show full text]
  • Assabet River National Wildlife Refuge Final Comprehensive Conservation Plan January 2005
    U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Assabet River National Wildlife Refuge Final Comprehensive Conservation Plan January 2005 This goose, designed by J.N. “Ding” Darling, has become the symbol of the National Wildlife Refuge System The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is the principle federal agency for conserving, protecting, and enhancing fish and wildlife in their habitats for the continuing benefit of the American people. The Service manages the 96-million acre National Wildlife Refuge System comprised of 544 national wildlife refuges and thousands of waterfowl production areas. It also operates 65 national fish hatcheries and 78 ecological services field stations. The agency enforces federal wildlife laws, manages migratory bird populations, restores significant fisheries, conserves and restores wildlife habitat such as wetlands, administers the Endangered Species Act, and helps foreign governments with their conservation efforts. It also oversees the Federal Aid program which distributes hundreds of millions of dollars in excise taxes on fishing and hunting equipment to state wildlife agencies. Comprehensive Conservation Plans provide long term guidance for management decisions; set forth goals, objectives, and strategies needed to accomplish refuge purposes; and, identify the Service’s best estimate of future needs. These plans detail program planning levels that are sometimes substantially above current budget allocations and, as such, are primarily for Service strategic planning and program prioritization purposes. The plans do not constitute
    [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]
  • Ecological Responses to Habitat Fragmentation Per Se
    ES48CH01-Fahrig ARI 18 September 2017 16:55 Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics Ecological Responses to Habitat Fragmentation Per Se Lenore Fahrig Geomatics and Landscape Ecology Research Laboratory, Department of Biology, Carleton University, Ottawa, Ontario K1S 5B6, Canada; email: [email protected] Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 2017. 48:1–23 Keywords First published online as a Review in Advance on landscape pattern, landscape structure, landscape configuration, landscape May 31, 2017 complementation, landscape connectivity, landscape heterogeneity, patch The Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and area, patch isolation, edge effect, SLOSS Systematics is online at ecolsys.annualreviews.org https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-ecolsys-110316- Abstract 022612 For this article, I reviewed empirical studies finding significant ecological Copyright c 2017 by Annual Reviews. responses to habitat fragmentation per se—in other words, significant re- All rights reserved sponses to fragmentation independent of the effects of habitat amount (here- after referred to as habitat fragmentation). I asked these two questions: Are most significant responses to habitat fragmentation negative or positive? And do particular attributes of species or landscapes lead to a predominance of negative or positive significant responses? I found 118 studies reporting ANNUAL REVIEWS Further 381 significant responses to habitat fragmentation independent of habitat Click here to view this article's amount. Of these responses, 76% were positive. Most significant fragmen- online features: • Download figures as PPT slides tation effects were positive, irrespective of how the authors controlled for • Navigate linked references • Download citations habitat amount, the measure of fragmentation, the taxonomic group, the type • Explore related articles • Search keywords of response variable, or the degree of specialization or conservation status of the species or species group.
    [Show full text]
  • Technical Review 12-04 December 2012
    The North American Model of Wildlife Conservation Technical Review 12-04 December 2012 1 The North American Model of Wildlife Conservation The Wildlife Society and The Boone and Crockett Club Technical Review 12-04 - December 2012 Citation Organ, J.F., V. Geist, S.P. Mahoney, S. Williams, P.R. Krausman, G.R. Batcheller, T.A. Decker, R. Carmichael, P. Nanjappa, R. Regan, R.A. Medellin, R. Cantu, R.E. McCabe, S. Craven, G.M. Vecellio, and D.J. Decker. 2012. The North American Model of Wildlife Conservation. The Wildlife Society Technical Review 12-04. The Wildlife Society, Bethesda, Maryland, USA. Series Edited by Theodore A. Bookhout Copy Edit and Design Terra Rentz (AWB®), Managing Editor, The Wildlife Society Lisa Moore, Associate Editor, The Wildlife Society Maja Smith, Graphic Designer, MajaDesign, Inc. Cover Images Front cover, clockwise from upper left: 1) Canada lynx (Lynx canadensis) kittens removed from den for marking and data collection as part of a long-term research study. Credit: John F. Organ; 2) A mixed flock of ducks and geese fly from a wetland area. Credit: Steve Hillebrand/USFWS; 3) A researcher attaches a radio transmitter to a short-horned lizard (Phrynosoma hernandesi) in Colorado’s Pawnee National Grassland. Credit: Laura Martin; 4) Rifle hunter Ron Jolly admires a mature white-tailed buck harvested by his wife on the family’s farm in Alabama. Credit: Tes Randle Jolly; 5) Caribou running along a northern peninsula of Newfoundland are part of a herd compositional survey. Credit: John F. Organ; 6) Wildlife veterinarian Lisa Wolfe assesses a captive mule deer during studies of density dependence in Colorado.
    [Show full text]
  • A Robust Goal Is Needed for Species in the Post‐2020 Global Biodiversity
    Received: 16 April 2020 Revised: 3 September 2020 Accepted: 4 November 2020 DOI: 10.1111/conl.12778 POLICY PERSPECTIVE A robust goal is needed for species in the Post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework Brooke A. Williams1,2 James E.M. Watson1,2,3 Stuart H.M. Butchart4,5 Michelle Ward1,2 Thomas M. Brooks6,7,8 Nathalie Butt1,2 Friederike C. Bolam9 Simon N. Stuart10,11 Louise Mair9 Philip J. K. McGowan9 Richard Gregory12,13 Craig Hilton-Taylor14 David Mallon15 Ian Harrison6,16 Jeremy S. Simmonds1,2 1 School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Queensland, St Lucia, Queensland, Australia 2 Centre for Biodiversity and Conservation Science, University of Queensland, St Lucia, Queensland, Australia 3 Wildlife Conservation Society, Global Conservation Program, Bronx, New York 4 BirdLife International, Cambridge, UK 5 Department of Zoology, Cambridge University, Cambridge, UK 6 IUCN, Gland, Switzerland 7 World Agroforestry Center (ICRAF), University of the Philippines Los Baños, Laguna, Philippines 8 Institute for Marine and Antarctic Studies, University of Tasmania, Hobart, Australia 9 School of Natural and Environmental Sciences, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK 10 Synchronicity Earth, London, UK 11 A Rocha International, London, UK 12 RSPB Centre for Conservation Science, The Lodge, Sandy, Bedfordshire, UK 13 Department of Genetics, Evolution and Environment, Centre for Biodiversity & Environment Research, University College London, London, UK 14 IUCN, Cambridge, UK 15 Division of Biology and Conservation Ecology, Manchester Metropolitan University, Manchester, UK 16 Conservation International, Arlington, Virginia Correspondence Brooke Williams, School of Earth and Abstract Environmental Sciences, University of In 2010, Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) adopted the Queensland, St Lucia 4072, Australia.
    [Show full text]
  • Sierra Leone Biodiversity Country Study
    National Biodiversity Report TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY I. INTRODUCTION II. BACKGROUND TO THE SIERRA LEONE BIODIVERSITY COUNTRY STUDY A. Introduction B. Status and Trends of Components of Biodiversity C. The value of the Biodiversity of Sierra Leone D. Major Threats to Biodiversity in Sierra Leone E. Legal and Policy Frameworks for Biodiversity Conservation and Sustainable Use F. Institutional Responsibilities and Capacities G. Institutional Arrangements for the Implementation of Strategic Recommendations III. GOALS AND OBJECTIVES A. The Overall Vision B. Goals and Strategic Objectives C. Sector Specific Conservation Goals and Objectives IV. THE NATIONAL BIODIVERSITY STRATEGY A. Introduction B. Summary of Thematic (sectoral) Strategies C. Summary of General Measures (Cross-cutting Strategies) V. COLLABORATION AND PARTNERSHIP i VI. THE ACTION PLAN A. Introduction B. Thematic Action Plans C. Cross-sectoral Action Plan D. Schedule of Implementation E. The Budget F. Monitoring and Evaluation VII. SHARING OF NATIONAL EXPERIENCE ANNEX NBSAP IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE REFERENCES ii LIST OF ABBREVIATION AND ACRONYMS ADB - African Development Bank AFRC - Armed Forces Revolutionary Council BSAP - Biodiversity Strategy Action Plan CBD - Convention on Biological Diversity CCD - Convention to Combat Desertification CHESIL - Council for Human Ecology of Sierra Leone CILSS - Convention Establishing a Permanent Inter-State Committee for the Control of Draught in the Sahel CITES - Convention on International Trade
    [Show full text]
  • 3.7 SPECIAL STATUS PLANTS the Proposed Route and Route Alternatives Would Pass Through Multiple Habitats That Could Support Special Status Plant Species
    Gateway West Transmission Line Draft EIS 3.7 SPECIAL STATUS PLANTS The Proposed Route and Route Alternatives would pass through multiple habitats that could support special status plant species. These species include threatened, endangered, and candidate species listed under the ESA, those listed by the Forest Service and/or BLM as Sensitive, and State Heritage Program species of concern. For discussion purposes where appropriate, these various groups will be referred to collectively as threatened, endangered, and sensitive (TES) plant species. TES wildlife and fish species are discussed in Section 3.11 – Special Status Wildlife and Fish Species. 3.7.1 Affected Environment This section describes the existing environmental conditions for TES plant species that could be impacted by the Project, if constructed. The discussion will first define the Analysis Area. It will then outline the issues that were raised during public scoping, followed by a description of the laws and regulations in place to manage TES plant species. This section will then conclude by describing the methods used to determine the probable locations of and the potential impacts to these species, as well as a description of the existing conditions found within the Project area and the TES plant species potentially present within this area. 3.7.1.1 Analysis Area The Project would cross a portion of the Intermountain West region, in southern Wyoming and Idaho, as well as a small portion of northern Nevada (under Alternative 7I). Elevation, slope, aspect, average seasonal temperatures, and annual precipitation exhibit a wide range across the more than 1,100 miles crossed by the Project.
    [Show full text]
  • Seed and Soil Dynamics in Shrubland Ecosystems: Proceedings; 2002 August 12–16; Laramie, WY
    United States Department of Agriculture Seed and Soil Dynamics in Forest Service Rocky Mountain Shrubland Ecosystems: Research Station Proceedings Proceedings RMRS-P-31 February 2004 Abstract Hild, Ann L.; Shaw, Nancy L.; Meyer, Susan E.; Booth, D. Terrance; McArthur, E. Durant, comps. 2004. Seed and soil dynamics in shrubland ecosystems: proceedings; 2002 August 12–16; Laramie, WY. Proc. RMRS-P-31. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 216 p. The 38 papers in this proceedings are divided into six sections; the first includes an overview paper and documentation of the first Shrub Research Consortium Distinguished Service Award. The next four sections cluster papers on restoration and revegetation, soil and microsite requirements, germination and establishment of desired species, and community ecology of shrubland systems. The final section contains descriptions of the field trips to the High Plains Grassland Research Station and to the Snowy Range and Medicine Bow Peak. The proceedings unites many papers on germination of native seed with vegetation ecology, soil physio- chemical properties, and soil biology to create a volume describing the interactions of seeds and soils in arid and semiarid shrubland ecosystems. Keywords: wildland shrubs, seed, soil, restoration, rehabilitation, seed bank, seed germination, biological soil crusts Acknowledgments The symposium, field trips, and subsequent publication of this volume were made possible through the hard work of many people. We wish to thank everyone who took a part in ensuring the success of the meetings, trade show, and paper submissions. We thank the University of Wyoming Office of Academic Affairs, the Graduate School, and its Dean, Dr.
    [Show full text]
  • A Publication of the Wyoming Native Plant Society
    Castilleja A Publication of the Wyoming Native Plant Society Mar 2004, Volume 23, No. 1 www.uwyo.edu/wyndd/wnps/wnps_home.htm Adventures in Laramie-Peak-Land By Hollis Marriott What does it take to convert a middle- aged construction worker with a big 4-WD pickup truck into a field botanist looking for rare plants? “Impossible!” you are probably thinking to yourself. But strange things can happen in the land of the Laramie Batholith and the Central Metamorphic Complex. The Laramie columbine, Aquilegia laramiensis, is endemic to the Laramie Mountains in southeast Wyoming. It was discovered by Aven Nelson in 1895 on a botanizing trip on and around Laramie Peak. The flowers of this little columbine are nodding, and are borne among the leaves. They have greenish-white to lavender sepals, and cream to lavender petals with spurs less than 10 mm long. Prior to the 2003 field season, Aquilegia laramiensis was known from just 12 sites, two of which were considered historical without precise location data. Most were in the northern part of the Laramie Mountains, in the vicinity of Laramie Peak. The columbine also occurs on Ragged Top Mountain about 60 miles to the south, and Char Delmatier found it roughly halfway Aquilegia laramiensis, by Isobel Nichols between Laramie Peak and Ragged Top in In this issue: 1993. Most of the known populations were Living floras – keeping score of score-keepers . 3 growing on granite rocks. The columbine Physaria vitulifera status in Wyoming . 5 appeared to be rare, but those in the know Invasive species and CBM development .
    [Show full text]