![Adoxa Moschatellina [Muskroot] ADMO Forest: Manti-La Sal National Forest Forest Reviewer: K](http://data.docslib.org/img/a47b6003844cb3d47972e793b2b9c971-1.webp)
Intermountain Region Species of Conservation Concern Review DRAFT Template
SPECIES: Scientific [common] Adoxa moschatellina [Muskroot] ADMO Forest: Manti-La Sal National Forest Forest Reviewer: K. Anderson Date of Review: 27 April 2016 Forest concurrence (or recommendation if new) for No inclusion of species on list of potential SCC: (Enter Yes or No)
Forest review result:
The Forest concurs or recommends the species for inclusion on the list of potential SCC: Yes___ No_X_
Rationale for not concurring is based on (check all that apply): Species is not native to the plan area ______Species is not known to occur in the plan area ______Species persistence in the plan area is not of substantial concern ___X___
Issue: Whether the species identified above should be listed as a species of Conservation Concern (SCC) for the Manti-La Sal National Forest (MLNF) as identified in the 2012 Planning Rule (36 CFR 219).
Rule: The 2012 Planning Rule [36 CFR 219.7(c)(3)] states that “The regional forester shall identify the species of conservation concern for the plan area in coordination with the responsible official.” It [36 CFR 219.9(b)(2)(c)] defines a species of conservation concern as “…a species, other than federally recognized threatened, endangered, proposed, or candidate species, that is known to occur in the plan area and for which the regional forester has determined that the best available scientific information indicates substantial concern about the species’ capability to persist over the long-term in the plan area.”
Analysis: The best available scientific information (BASI) indicates a level of uncertainty in identification of this species as an established species within the plan area.
Conclusion: Based upon the BASI documented herein, it is not recommended that this species be included in the potential list of SCC for the MLNF.
1
Intermountain Region Species of Conservation Concern Review DRAFT Template
Species: __ADMO______
FOREST REVIEW INFORMATION
Status summary based on other methods (information is on the Regional Office list of species considered; correct as needed):
Entity Status/Rank (include definition if Other) NatureServe G5 (NatureServe 2015)
Natural Utah - Not listed (UDNR 2015) Heritage Colorado – Not listed (CNHP 2015) Program State List UT – SH “Possible Extirpated” (NatureServe 2015) Status CO – SNR “Unranked” (NatureServe 2015)
Not included in the CO or UT Wildlife Action Plans (SWAP 2015, WAP 2015) USDA Forest As of May 2016, this species is not listed as a potential SCC or Sensitive Service Species for any adjoining National Forests (USFS 2013).
USDI FWS Not a listed species. Other
Review of species of conservation concern criteria based on definition
1. Native to the plan area
a. Is the species native to the plan area?
Yes__ No_X__
i. If no, provide explanation.
Welsh et al. (2003) report seeing on specimen, from the Abajo Mountains. Of the 166 collections reported from 27 Herbaria, only one, NY reports a collection made in 1911.
2
Intermountain Region Species of Conservation Concern Review DRAFT Template
Species: _____ADMO______
2. Known to occur in the plan area
Table 2. Known Occurrence Frequency within the Planning Area (NRIS database) Occurrence: Number Source of Information Known Occurrences in the past 20 0 Intermountain Region Herbarium years Network (COIH 2016) Year Last Observed 1911 New York Botanical Garden (NYBG 2016)
a. Are all species occurrences only accidental or transient?
Yes__X_ No___
1) If yes, document source for determination.
Welsh et al. (2003) report seeing one specimen, from the Abajo Mountains. Of the 166 collections reported from 27 Herbaria, only one, the NY Botanical Garden, reports a collection from the Abajo Mountains made in 1911 by Rydberg and Garrett (NYBG 2016).
b. Based on the number of observations and/or year of last observation, can the species be presumed to be established or becoming established in the plan area? Yes___ No_X__
1) If no, provide explanation.
Welsh et al. (2003) report seeing one specimen, from the Abajo Mountains. Of the 166 collections reported from 27 Herbaria, only one in NY, reports a collection from the Abajo Mountains made in 1911 (NYBG 2016).
3. Substantial concern for species persistence in the plan area
a. Describe briefly the distribution, abundance, and population trend of the species in the plan area
Report from plan area is based on one collection made 115 years ago (NYBG 2016, Welsh 2003?). The species is found through the US and Europe (NatureServ 2015).
3
Intermountain Region Species of Conservation Concern Review DRAFT Template
b. Describe briefly threats or risk factors to the species or the ecological conditions that support it (i.e. habitat) based on best available scientific information.
No known threats.
c. Considering the trend in populations or habitat and threats or risk factors for those populations or habitats, is there substantial concern for persistence of the species in the plan area?
Yes___ No__X_
1) If no, provide explanation
NatureServe (2015) indicates the plant is “Possibly Extirpated” from what would be the plan area.
4. Range Map
Map 1. Range map for Adoxa moschatellina (USDA 2016).
4
Intermountain Region Species of Conservation Concern Review DRAFT Template
Map 2. Occurrence map for Adoxa moschatellina.
Map 3. Global map for Adoxa moschatellina (NatureServe 2015).
5
Intermountain Region Species of Conservation Concern Review DRAFT Template
5. Literature Cited
Colorado Natural Heritage Program (CNHP). 2015. Tracked Vascular Plant Species. Accessed May 24, 2016. http://www.cnhp.colostate.edu/download/list/vascular.asp
Colorado State Wildlife Action Plan (SWAP). 2015. Colorado State Wildlife Action Plan: A plan for conserving wildlife in Colorado. Colorado Parks and Wildlife, Denver, CO. 865 pgs. http://cpw.state.co.us/aboutus/Pages/StateWildlifeActionPlan.aspx
NatureServe. 2015. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. Version 7.1. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available http://explorer.natureserve.org. (Accessed: April 27, 2016).
The New York Botanical Garden (NYBG). International Plant Science Center; The C. V. Starr Virtual Herbarium. Accessed May 24, 2016. http://sweetgum.nybg.org/science/vh/
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), NRCS. 2016. The PLANTS Database http://plants.usda.gov. National Plant Data Team, Greensboro, NC 27401- 4901 USA. (Accessed: May 24, 2016)
U.S. Forest Service (USFS). 2013. Intermountain Region (R4) threatened, endangered, proposed and sensitive species: known / suspected distribution by Forest.
U.S. Forest Service (USFS). 2013. Proposed, Endangered, Threatened and Sensitive Species List, R4. Known / Suspected Distribution by Forest.
Utah Wildlife Action Plan (WAP) Joint Team. 2015. Utah Wildlife Action Plan: A plan for managing native wildlife species and their habitats to prevent listing under the Endangered Species Act. DWR Publication No. 15-14. Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, Salt Lake City, UT. 400 pgs.
Welsh, S.L., N. D. Atwood, S. Goodrich, L. C. Higgins. 2003. A Utah Flora 3rd Ed. Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah. 912p.
6
Intermountain Region Species of Conservation Concern Review DRAFT Template
SPECIES: Scientific [common] Allium geyeri var chatterleyi [Geyer’s onion] ALGEC Forest: Manti-La Sal National Forest Forest Reviewer: K. Anderson Date of Review: 23 May 2016 Forest concurrence (or recommendation if new) for No. inclusion of species on list of potential SCC: (Enter Yes or No)
Forest review result:
The Forest concurs or recommends the species for inclusion on the list of potential SCC: Yes___ No__ X _
Rationale for not concurring is based on (check all that apply): Species is not native to the plan area ______Species is not known to occur in the plan area ______Species persistence in the plan area is not of substantial concern __ X ___
Issue: Whether the species identified above should be listed as a species of Conservation Concern (SCC) for the Manti-La Sal National Forest (MLNF) as identified in the 2012 Planning Rule (36 CFR 219).
Rule: The 2012 Planning Rule [36 CFR 219.7(c)(3)] states that “The regional forester shall identify the species of conservation concern for the plan area in coordination with the responsible official.” It [36 CFR 219.9(b)(2)(c)] defines a species of conservation concern as “…a species, other than federally recognized threatened, endangered, proposed, or candidate species, that is known to occur in the plan area and for which the regional forester has determined that the best available scientific information indicates substantial concern about the species’ capability to persist over the long-term in the plan area.”
Analysis: The best available scientific information (BASI) indicates that there is not enough scientific information to indicate a “substantial concern about the species capability to persist” within the plan area.
Conclusion: Based upon the BASI documented herein, it is not recommended that this species be included in the potential list of SCC for the MLNF.
1
Intermountain Region Species of Conservation Concern Review DRAFT Template
Species: __ALGEC____
FOREST REVIEW INFORMATION
Status summary based on other methods (information is on the Regional Office list of species considered; correct as needed):
Entity Status/Rank (include definition if Other) NatureServe G4G5T2 (NatureServe 2015)
Natural UT - Not Listed (UDNR 2015) Heritage CO – Not Listed (CNHP 2015) Program State List UT – S2 (NatureServe 2015) Status UT – Not listed in the Wildlife Action Plan (WAP 2015).
CO – Not Listed (NatureServe 2015) CO – Not listed in the Colorado Wildlife Action Plan (SWAP 2015) USDA Forest This species is currently listed as a Sensitive Species for the Manti-La Sal Service National Forest (USFS 2013).
As of May 2016, this species is not listed as a potential SCC or Sensitive Species for any adjoining National Forests (USFS 2013). USDI FWS Not a listed species. Other
Review of species of conservation concern criteria based on definition
1. Native to the plan area
a. Is the species native to the plan area?
Yes_X__ No___
1. If no, provide explanation.
2
Intermountain Region Species of Conservation Concern Review DRAFT Template
Species: __ ALGEC _____ 2. Known to occur in the plan area
Table 2. Known Occurrence Frequency within the Planning Area (NRIS database) Occurrence: Number Source of Information Known Occurrences in the past 20 2 Intermountain Region Herbarium years Network (COIH 2016) Year Last Observed 2013 MLNF Field Survey Data
a. Are all species occurrences only accidental or transient?
Yes___ No_X__
1) If yes, document source for determination.
b. Based on the number of observations and/or year of last observation, can the species be presumed to be established or becoming established in the plan area?
Yes_X__ No___
1) If no, provide explanation.
3. Substantial concern for species persistence in the plan area
a. Describe briefly the distribution, abundance, and population trend of the species in the plan area
New population located in 2013.
b. Describe briefly threats or risk factors to the species or the ecological conditions that support it (i.e. habitat) based on best available scientific information
Some herbivory.
c. Considering the trend in populations or habitat and threats or risk factors for those populations or habitats, is there substantial concern for persistence of the species in the plan area?
Yes___ No_X__
3
Intermountain Region Species of Conservation Concern Review DRAFT Template
1) If no, provide explanation
New population located in 2013.
4. Range Map
Map 1. Distribution map for Allium geyeri var chatterleyi (USDA 2016).
5. New Record Document
4
Intermountain Region Species of Conservation Concern Review DRAFT Template
6. Literature Cited
Colorado Natural Heritage Program (CNHP). 2015. Tracked Vascular Plant Species. http://www.cnhp.colostate.edu/download/list/vascular.asp. (Accessed May 24, 2016).
Colorado State Wildlife Action Plan (SWAP). 2015. Colorado State Wildlife Action Plan: A plan for conserving wildlife in Colorado. Colorado Parks and Wildlife, Denver, CO. 865 pgs. http://cpw.state.co.us/aboutus/Pages/StateWildlifeActionPlan.aspx
Consortium of Intermountain Herbaria (COIH). 2016. http//:www.intermountainbiota.org/portal/index.php. (Accessed on June 01)
______. 2013. District survey and EO data. MLNF, Moab District.
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), NRCS. 2016. The PLANTS Database http://plants.usda.gov. National Plant Data Team, Greensboro, NC 27401- 4901 USA. (Accessed: May 24, 2016)
U.S. Forest Service (USFS). 2013. Proposed, Endangered, Threatened and Sensitive Species List, R4. Known / Suspected Distribution by Forest.
Utah Department of Natural Resources (UDNR). Division of Wildlife Resources. 2015. Utah Sensitive Species List.
Utah Wildlife Action Plan (WAP) Joint Team. 2015. Utah Wildlife Action Plan: A plan for managing native wildlife species and their habitats to prevent listing under the Endangered Species Act. Draft version 2.0. DWR Publication No. 15-14. Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, Salt Lake City, UT. 400 pgs. http://wildlife.utah.gov/wap/wap2015draft2.pdf
5
Intermountain Region Species of Conservation Concern Review DRAFT Template
SPECIES: Scientific [common] Androsace chamaejasme ssp. carinata [Sweetflower rockjasmine] ANCHC Forest: Manti-La Sal Forest Reviewer: K. Anderson Date of Review: 23 May 2016 Forest concurrence (or recommendation if new) for NO inclusion of species on list of potential SCC: (Enter Yes or No)
Forest review result:
The Forest concurs or recommends the species for inclusion on the list of potential SCC: Yes___ No_X__
Rationale for not concurring is based on (check all that apply): Species is not native to the plan area ______Species is not known to occur in the plan area ______Species persistence in the plan area is not of substantial concern __X____
Issue: Whether the species identified above should be listed as a species of Conservation Concern (SCC) for the Manti-La Sal National Forest (MLNF) as identified in the 2012 Planning Rule (36 CFR 219).
Rule: The 2012 Planning Rule [36 CFR 219.7(c)(3)] states that “The regional forester shall identify the species of conservation concern for the plan area in coordination with the responsible official.” It [36 CFR 219.9(b)(2)(c)] defines a species of conservation concern as “…a species, other than federally recognized threatened, endangered, proposed, or candidate species, that is known to occur in the plan area and for which the regional forester has determined that the best available scientific information indicates substantial concern about the species’ capability to persist over the long-term in the plan area.”
Analysis: The best available scientific information (BASI) indicates disagreement and inconsistent use of nomenclature, additionally, does not clearly identify threats/risks to species’ capability to persist within the plan area.
Conclusion: Based upon the BASI documented herein, it is not recommended that this species be included in the potential list of SCC for the MLNF.
1
Intermountain Region Species of Conservation Concern Review DRAFT Template
Species: __ ANCHC ____
FOREST REVIEW INFORMATION
Status summary based on other methods (information is on the Regional Office list of species considered; correct as needed):
Entity Status/Rank (include definition if Other) NatureServe G5 (NatureServe 2015)
Natural UT – Not Listed (UDNR 2015) Heritage CO – Not listed (CNHP 2015) Program State List UT-S1 (NatureServe 2015) Status UT – Not listed in the Utah Wildlife Action Plan (WAP 2015).
CO – SNR (NatureServe 2015) CO – Not listed in the Colorado Wildlife Action Plan (SWAP 2015) USDA Forest This species is currently listed as a Sensitive Species for the Manti-La Sal Service National Forest (USFS 2013).
As of May 2016, this species is not listed as a potential SCC or Sensitive Species for any adjoining National Forests (USFS 2013). USDI FWS Not a listed species. Other
Review of species of conservation concern criteria based on definition
1. Native to the plan area
a. Is the species native to the plan area?
Yes_X__ No___
1. If no, provide explanation.
2
Intermountain Region Species of Conservation Concern Review DRAFT Template
Species: __ ANCHC _____
2. Known to occur in the plan area
Table 2. Known Occurrence Frequency within the Planning Area (NRIS database) Occurrence: Number Source of Information Known Occurrences in the past 20 N/A Intermountain Region Herbarium years Network (COIH 2015) Year Last Observed 2015 Wild Utah Survey Report (2015)
a. Are all species occurrences only accidental or transient?
Yes___ No_X__
1) If yes, document source for determination.
b. Based on the number of observations and/or year of last observation, can the species be presumed to be established or becoming established in the plan area?
Yes_X__ No___
1) If no, provide explanation,
3. Substantial concern for species persistence in the plan area
a. Describe briefly the distribution, abundance, and population trend of the species in the plan area
Specie lists from 68 study plots reported that A. chamaejasme ssp carinata occurred in 27 of those plots. For a ~40% occurrence rate. A 2015 survery report found 32 occurrences from 73 sites (~44% occurrence rate).
This species is synonymous with A. carinata, and A. c. var. carinata. Welsh et al. (2015) use variety carinata as opposed to subspecies carinata. They also state that; “The few specimens available for study do not appear to differ in any real way from those of interior Alaska, and they might best be treated within in an expanded concept of spp. lehmanniana…”. A. chamaejasme
3
Intermountain Region Species of Conservation Concern Review DRAFT Template
appears to be a circumboreal species, reportedly found in Austria, China, Russia, Switzerland, and the U.S. NatureServe (2015) only treats A. chamaejasme and A. c. spp. lehmannina. According to ITIS (2016) neither A. c. ssp. carinata nor A. c. var. carinata are accepted names. Based on nomenclatural inconsistencies this species is not recommended.
b. Describe briefly threats or risk factors to the species or the ecological conditions that support it (i.e. habitat) based on best available scientific information
Anthropogenic recreation and Mt. goats
c. Considering the trend in populations or habitat and threats or risk factors for those populations or habitats, is there substantial concern for persistence of the species in the plan area?
Yes___ No_X__
1) If no, provide explanation
Wide spread species
4. Range Map
Map 1. County distribution map for Androsace chamaejasme ssp. carinata (USDA 2016).
4
Intermountain Region Species of Conservation Concern Review DRAFT Template
Map 2. Distribution map for Androsace chamaejasme ssp. carinata (USDA 2016).
5. Literature Cited
Colorado Natural Heritage Program (CNHP). 2015. Tracked Vascular Plant Species. http://www.cnhp.colostate.edu/download/list/vascular.asp. (Accessed May 24, 2016).
Colorado State Wildlife Action Plan (SWAP). 2015. Colorado State Wildlife Action Plan: A plan for conserving wildlife in Colorado. Colorado Parks and Wildlife, Denver, CO. 865 pgs. http://cpw.state.co.us/aboutus/Pages/StateWildlifeActionPlan.aspx
Consortium of Intermountain Herbaria (COIH). 2016. http//:www.intermountainbiota.org/portal/index.php. (Accessed on June 01)
Integrated Taxonomic Information System (ITIS). 2016. Online database. http://www.itis.gov/. (Accessed January 27, 2016)
NatureServe. 2015. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. Version 7.1. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available http://explorer.natureserve.org. (Accessed: April 27, 2016).
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), NRCS. 2016. The PLANTS Database http://plants.usda.gov. National Plant Data Team, Greensboro, NC 27401- 4901 USA. (Accessed: May 24, 2016)
5
Intermountain Region Species of Conservation Concern Review DRAFT Template
U.S. Forest Service (USFS). 2013. Proposed, Endangered, Threatened and Sensitive Species List, R4. Known / Suspected Distribution by Forest.
Utah Department of Natural Resources (UDNR). Division of Wildlife Resources. 2015. Utah Sensitive Species List.
Utah Wildlife Action Plan (WAP) Joint Team. 2015. Utah Wildlife Action Plan: A plan for managing native wildlife species and their habitats to prevent listing under the Endangered Species Act. Draft version 2.0. DWR Publication No. 15-14. Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, Salt Lake City, UT. 400 pgs. http://wildlife.utah.gov/wap/wap2015draft2.pdf
Welsh, S. L., N. D. Atwood, S. Goodrich, and L. C. Higgins. 2015. A Utah Flora. Provo Utah. 987p.
Wild Utah Project. 2015. Alpine Vegetation Impact Assessment of the Mt. Peale Research Natural Area: 2015 Survey Report. Unpublished report prepared for the Moab/Monticello District, Manti-La Sal National Forest.
6
Intermountain Region Species of Conservation Concern Review DRAFT Template
SPECIES: Scientific [common] Aquilegia flavescens var rubicunda [Link trail columbine] AQFLR Forest: Manti-La Sal National Forest Forest Reviewer: K. Anderson Date of Review: 25 May 2016 Forest concurrence (or recommendation if new) for No inclusion of species on list of potential SCC: (Enter Yes or No)
Forest review result:
The Forest concurs or recommends the species for inclusion on the list of potential SCC: Yes___ No_X__
Rationale for not concurring is based on (check all that apply): Species is not native to the plan area ______Species is not known to occur in the plan area ______Species persistence in the plan area is not of substantial concern ___X___
Issue: Whether the species identified above should be listed as a species of Conservation Concern (SCC) for the Manti-La Sal National Forest (MLNF) as identified in the 2012 Planning Rule (36 CFR 219).
Rule: The 2012 Planning Rule [36 CFR 219.7(c)(3)] states that “The regional forester shall identify the species of conservation concern for the plan area in coordination with the responsible official.” It [36 CFR 219.9(b)(2)(c)] defines a species of conservation concern as “…a species, other than federally recognized threatened, endangered, proposed, or candidate species, that is known to occur in the plan area and for which the regional forester has determined that the best available scientific information indicates substantial concern about the species’ capability to persist over the long-term in the plan area.”
Analysis: The best available scientific information (BASI) indicates a there is not enough current scientific information to indicate a level of certainty that the species is capable to persist within the plan area.
Conclusion: Based upon the BASI documented herein, it is not recommended that this species be included in the potential list of SCC for the MLNF.
1
Intermountain Region Species of Conservation Concern Review DRAFT Template
Species: __AQFLR____
FOREST REVIEW INFORMATION
Status summary based on other methods (information is on the Regional Office list of species considered; correct as needed):
Entity Status/Rank (include definition if Other) NatureServe G5T1 (NatureServe 2015)
Natural UT - Not Listed (UDNR 2015) Heritage CO – Not Listed (CNHP 2015) Program State List UT – S1 (NatureServe 2015) Status CO – Not Listed (NatureServe 2015)
Not included in the CO or UT Wildlife Action Plans (SWAP 2015, WAP 2015) USDA Forest Aquilegia flavescens var rubicunda is currently a FS Region 4 sensitive Service species for the MLNF (USFS 2013).
As of May 2016, this species is not listed as a potential SCC or Sensitive Species for any adjoining National Forests (USFS 2013). USDI FWS Not a listed species. Other
Review of species of conservation concern criteria based on definition
1. Native to the plan area
a. Is the species native to the plan area?
Yes_X__ No___
1. If no, provide explanation.
2
Intermountain Region Species of Conservation Concern Review DRAFT Template
Species: __AQFLR_____
2. Known to occur in the plan area
Table 2. Known Occurrence Frequency within the Planning Area (NRIS database) Occurrence: Number Source of Information Known Occurrences in the past 20 2 Intermountain Region Herbarium years Network (COIH 2016) Year Last Observed 1992 Manti-La Sal National Forest (MLNF ~2001)
a. Are all species occurrences only accidental or transient?
Yes___ No_X__
1) If yes, document source for determination.
b. Based on the number of observations and/or year of last observation, can the species be presumed to be established or becoming established in the plan area?
Yes_X__ No___
1) If no, provide explanation.
3. Substantial concern for species persistence in the plan area
a. Describe briefly the distribution, abundance, and population trend of the species in the plan area
MLNF (~2001) indicates 1300 to over 1700 plants from five different locations.
b. Describe briefly threats or risk factors to the species or the ecological conditions that support it (i.e. habitat) based on best available scientific information
3
Intermountain Region Species of Conservation Concern Review DRAFT Template
Road work, water developments, livestock trampling (around Link Cyn spring).
c. Considering the trend in populations or habitat and threats or risk factors for those populations or habitats, is there substantial concern for persistence of the species in the plan area?
Yes___ No_X__
1) If no, provide explanation
Lack of recent documentation precludes concern for persistence in plan area.
4. Range Map
Map 1. UT occurrence map for Aquilegia flavescens var rubicunda (Franklin and UDNR 2005).
4
Intermountain Region Species of Conservation Concern Review DRAFT Template
Map 2. County distribution map for Aquilegia flavescens var rubicunda (USDA 2016).
Map 3. Distribution map for Aquilegia flavescens var rubicunda (USDA 2016).
5
Intermountain Region Species of Conservation Concern Review DRAFT Template
5. Literature Cited
Colorado Natural Heritage Program (CNHP). 2015. Tracked Vascular Plant Species. http://www.cnhp.colostate.edu/download/list/vascular.asp. (Accessed May 24, 2016).
Colorado State Wildlife Action Plan (SWAP). 2015. Colorado State Wildlife Action Plan: A plan for conserving wildlife in Colorado. Colorado Parks and Wildlife, Denver, CO. 865 pgs. http://cpw.state.co.us/aboutus/Pages/StateWildlifeActionPlan.aspx
Consortium of Intermountain Herbaria (COIH). 2016. http//:www.intermountainbiota.org/portal/index.php. (Accessed on June 01)
Franklin, M. A. and State of Utah Department of Natural Resources (UDNR). 2005. "Plant Information Compiled by the Utah Natural Heritage Program: A Progress Report". All U.S. Government Documents (Utah Regional Depository). Paper 474. http://digitalcommons.usu.edu/govdocs/474
Manti La Sal National Forest (MLNF). ~2001 (exact date not known). Endangered, Threatened, and Sensitive Plant Species.
NatureServe. 2015. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. Version 7.1. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available http://explorer.natureserve.org. (Accessed: April 27, 2016).
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), NRCS. 2016. The PLANTS Database http://plants.usda.gov. National Plant Data Team, Greensboro, NC 27401- 4901 USA. (Accessed: May 24, 2016)
U.S. Forest Service (USFS). 2013. Proposed, Endangered, Threatened and Sensitive Species List, R4. Known / Suspected Distribution by Forest.
Utah Department of Natural Resources (UDNR). Division of Wildlife Resources. 2015. Utah Sensitive Species List.
Utah Wildlife Action Plan (WAP) Joint Team. 2015. Utah Wildlife Action Plan: A plan for managing native wildlife species and their habitats to prevent listing under the Endangered Species Act. Draft version 2.0. DWR Publication No. 15-14. Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, Salt Lake City, UT. 400 pgs. http://wildlife.utah.gov/wap/wap2015draft2.pdf
6
Intermountain Region Species of Conservation Concern Review DRAFT Template
SPECIES: Scientific [common] Astragalus iselyi [Isley’s milkvetch] ASIS) Forest: Manti-La Sal National Forest Forest Reviewer: Kim Anderson Date of Review: 2 May 2016 Forest concurrence (or recommendation if new) for inclusion of species on list of No potential SCC: (Enter Yes or No)
Forest review result:
The Forest concurs or recommends the species for inclusion on the list of potential SCC: Yes___ No_X_
Rationale for not concurring is based on (check all that apply): Species is not native to the plan area ______Species is not known to occur in the plan area ______Species persistence in the plan area is not of substantial concern __X__
Issue: Whether the species identified above should be listed as a species of Conservation Concern (SCC) for the Manti-La Sal National Forest (MLNF) as identified in the 2012 Planning Rule (36 CFR 219).
Rule: The 2012 Planning Rule [36 CFR 219.7(c)(3)] states that “The regional forester shall identify the species of conservation concern for the plan area in coordination with the responsible official.” It [36 CFR 219.9(b)(2)(c)] defines a species of conservation concern as “…a species, other than federally recognized threatened, endangered, proposed, or candidate species, that is known to occur in the plan area and for which the regional forester has determined that the best available scientific information indicates substantial concern about the species’ capability to persist over the long-term in the plan area.”
Analysis: The best available scientific information (BASI) indicates a there is not enough current scientific information to indicate a level of uncertainty in the species capability to persist within the plan area.
Conclusion: Based upon the BASI documented herein, it is not recommended that this species be included in the potential list of SCC for the MLNF.
1
Intermountain Region Species of Conservation Concern Review DRAFT Template
2
Intermountain Region Species of Conservation Concern Review DRAFT Template
Species: ____ASIS______
FOREST REVIEW INFORMATION
Status summary based on other methods (information is on the Regional Office list of species considered; correct as needed):
Entity Status/Rank (include definition if Other) NatureServe G1 (NatureServe 2015)
Natural Utah - Not listed (UDNR 2015) Heritage Colorado – Not listed (CNHP 2015) Program State List UT – S1 (NatureServe 2015) Status CO – Not Listed (NatureServe 2015)
USDA Forest This species is currently listed as a Sensitive Species for the Manti-La Sal Service National Forest (USFS 2013).
As of May 2016, this species is not listed as a potential SCC or Sensitive Species for any adjoining National Forests (USFS 2013). USDI FWS Not a listed species. Other
Review of species of conservation concern criteria based on definition
1. Native to the plan area
a. Is the species native to the plan area?
Yes_X__ No___
i. If no, provide explanation.
3
Intermountain Region Species of Conservation Concern Review DRAFT Template
Species: ____ASIS______
2. Known to occur in the plan area
Table 2. Known Occurrence Frequency within the Planning Area (NRIS database) Occurrence: Number Source of Information Known Occurrences in the past 20 years Year Last Observed 2014 MLNF Survey records
a. Are all species occurrences only accidental or transient?
Yes___ No_X__
1) If yes, document source for determination.
b. Based on the number of observations and/or year of last observation, can the species be presumed to be established or becoming established in the plan area?
Yes_X__ No___
1) If no, provide explanation,
3. Substantial concern for species persistence in the plan area
a. Describe briefly the distribution, abundance, and population trend of the species in the plan area
Endemic to the west slope of the La Sal Mountains, Grand and San Juan Counties (Franklin and UDNR 2005).
b. Describe briefly threats or risk factors to the species or the ecological conditions that support it (i.e. habitat) based on best available scientific information
Mining and recreational use (NatureServe 2015, Franklin and UDNR 2005).
4
Intermountain Region Species of Conservation Concern Review DRAFT Template
c. Considering the trend in populations or habitat and threats or risk factors for those populations or habitats, is there substantial concern for persistence of the species in the plan area?
Yes___ No__X_
1) If no, provide explanation There is not enough information available about this species within the plan area.
4. Range Map
Map 1. Occurrence map of Astragalus iselyi (Franklin and UDNR 2005).
5
Intermountain Region Species of Conservation Concern Review DRAFT Template
Map 2. Global distribution map of Astragalus iselyi (NatureServe 2015).
5. Literature Cited
Colorado Natural Heritage Program (CNHP). 2015. Tracked Vascular Plant Species. http://www.cnhp.colostate.edu/download/list/vascular.asp. (Accessed May 24, 2016).
Colorado State Wildlife Action Plan (SWAP). 2015. Colorado State Wildlife Action Plan: A plan for conserving wildlife in Colorado. Colorado Parks and Wildlife, Denver, CO. 865 pgs. http://cpw.state.co.us/aboutus/Pages/StateWildlifeActionPlan.aspx
Franklin, M. A. and State of Utah Department of Natural Resources (UDNR), "Plant Information Compiled by the Utah Natural Heritage Program: A Progress Report" (2005). All U.S. Government Documents (Utah Regional Depository). Paper 474. http://digitalcommons.usu.edu/govdocs/474
NatureServe. 2015. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. Version 7.1. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available http://explorer.natureserve.org. (Accessed: April 27, 2016).
U.S. Forest Service (USFS). 2013. Intermountain Region (R4) threatened, endangered, proposed and sensitive species: known / suspected distribution by Forest.
Utah Department of Natural Resources (UDNR). Division of Wildlife Resources. 2015. Utah Sensitive Species List.
6
Intermountain Region Species of Conservation Concern Review DRAFT Template
Utah Wildlife Action Plan (WAP) Joint Team. 2015. Utah Wildlife Action Plan: A plan for managing native wildlife species and their habitats to prevent listing under the Endangered Species Act. Draft version 2.0. DWR Publication No. 15-14. Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, Salt Lake City, UT. 400 pgs. http://wildlife.utah.gov/wap/wap2015draft2.pdf
7
Intermountain Region Species of Conservation Concern Review DRAFT Template
SPECIES: Scientific [common] Astragalus missouriensis var. amphibolus [Missouri / Puzzling Milkvetch] ASMIA Forest: Manti-La Sal National Forest Forest Reviewer: K. Anderson Date of Review: 2 May 2016 Forest concurrence (or recommendation if new) for No inclusion of species on list of potential SCC: (Enter Yes or No)
Forest review result:
The Forest concurs or recommends the species for inclusion on the list of potential SCC: Yes___ No_X_
Rationale for not concurring is based on (check all that apply): Species is not native to the plan area ______Species is not known to occur in the plan area ______Species persistence in the plan area is not of substantial concern __X____
Issue: Whether the species identified above should be listed as a species of Conservation Concern (SCC) for the Manti-La Sal National Forest (MLNF) as identified in the 2012 Planning Rule (36 CFR 219).
Rule: The 2012 Planning Rule [36 CFR 219.7(c)(3)] states that “The regional forester shall identify the species of conservation concern for the plan area in coordination with the responsible official.” It [36 CFR 219.9(b)(2)(c)] defines a species of conservation concern as “…a species, other than federally recognized threatened, endangered, proposed, or candidate species, that is known to occur in the plan area and for which the regional forester has determined that the best available scientific information indicates substantial concern about the species’ capability to persist over the long-term in the plan area.”
Analysis: The best available scientific information (BASI) indicates a level of uncertainty in identification of this species as an established species within the plan area.
Conclusion: Based upon the BASI documented herein, it is not recommended that this species be included in the potential list of SCC for the MLNF.
1
Intermountain Region Species of Conservation Concern Review DRAFT Template
Species: ____ASMIA______
FOREST REVIEW INFORMATION
Status summary based on other methods (information is on the Regional Office list of species considered; correct as needed):
Entity Status/Rank (include definition if Other) NatureServe G5T3T4 (NatureServe 2015)
Natural UT - Not listed (UDNR 2015) Heritage CO – Not listed (CNHP 2015) Program State List UT – S1 (NatureServe 2015) Status CO – SNR “Unranked”(NatureServe 2015)
Not included in the CO or UT Wildlife Action Plans (SWAP 2015, WAP 2015) USDA Forest As of May 2016, this species is not listed as a potential SCC or Sensitive Service Species for any adjoining National Forests (USFS 2013).
USDI FWS Not a listed species. Other
Review of species of conservation concern criteria based on definition
1. Native to the plan area
a. Is the species native to the plan area?
Yes_X__ No___
i. If no, provide explanation.
2
Intermountain Region Species of Conservation Concern Review DRAFT Template
Species: ____ ASMIA ______
2. Known to occur in the plan area
Table 2. Known Occurrence Frequency within the Planning Area (NRIS database) Occurrence: Number Source of Information Known Occurrences in the past 20 0 Intermountain Region Herbarium years Network (COIH 2016) Year Last Observed 1984 Intermountain Region Herbarium Network (COIH 2016)
a. Are all species occurrences only accidental or transient?
Yes___ No_X__
1) If yes, document source for determination.
b. Based on the number of observations and/or year of last observation, can the species be presumed to be established or becoming established in the plan area?
Yes __ No_ X__
1) If no, provide explanation,
First known collection for Utah occurred in 1911 south of Monticello. The most recent known collection in the plan area occurred in 1984.
3. Substantial concern for species persistence in the plan area
a. Describe briefly the distribution, abundance, and population trend of the species in the plan area
Based on collection records the species occurs in Grand and San Juan County, as well as Arizona (Navajo Nation Herbarium), Colorado, New Mexico (Welsh et al. 2003).
3
Intermountain Region Species of Conservation Concern Review DRAFT Template
b. Describe briefly threats or risk factors to the species or the ecological conditions that support it (i.e. habitat) based on best available scientific information The collection found in the plan area NW of Blanding and mapped by Utah Natural Heritage Program (2015) is in an area that was chained in the 1960’s (collection made in 1984) and is now reverting back to pinyon/juniper. The original purpose of the chaining was to convert the site from p/j to herbaceous/sagebrush/grassland known as the Brushy Basin Big Game Habitat Improvement Project (Montgomery pers. comm. 29 April 2016).
The threat to this species could be lack of disturbance.
c. Considering the trend in populations or habitat and threats or risk factors for those populations or habitats, is there substantial concern for persistence of the species in the plan area?
Yes___ No_X__
1) If no, provide explanation
The species appears to exist in abundance in other areas outside the plan area.
4
Intermountain Region Species of Conservation Concern Review DRAFT Template
4. Range Map
Map 1. UT occurrence map for Astragalus missouriensis var. amphiboles (Franklin and UDNR 2005).
Map 2. Range map for Astragalus missouriensis var. amphibolus (USDA 2016).
5
Intermountain Region Species of Conservation Concern Review DRAFT Template
5. Literature Cited
Colorado Natural Heritage Program (CNHP). 2015. Tracked Vascular Plant Species. http://www.cnhp.colostate.edu/download/list/vascular.asp. (Accessed May 24, 2016).
Colorado State Wildlife Action Plan (SWAP). 2015. Colorado State Wildlife Action Plan: A plan for conserving wildlife in Colorado. Colorado Parks and Wildlife, Denver, CO. 865 pgs. http://cpw.state.co.us/aboutus/Pages/StateWildlifeActionPlan.aspx
Consortium of Intermountain Herbaria (COIH). 2016. http//:www.intermountainbiota.org/portal/index.php. (Accessed on June 01) Franklin, M. A. and State of Utah Department of Natural Resources (UDNR), "Plant Information Compiled by the Utah Natural Heritage Program: A Progress Report" (2005). All U.S. Government Documents (Utah Regional Depository). Paper 474. http://digitalcommons.usu.edu/govdocs/474
Montgomery. 2016. pers. comm. Kim Anderson. 29 April 2016
NatureServe. 2015. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. Version 7.1. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available http://explorer.natureserve.org. (Accessed: May 2, 2016). Peterson, R.T. 2008. Peterson Field Guide to Birds of North America. First Edition. Houghton Mifflin Company, New York.
USDA, NRCS. 2016. The PLANTS Database (http://plants.usda.gov, 24 May 2016). National Plant Data Team, Greensboro, NC 27401-4901 USA.
U.S. Forest Service (USFS). 2013. Intermountain Region (R4) threatened, endangered, proposed and sensitive species: known / suspected distribution by Forest.
Utah Natural Heritage Program (UNHP). 2015. Utah Division of Wildlife Resources. UNHP Biodiversity Tracking and Conservation System (BIOTICS).
Utah Wildlife Action Plan (WAP) Joint Team. 2015. Utah Wildlife Action Plan: A plan for managing native wildlife species and their habitats to prevent listing under the Endangered Species Act. DWR Publication No. 15-14. Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, Salt Lake City, UT. 400 pgs.
Welsh, S.L., N. D. Atwood, S. Goodrich, L. C. Higgins. 2003. A Utah Flora 3rd Ed. Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah. 912p.
6
Intermountain Region Species of Conservation Concern Review DRAFT Template
SPECIES: Scientific [common] Astragalus musiniensis [Ferron milkvetch] ASMU3 Forest: Manti-La Sal National Forest Forest Reviewer: K. Anderson Date of Review: 2 May 2016 Forest concurrence (or No recommendation if new) for inclusion of species on list of potential SCC: (Enter Yes or No)
Forest review result:
The Forest concurs or recommends the species for inclusion on the list of potential SCC: Yes___ No_X_
Rationale for not concurring is based on (check all that apply): Species is not native to the plan area ______Species is not known to occur in the plan area ______Species persistence in the plan area is not of substantial concern __X____
Issue: Whether the species identified above should be listed as a species of Conservation Concern (SCC) for the Manti-La Sal National Forest (MLNF) as identified in the 2012 Planning Rule (36 CFR 219).
Rule: The 2012 Planning Rule [36 CFR 219.7(c)(3)] states that “The regional forester shall identify the species of conservation concern for the plan area in coordination with the responsible official.” It [36 CFR 219.9(b)(2)(c)] defines a species of conservation concern as “…a species, other than federally recognized threatened, endangered, proposed, or candidate species, that is known to occur in the plan area and for which the regional forester has determined that the best available scientific information indicates substantial concern about the species’ capability to persist over the long-term in the plan area.”
Analysis: The best available scientific information (BASI) indicates a there is not enough current scientific information to indicate a level of uncertainty in the species capability to persist within the plan area.
Conclusion: Based upon the BASI documented herein, it is not recommended that this species be included in the potential list of SCC for the MLNF.
1
Intermountain Region Species of Conservation Concern Review DRAFT Template
Species: ___ASMU3______
FOREST REVIEW INFORMATION
Status summary based on other methods (information is on the Regional Office list of species considered; correct as needed):
Entity Status/Rank (include definition if Other) NatureServe G3 (NatureServe 2015)
Natural UT – Not Listed (UDNR 2015) Heritage CO – “Fully Tracked” (CNHP 2015) Program State List UT – S3 (NatureServe 2015) Status CO – S1 (NatureServe 2015)
Not included in the CO or UT Wildlife Action Plans (SWAP 2015, WAP 2015) USDA Forest As of May 2016, this species is not listed as a potential SCC or Sensitive Service Species for any adjoining National Forests (USFS 2013).
USDI FWS Not a listed species. Other
Review of species of conservation concern criteria based on definition
1. Native to the plan area
a. Is the species native to the plan area?
Yes_X__ No___
i. If no, provide explanation.
2
Intermountain Region Species of Conservation Concern Review DRAFT Template
Species: ____ASMU3______
2. Known to occur in the plan area
Table 2. Known Occurrence Frequency within the Planning Area (NRIS database) Occurrence: Number Source of Information Known Occurrences in the past 20 0 UNHP 2015 GIS data years Intermountain Region Herbarium Network (COIH 2016) Year Last Observed 1985 Intermountain Region Herbarium Network (COIH 2016)
a. Are all species occurrences only accidental or transient?
Yes___ No_X__
1) If yes, document source for determination.
b. Based on the number of observations and/or year of last observation, can the species be presumed to be established or becoming established in the plan area?
Yes_X__ No___
1) If no, provide explanation,
3. Substantial concern for species persistence in the plan area
a. Describe briefly the distribution, abundance, and population trend of the species in the plan area
Habitat Comments: Gullied knolls and stony clay benches among junipers, on shale, sandstone, or gravelly alluvia, 4700-7000 feet (Barneby 1964). Weber and Wittmann (1996) report the Colorado habitat as sagebrush hills. Spackman et al. (1997) report the Colorado habitat to be gullied bluffs, knolls, benches and open hillsides; in pinyon-juniper woodlands or desert shrub communities, mostly on shale, sandstone, or alluvium derived from them (Nature Serve 2015). The Utah habitat is described as; salt desert shrub, mixed desert shrub, and pinyon/juniper communities (Welsh et al. 2003)
3
Intermountain Region Species of Conservation Concern Review DRAFT Template
This species occurs in Colorado and from Carbon to Kane counties below 7,600 ft. in Utah. There are only four sites reported in the Plan Area. All of which are near the town of Emery.
This has not been a target species for decades, so no effort has been made to conduct additional surveys.
b. Describe briefly threats or risk factors to the species or the ecological conditions that support it (i.e. habitat) based on best available scientific information
No known risks or threats.
c. Considering the trend in populations or habitat and threats or risk factors for those populations or habitats, is there substantial concern for persistence of the species in the plan area?
Yes___ No_X__
1) If no, provide explanation
Based on the 198 collections found in the Intermountain Region Herbarium Network, and the UNHP 2015 GIS data layer, only four sites can be validated as occurring on the Forest.
4. Range Map
Map 1. Range map for Astragalus musiniensis (USDA 2016).
4
Intermountain Region Species of Conservation Concern Review DRAFT Template
5. Literature Cited
Colorado Natural Heritage Program (CNHP). 2015. Tracked Vascular Plant Species. http://www.cnhp.colostate.edu/download/list/vascular.asp. (Accessed May 24, 2016).
Colorado State Wildlife Action Plan (SWAP). 2015. Colorado State Wildlife Action Plan: A plan for conserving wildlife in Colorado. Colorado Parks and Wildlife, Denver, CO. 865 pgs. http://cpw.state.co.us/aboutus/Pages/StateWildlifeActionPlan.aspx
Consortium of Intermountain Herbaria (COIH). 2016. http//:www.intermountainbiota.org/portal/index.php. (Accessed on June 01)
Franklin, M. A. and State of Utah Department of Natural Resources (UDNR), "Plant Information Compiled by the Utah Natural Heritage Program: A Progress Report" (2005). All U.S. Government Documents (Utah Regional Depository). Paper 474. http://digitalcommons.usu.edu/govdocs/474
NatureServe. 2015. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. Version 7.1. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available http://explorer.natureserve.org. (Accessed: April 27, 2016).
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), NRCS. 2016. The PLANTS Database http://plants.usda.gov. National Plant Data Team, Greensboro, NC 27401- 4901 USA. (Accessed: May 24, 2016)
U.S. Forest Service (USFS). 2013. Proposed, Endangered, Threatened and Sensitive Species List, R4. Known / Suspected Distribution by Forest.
Utah Department of Natural Resources (UDNR). Division of Wildlife Resources. 2015. Utah Sensitive Species List.
Utah Natural Heritage Program (UNHP). 2015. Utah Division of Wildlife Resources. UNHP Biodiversity Tracking and Conservation System (BIOTICS).
Utah Wildlife Action Plan (WAP) Joint Team. 2015. Utah Wildlife Action Plan: A plan for managing native wildlife species and their habitats to prevent listing under the Endangered Species Act. Draft version 2.0. DWR Publication No. 15-14. Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, Salt Lake City, UT. 400 pgs. http://wildlife.utah.gov/wap/wap2015draft2.pdf
5
Intermountain Region Species of Conservation Concern Review DRAFT Template
Welsh, S. L., N. D. Atwood, S. Goodrich, and L. C. Higgins. 2015. A Utah Flora. Provo Utah. 987p.
6
Intermountain Region Species of Conservation Concern Review DRAFT Template
SPECIES: Scientific [common] Asclepias ruthiae [Ruth’s Milkweed] ASRU7 Forest: Manti-La Sal National Forest Forest Reviewer: K. Anderson Date of Review: 27 April 2016 Forest concurrence (or recommendation if new) for No inclusion of species on list of potential SCC: (Enter Yes or No)
Forest review result:
The Forest concurs or recommends the species for inclusion on the list of potential SCC: Yes___ No_X_
Rationale for not concurring is based on (check all that apply): Species is not native to the plan area ___X____ Species is not known to occur in the plan area ___X____ Species persistence in the plan area is not of substantial concern ______
Issue: Whether the species identified above should be listed as a species of Conservation Concern (SCC) for the Manti-La Sal National Forest (MLNF) as identified in the 2012 Planning Rule (36 CFR 219).
Rule: The 2012 Planning Rule [36 CFR 219.7(c)(3)] states that “The regional forester shall identify the species of conservation concern for the plan area in coordination with the responsible official.” It [36 CFR 219.9(b)(2)(c)] defines a species of conservation concern as “…a species, other than federally recognized threatened, endangered, proposed, or candidate species, that is known to occur in the plan area and for which the regional forester has determined that the best available scientific information indicates substantial concern about the species’ capability to persist over the long-term in the plan area.”
Analysis: The best available scientific information (BASI) indicates disagreement and inconsistent use of nomenclature, additionally, records do not clearly document this species occurrence within the plan area.
Conclusion: Based upon the BASI documented herein, it is not recommended that this species be included in the potential list of SCC for the MLNF.
1
Intermountain Region Species of Conservation Concern Review DRAFT Template
Species: _____ASRU7______
FOREST REVIEW INFORMATION
Status summary based on other methods (information is on the Regional Office list of species considered; correct as needed):
Entity Status/Rank (include definition if Other) NatureServe G3G4T3? (NatureServe 2015)
Natural Utah - No Conservation Status Issued (Franklin and UDNR 2005) Heritage Colorado – Not listed (CNHP 2015) Program State List UT – SNR “Unranked” (NatureServe 2015) Status CO – Not present (NatureServe 2015)
Not included in the CO or UT Wildlife Action Plans (SWAP 2015, WAP 2015) USDA Forest As of May 2016, this species is not listed as a potential SCC or Sensitive Service Species for any adjoining National Forests (USFS 2013).
USDI FWS Not a listed species. Other
Review of species of conservation concern criteria based on definition
1. Native to the plan area
a. Is the species native to the plan area?
Yes___ No_X__
i. If no, provide explanation. See rational in section 2a.
2
Intermountain Region Species of Conservation Concern Review DRAFT Template
Species: _____ASRU7______
2. Known to occur in the plan area
Table 2. Known Occurrence Frequency within the Planning Area (NRIS database) Occurrence: Number Source of Information Known Occurrences in the past 20 years Year Last Observed
a. Are all species occurrences only accidental or transient?
Yes__X_ No___
1) If yes, document source for determination.
There are a couple of different issues with this species, first is synonymy. Asclepias ruthiae appears to be synonymous with, A. eastwoodiana, A. sanjuanensis, and A. uncialis var. ruthiae (USDA 2016). The Integrated Taxonomic Information System (ITIS) however, does not recognize the sub-species (ssp.) and varietal (var.) levels of ruthiae , yet accepts the names of A. sanjuanensis, and A. eastwoodiana without synonymy (ITIS 2016). Due to the question of nomenclature, the species may be more wide-spread than previously thought.
The second issue is the location identified in the project area. The Utah Natural Heritage Program (UNHP 2015) identifies A. ruthiae as occurring near South Sage Flat which is within the boundaries of the Manti-La Sal Nat’l Forest. The UNHP attribute table for the A. ruthiae point states that the survey site is “Calf Spring Canyon” and that “The Calf Spring Canyon location has not been found on our maps RDF 01-03-22”. However, Maguire (1941) identifies the location as such: ” UTAH: frequent, sandy soil, vic. water tank, Calf Springs Canyon, alt. 5000 ft., San Rafael Swell, 18 mi. southeast of Castle Dale, Emery Co., May 10, 1940,”. The head of Calf [Springs] Canyon is on the San Rafael Swell beginning near UTM 12 N, 0531310 Easting, 4334033 Northing. The point identified by UNHP is 18 miles southwest of Castle Dale. Additionally, Maguire identifies the San Rafael Swell as the collection location, not South Sage Flat, nor any other feature on the Forest. Lastly, Maguire indicates an elevation of 5,000 ft. The UNHP point near South Sage Flat is 8,000 ft. Therefore it my conclusion the UNHP point was erroneously placed southwest of Castle
3
Intermountain Region Species of Conservation Concern Review DRAFT Template
Dale instead of “southeast” as described by Maguire (1941). The species therefore likely does not occur on the Forest.
b. Based on the number of observations and/or year of last observation, can the species be presumed to be established or becoming established in the plan area?
Yes___ No_X__
1) If no, provide explanation. See rational in section 2a.
3. Substantial concern for species persistence in the plan area
a. Describe briefly the distribution, abundance, and population trend of the species in the plan area Not present.
b. Describe briefly threats or risk factors to the species or the ecological conditions that support it (i.e. habitat) based on best available scientific information
c. Considering the trend in populations or habitat and threats or risk factors for those populations or habitats, is there substantial concern for persistence of the species in the plan area? Yes___ No_X__
1) If no, provide explanation See rational in section 2a.
4
Intermountain Region Species of Conservation Concern Review DRAFT Template
4. Range Map
Map 1. Range map for Asclepias ruthiae (USDA 2016).
Map 2. Global map for Asclepias ruthiae (NatureServe 2015).
5
Intermountain Region Species of Conservation Concern Review DRAFT Template
5. Literature Cited
Colorado Natural Heritage Program (CNHP). 2015. Tracked Vascular Plant Species. http://www.cnhp.colostate.edu/download/list/vascular.asp. (Accessed May 24, 2016).
Colorado State Wildlife Action Plan (SWAP). 2015. Colorado State Wildlife Action Plan: A plan for conserving wildlife in Colorado. Colorado Parks and Wildlife, Denver, CO. 865 pgs. http://cpw.state.co.us/aboutus/Pages/StateWildlifeActionPlan.aspx
Franklin, M. A. and State of Utah Department of Natural Resources (UDNR). 2005. "Plant Information Compiled by the Utah Natural Heritage Program: A Progress Report". All U.S. Government Documents (Utah Regional Depository). Paper 474. http://digitalcommons.usu.edu/govdocs/474
Integrated Taxonomic Information System (ITIS). 2016. Online database. http://www.itis.gov/. (Accessed January 27, 2016)
Maguire, Bassett, Robert E. Woodson. 1941. Two New Asclepiads from the Southwestern United States. Ann. Missouri Bot. Gard. 28 (2): 245-248.
NatureServe. 2015. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. Version 7.1. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available http://explorer.natureserve.org. (Accessed: April 27, 2016).
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), NRCS. 2016. The PLANTS Database http://plants.usda.gov. National Plant Data Team, Greensboro, NC 27401- 4901 USA. (Accessed: May 24, 2016)
U.S. Forest Service (USFS). 2013. Proposed, Endangered, Threatened and Sensitive Species List, R4. Known / Suspected Distribution by Forest.
Utah Department of Natural Resources (UDNR). Division of Wildlife Resources. 2015. Utah Sensitive Species List.
Utah Natural Heritage Program (UNHP). 2015. Utah Division of Wildlife Resources. UNHP Biodiversity Tracking and Conservation System (BIOTICS).
Utah Wildlife Action Plan (WAP) Joint Team. 2015. Utah Wildlife Action Plan: A plan for managing native wildlife species and their habitats to prevent listing under the Endangered Species Act. Draft version 2.0. DWR Publication No. 15-14. Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, Salt Lake City, UT. 400 pgs. http://wildlife.utah.gov/wap/wap2015draft2.pdf
6
Intermountain Region Species of Conservation Concern Review DRAFT Template
7
Intermountain Region Species of Conservation Concern Review DRAFT Template
SPECIES: Scientific [common] Asplenium septentrionale [Northern Spleenwart / Grass-fern] ASSE
Forest: Manti-La Sal National Forest Forest Reviewer: K. Anderson Date of Review: 27 April 2016 Forest concurrence (or recommendation if new) for No inclusion of species on list of potential SCC: (Enter Yes or No)
Forest review result:
The Forest concurs or recommends the species for inclusion on the list of potential SCC: Yes___ No_X__
Rationale for not concurring is based on (check all that apply): Species is not native to the plan area ______Species is not known to occur in the plan area ______Species persistence in the plan area is not of substantial concern __X___
Issue: Whether the species identified above should be listed as a species of Conservation Concern (SCC) for the Manti-La Sal National Forest (MLNF) as identified in the 2012 Planning Rule (36 CFR 219).
Rule: The 2012 Planning Rule [36 CFR 219.7(c)(3)] states that “The regional forester shall identify the species of conservation concern for the plan area in coordination with the responsible official.” It [36 CFR 219.9(b)(2)(c)] defines a species of conservation concern as “…a species, other than federally recognized threatened, endangered, proposed, or candidate species, that is known to occur in the plan area and for which the regional forester has determined that the best available scientific information indicates substantial concern about the species’ capability to persist over the long-term in the plan area.”
Analysis: The best available scientific information (BASI) indicates a level of uncertainty in identification of this species as an established species within the plan area.
Conclusion: Based upon the BASI documented herein, it is not recommended that this species be included in the potential list of SCC for the MLNF.
1
Intermountain Region Species of Conservation Concern Review DRAFT Template
Species: ______ASSE______
FOREST REVIEW INFORMATION
Status summary based on other methods (information is on the Regional Office list of species considered; correct as needed):
Entity Status/Rank (include definition if Other) NatureServe G4G5 (NatureServe 2015)
Natural Utah – Not Listed (UDNR 2015) Heritage Colorado– Watchlisted only (CNHP 2016) Program State List Utah - S1 (NatureServe 2015) Status Colorado – S3S4 (NatureServe 2015)
Not included in the CO or UT Wildlife Action Plans (SWAP 2015, WAP 2015) USDA Forest As of May 2016, this species is not listed as a potential SCC or Sensitive Service Species for any adjoining National Forests (USFS 2013).
USDI FWS Not a listed species. Other
Review of species of conservation concern criteria based on definition
1. Native to the plan area
a. Is the species native to the plan area?
Yes_X__ No___
i. If no, provide explanation.
2
Intermountain Region Species of Conservation Concern Review DRAFT Template
Species: _____ ASSE ______
2. Known to occur in the plan area
Table 2. Known Occurrence Frequency within the Planning Area (NRIS database) Occurrence: Number Source of Information Known Occurrences in the past 20 0 Intermountain Region Herbarium years Network (COIH 2016) Year Last Observed 1933 1 known collection in plan area
a. Are all species occurrences only accidental or transient?
Yes___ No_X__
1) If yes, document source for determination.
b. Based on the number of observations and/or year of last observation, can the species be presumed to be established or becoming established in the plan area?
Yes___ No_X__
1) If no, provide explanation.
There is not enough data available to complete an evaluation. The last known collection of this species in the plan area was in 1933.
3. Substantial concern for species persistence in the plan area
a. Describe briefly the taxonomy, distribution, abundance, and population trend of the species in the plan area.
Asplenium septentrionale is native to western North America, Europe, and Asia, where it grows on rocks. Its distribution is widespread in North America, principally in the Rocky Mountains of the western United States, but also in the Black Hills of South Dakota and Wyoming. It also occurs in the mountains of the Cascade Range and the Sierra Nevada, from Oregon south through California into Baja California and eastward to Texas. CU reports 45 collections from Colorado. The plant known from 5 counties in Utah, including Daggett and Uintah in the plan area.
3
Intermountain Region Species of Conservation Concern Review DRAFT Template
The plant is not recommended for listing because of its circumboreal distribution. Although the plant is rare in many regions, it is widely scattered in its distribution, and plant grows in ledges, rock crevices, and outcrops that are relatively inaccessible and immune to threats and risk factors.
b. Describe briefly threats or risk factors to the species or the ecological conditions that support it (i.e. habitat) based on best available scientific information
No existing or potential threats are identified.
c. Considering the trend in populations or habitat and threats or risk factors for those populations or habitats, is there substantial concern for persistence of the species in the plan area?
Yes___ No_X__
1) If no, provide explanation
There is not enough data available.
4. Range Map
Map1. UT occurrence map for Asplenium septentrionale (Franklin and UDNR 2005).
4
Intermountain Region Species of Conservation Concern Review DRAFT Template
Map 2. Range map for Asplenium septentrionale (USDA 2016).
Map 3. Global map for Asplenium septentrionale (NatureServe 2015).
5. Literature Cited
Colorado Natural Heritage Program (CNHP). 2015. Tracked Vascular Plant Species. Accessed May 24, 2016. http://www.cnhp.colostate.edu/download/list/vascular.asp
5
Intermountain Region Species of Conservation Concern Review DRAFT Template
Colorado State Wildlife Action Plan (SWAP). 2015. Colorado State Wildlife Action Plan: A plan for conserving wildlife in Colorado. Colorado Parks and Wildlife, Denver, CO. 865 pgs. http://cpw.state.co.us/aboutus/Pages/StateWildlifeActionPlan.aspx
Consortium of Intermountain Herbaria (COIH). 2016. http//:www.intermountainbiota.org/portal/index.php. (Accessed on June 01)
Franklin, M. A. and State of Utah Department of Natural Resources (UDNR). 2005. "Plant Information Compiled by the Utah Natural Heritage Program: A Progress Report". All U.S. Government Documents (Utah Regional Depository). Paper 474. http://digitalcommons.usu.edu/govdocs/474
NatureServe. 2015. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. Version 7.1. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available http://explorer.natureserve.org. (Accessed: April 27, 2016).
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), NRCS. 2016. The PLANTS Database http://plants.usda.gov. National Plant Data Team, Greensboro, NC 27401- 4901 USA. (Accessed: May 24, 2016)
U.S. Forest Service (USFS). 2013. Proposed, Endangered, Threatened and Sensitive Species List, R4. Known / Suspected Distribution by Forest.
Utah Department of Natural Resources (UDNR). Division of Wildlife Resources. 2015. Utah Sensitive Species List.
Utah Wildlife Action Plan (WAP) Joint Team. 2015. Utah Wildlife Action Plan: A plan for managing native wildlife species and their habitats to prevent listing under the Endangered Species Act. Draft version 2.0. DWR Publication No. 15-14. Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, Salt Lake City, UT. 400 pgs. http://wildlife.utah.gov/wap/wap2015draft2.pdf
6
Intermountain Region Species of Conservation Concern Review DRAFT Template
SPECIES: Scientific [common] Chrysothamnus nauseosus ssp. psilocarpus Syn: Ericameria nauseosus ssp. psilocarpus
[Huntington / Rubber Rabbitbrush] CHNAP Forest: Manti-La Sal National Forest Forest Reviewer: K. Anderson Date of Review: 2 May 2016 Forest concurrence (or recommendation if new) for No inclusion of species on list of potential SCC: (Enter Yes or No)
Forest review result:
The Forest concurs or recommends the species for inclusion on the list of potential SCC: Yes___ No_X_
Rationale for not concurring is based on (check all that apply): Species is not native to the plan area ______Species is not known to occur in the plan area ______Species persistence in the plan area is not of substantial concern __X____
Issue: Whether the species identified above should be listed as a species of Conservation Concern (SCC) for the Manti-La Sal National Forest (MLNF) as identified in the 2012 Planning Rule (36 CFR 219).
Rule: The 2012 Planning Rule [36 CFR 219.7(c)(3)] states that “The regional forester shall identify the species of conservation concern for the plan area in coordination with the responsible official.” It [36 CFR 219.9(b)(2)(c)] defines a species of conservation concern as “…a species, other than federally recognized threatened, endangered, proposed, or candidate species, that is known to occur in the plan area and for which the regional forester has determined that the best available scientific information indicates substantial concern about the species’ capability to persist over the long-term in the plan area.”
Analysis: The best available scientific information (BASI) indicates a questionable taxonomy and lack of information on this species.
Conclusion: Based upon the BASI documented herein, it is not recommended that this species be included in the potential list of SCC for the MLNF.
1
Intermountain Region Species of Conservation Concern Review DRAFT Template
Species: ___CHNAP______
FOREST REVIEW INFORMATION
Status summary based on other methods (information is on the Regional Office list of species considered; correct as needed):
Entity Status/Rank (include definition if Other) NatureServe G5T1T2 (NatureServe 2015)
Natural Utah – No Conservation Status Issued (Franklin and UDNR 2005) Heritage Colorado – Not listed (CNHP 2015) Program State List UT – S1S2(NatureServe 2015) Status CO – Not listed (NatureServe 2015)
Not included in the CO or UT Wildlife Action Plans (SWAP 2015, WAP 2015) USDA Forest As of May 2016, this species is not listed as a potential SCC or Sensitive Service Species for any adjoining National Forests (USFS 2013).
USDI FWS Not a listed species. Other
Review of species of conservation concern criteria based on definition
1. Native to the plan area
a. Is the species native to the plan area?
Yes_X__ No___
i. If no, provide explanation.
2
Intermountain Region Species of Conservation Concern Review DRAFT Template
Species: ____CHNAP______
2. Known to occur in the plan area
Table 2. Known Occurrence Frequency within the Planning Area (NRIS database) Occurrence: Number Source of Information Known Occurrences in the past 20 2 MLNF Herbarium (MALS 2016) years Year Last Observed 2003 MLNF Herbarium (MALS 2016)
a. Are all species occurrences only accidental or transient?
Yes___ No_X__
1) If yes, document source for determination.
b. Based on the number of observations and/or year of last observation, can the species be presumed to be established or becoming established in the plan area?
Yes_X__ No___
1) If no, provide explanation.
3. Substantial concern for species persistence in the plan area
a. Describe briefly the distribution, abundance, and population trend of the species in the plan area.
This species is reported to be in Straight and Cottonwood Canyons within the Ferron Ranger District (UNHP 2015). No known information on abundance and trend. “Cronquist…equates this with the elusive var. glareosus…” (Welsh et al. 2015).
b. Describe briefly threats or risk factors to the species or the ecological conditions that support it (i.e. habitat) based on best available scientific information
Recreation (bouldering) maybe a threat but has not been verified.
3
Intermountain Region Species of Conservation Concern Review DRAFT Template
c. Considering the trend in populations or habitat and threats or risk factors for those populations or habitats, is there substantial concern for persistence of the species in the plan area?
Yes___ No_X__
1) If no, provide explanation
The species is likely to survive outside the bouldering areas.
4. Range Map
Map 1. MLNF species occurrence map for Chrysothamnus nauseosus ssp. Psilocarpus (UNHP 2015).
Map 2. Range map for Chrysothamnus nauseosus ssp. psilocarpus (USDA 2016).
4
Intermountain Region Species of Conservation Concern Review DRAFT Template
5. Literature Cited
Colorado Natural Heritage Program (CNHP). 2015. Tracked Vascular Plant Species. Accessed May 24, 2016. http://www.cnhp.colostate.edu/download/list/vascular.asp
Colorado State Wildlife Action Plan (SWAP). 2015. Colorado State Wildlife Action Plan: A plan for conserving wildlife in Colorado. Colorado Parks and Wildlife, Denver, CO. 865 pgs. http://cpw.state.co.us/aboutus/Pages/StateWildlifeActionPlan.aspx
Franklin, M. A. and State of Utah Department of Natural Resources (UDNR), "Plant Information Compiled by the Utah Natural Heritage Program: A Progress Report" (2005). All U.S. Government Documents (Utah Regional Depository). Paper 474. http://digitalcommons.usu.edu/govdocs/474
Manti-La Sal National Forest Herbarium (MALS). 2016. Price, Utah.
NatureServe. 2015. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. Version 7.1. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available http://explorer.natureserve.org. (Accessed: April 27, 2016).
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), NRCS. 2016. The PLANTS Database http://plants.usda.gov. National Plant Data Team, Greensboro, NC 27401- 4901 USA. (Accessed: May 24, 2016)
U.S. Forest Service (USFS). 2013. Intermountain Region (R4) threatened, endangered, proposed and sensitive species: known / suspected distribution by Forest.
Utah Natural Heritage Program (UNHP). 2015. Utah Division of Wildlife Resources. UNHP Biodiversity Tracking and Conservation System (BIOTICS).
Utah Wildlife Action Plan (WAP) Joint Team. 2015. Utah Wildlife Action Plan: A plan for managing native wildlife species and their habitats to prevent listing under the Endangered Species Act. DWR Publication No. 15-14. Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, Salt Lake City, UT. 400 pgs.
Welsh, S. L., N. D. Atwood, S. Goodrich, and L. C. Higgins. 2015. A Utah Flora. Provo Utah. 987p.
5
Intermountain Region Species of Conservation Concern Review DRAFT Template
SPECIES: Scientific [common] Cryptantha creutzfeldtii [Creutzfeldt’s catseye / Creutzfeldt flower] CRCR8 Forest: Manti-La Sal National Forest Forest Reviewer: K. Anderson Date of Review: 25 May 2016 Forest concurrence (or recommendation if new) for No inclusion of species on list of potential SCC: (Enter Yes or No)
Forest review result:
The Forest concurs or recommends the species for inclusion on the list of potential SCC: Yes___ No_X__
Rationale for not concurring is based on (check all that apply): Species is not native to the plan area ______Species is not known to occur in the plan area ______Species persistence in the plan area is not of substantial concern _X_____
Issue: Whether the species identified above should be listed as a species of Conservation Concern (SCC) for the Manti-La Sal National Forest (MLNF) as identified in the 2012 Planning Rule (36 CFR 219).
Rule: The 2012 Planning Rule [36 CFR 219.7(c)(3)] states that “The regional forester shall identify the species of conservation concern for the plan area in coordination with the responsible official.” It [36 CFR 219.9(b)(2)(c)] defines a species of conservation concern as “…a species, other than federally recognized threatened, endangered, proposed, or candidate species, that is known to occur in the plan area and for which the regional forester has determined that the best available scientific information indicates substantial concern about the species’ capability to persist over the long-term in the plan area.”
Analysis: The best available scientific information (BASI) indicates a there is not enough current scientific information to indicate a level of uncertainty in the species capability to persist within the plan area.
Conclusion: Based upon the BASI documented herein, it is not recommended that this species be included in the potential list of SCC for the MLNF.
1
Intermountain Region Species of Conservation Concern Review DRAFT Template
Species: __CRCR8____
FOREST REVIEW INFORMATION
Status summary based on other methods (information is on the Regional Office list of species considered; correct as needed):
Entity Status/Rank (include definition if Other) NatureServe G2 (NatureServe 2015)
Natural UT - Not Listed (UDNR 2015) Heritage CO – Not Listed (CNHP 2015) Program State List UT – S2 (NatureServe 2015) Status CO – Not Listed (NatureServe 2015)
Not included in the CO or UT Wildlife Action Plans (SWAP 2015, WAP 2015) USDA Forest Cryptantha creutzfeldtii is currently a FS Region 4 sensitive species for the Service MLNF (USFS 2013).
As of May 2016, this species is not listed as a potential SCC or Sensitive Species for any adjoining National Forests (USFS 2013). USDI FWS Formerly a category 2 candidate for listing under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Franklin and UDNR 2005). Other Included on the BLM’s Sensitive Plant Species List (K. Ivory pers. comm. 2016)
Review of species of conservation concern criteria based on definition
1. Native to the plan area
a. Is the species native to the plan area?
Yes_X__ No___
1. If no, provide explanation.
2
Intermountain Region Species of Conservation Concern Review DRAFT Template
Species: __ CRCR8_____
2. Known to occur in the plan area
Table 2. Known Occurrence Frequency within the Planning Area (NRIS database) Occurrence: Number Source of Information Known Occurrences in the past 20 N/A Intermountain Region Herbarium years Network (COIH 2016) Year Last Observed 1991 R.W. Thompson (2001)
a. Are all species occurrences only accidental or transient?
Yes___ No_X__
1) If yes, document source for determination.
b. Based on the number of observations and/or year of last observation, can the species be presumed to be established or becoming established in the plan area? Yes_X__ No___
1) If no, provide explanation.
3. Substantial concern for species persistence in the plan area
a. Describe briefly the distribution, abundance, and population trend of the species in the plan area
This species is an east-central Utah endemic found in Carbon, Emery and Sevier Counties and is known from scattered locations along the Book Cliffs and Wasatch Plateau (Franklin and UDNR 2005). It grows in scatter pinon- juniper communities with an under-story of black sagebrush or Atriplex spp. (NatureServe 2015, Franklin and UDNR 2005).
“Populations are generally low in density at most sites, ranging from a few plants (5 to 10) to 100 to 300 plants on some of the larger sites. Plants are mostly scattered, and average only 1 or 2 plants on each 100 square feet of area.” (Thompson 2001). Current population estimates are ca. 30,000 individuals with a combined area of 60-acres (NatureServe 2015).
3
Intermountain Region Species of Conservation Concern Review DRAFT Template
The Utah Natural Heritage Program’s GIS data reports 28 records of this species occurring on the Manti La-Sal National Forest; last observed by M.A. Franklin in 1991 (UNHP 2015).
b. Describe briefly threats or risk factors to the species or the ecological conditions that support it (i.e. habitat) based on best available scientific information
Thompson (2001) States that Dry Wash is a Stock Driveway that is heavily trampled by livestock each spring and fall, but no loss of plants have been observed. Anthropogenic recreation “…may cause damage in some populations.” (Thompson 2001). Increased oil and gas exploration is another potential threat to this species (Franklin and UDNR 2005).
c. Considering the trend in populations or habitat and threats or risk factors for those populations or habitats, is there substantial concern for persistence of the species in the plan area?
Yes___ No_X__
1) If no, provide explanation
Lack of current information to preclude concern for persistence.
4. Range Map
Map 1. UT occurrence map for Cryptantha creutzfeldtii (Franklin and UDNR 2005).
4
Intermountain Region Species of Conservation Concern Review DRAFT Template
Map 2.County distribution map for Cryptantha creutzfeldtii (USDA 2016).
Map 3. Distribution map for Cryptantha creutzfeldtii (USDA 2016).
5
Intermountain Region Species of Conservation Concern Review DRAFT Template
5. Literature Cited
Colorado Natural Heritage Program (CNHP). 2015. Tracked Vascular Plant Species. http://www.cnhp.colostate.edu/download/list/vascular.asp. (Accessed May 24, 2016).
Colorado State Wildlife Action Plan (SWAP). 2015. Colorado State Wildlife Action Plan: A plan for conserving wildlife in Colorado. Colorado Parks and Wildlife, Denver, CO. 865 pgs. http://cpw.state.co.us/aboutus/Pages/StateWildlifeActionPlan.aspx
Consortium of Intermountain Herbaria (COIH). 2016. http//:www.intermountainbiota.org/portal/index.php. (Accessed on June 01)
Franklin, M. A. and State of Utah Department of Natural Resources (UDNR). 2005. "Plant Information Compiled by the Utah Natural Heritage Program: A Progress Report". All U.S. Government Documents (Utah Regional Depository). Paper 474. http://digitalcommons.usu.edu/govdocs/474
Ivory, K. 2016. Personal communication. Kim Anderson, MLNF. 31 May 2016.
NatureServe. 2015. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. Version 7.1. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available http://explorer.natureserve.org. (Accessed: April 27, 2016).
Thompson, R.M. 2001. Endangered, Threatened, and Sensitive Plant Species. Manti-La Sal National Forest
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), NRCS. 2016. The PLANTS Database http://plants.usda.gov. National Plant Data Team, Greensboro, NC 27401- 4901 USA. (Accessed: May 24, 2016)
U.S. Forest Service (USFS). 2013. Proposed, Endangered, Threatened and Sensitive Species List, R4. Known / Suspected Distribution by Forest.
Utah Department of Natural Resources (UDNR). Division of Wildlife Resources. 2015. Utah Sensitive Species List.
Utah Natural Heritage Program (UNHP). 2015. Utah Division of Wildlife Resources. UNHP Biodiversity Tracking and Conservation System (BIOTICS).
Utah Wildlife Action Plan (WAP) Joint Team. 2015. Utah Wildlife Action Plan: A plan for managing native wildlife species and their habitats to prevent listing under the Endangered Species Act. Draft version 2.0. DWR Publication No. 15-14. Utah Division of
6
Intermountain Region Species of Conservation Concern Review DRAFT Template
Wildlife Resources, Salt Lake City, UT. 400 pgs. http://wildlife.utah.gov/wap/wap2015draft2.pdf
7
Intermountain Region Species of Conservation Concern Review DRAFT Template
SPECIES: Scientific [common] Cryptantha jonesiana [Jones’ Cateye / Jones’ Cryptanth] CRJO2 Forest: Manti-La Sal National Forest Forest Reviewer: K. Anderson Date of Review: 3 May 2016 Forest concurrence (or recommendation if new) for No inclusion of species on list of potential SCC: (Enter Yes or No)
Forest review result:
The Forest concurs or recommends the species for inclusion on the list of potential SCC: Yes___ No_X_
Rationale for not concurring is based on (check all that apply): Species is not native to the plan area ______Species is not known to occur in the plan area ______Species persistence in the plan area is not of substantial concern ___X___
Issue: Whether the species identified above should be listed as a species of Conservation Concern (SCC) for the Manti-La Sal National Forest (MLNF) as identified in the 2012 Planning Rule (36 CFR 219).
Rule: The 2012 Planning Rule [36 CFR 219.7(c)(3)] states that “The regional forester shall identify the species of conservation concern for the plan area in coordination with the responsible official.” It [36 CFR 219.9(b)(2)(c)] defines a species of conservation concern as “…a species, other than federally recognized threatened, endangered, proposed, or candidate species, that is known to occur in the plan area and for which the regional forester has determined that the best available scientific information indicates substantial concern about the species’ capability to persist over the long-term in the plan area.”
Analysis: The best available scientific information (BASI) indicates that there are minimal threats/risks to the species and its habitat in the plan area and questions regarding correct identification.
Conclusion: Based upon the BASI documented herein, it is not recommended that this species be included in the potential list of SCC for the MLNF.
1
Intermountain Region Species of Conservation Concern Review DRAFT Template
Species: ____CRJO2______
FOREST REVIEW INFORMATION
Status summary based on other methods (information is on the Regional Office list of species considered; correct as needed):
Entity Status/Rank (include definition if Other) NatureServe G2G3 (NatureServe 2015)
Natural UT – Not Listed (UDNR 2015) Heritage CO – Not Listed (CNHP 2015) Program State List UT – S2S3 (NatureServe 2015) Status CO – Not Listed (NatureServe 2015)
USDA Forest As of May 2016, this species is not listed as a potential SCC or Sensitive Service Species for any adjoining National Forests.
USDI FWS Not listed species. Other
Review of species of conservation concern criteria based on definition
1. Native to the plan area
a. Is the species native to the plan area?
Yes_X__ No___
i. If no, provide explanation.
2
Intermountain Region Species of Conservation Concern Review DRAFT Template
Species: ___CRJO2______
2. Known to occur in the plan area
Table 2. Known Occurrence Frequency within the Planning Area (NRIS database) Occurrence: Number Source of Information Known Occurrences in the past 20 0 Intermountain Region Herbarium years Network (COIH 2016) Year Last Observed 1980 UNHP 2015
a. Are all species occurrences only accidental or transient?
Yes_X__ No___
1) If yes, document source for determination.
Collection records (62) from thirteen different Herbaria (Intermountain Region Herbarium Network accessed 3 May 2016) report the species as only occurring in the San Rafael Swell. Stone (1998) reports this species as “An endemic of semi-barren clay hills in the San Rafael Swell…”
Utah Natural Heritage Program (UNHP 2015) only reports one species collected in 1980 as occurring in the plan area.
b. Based on the number of observations and/or year of last observation, can the species be presumed to be established or becoming established in the plan area?
Yes___ No_X__
1) If no, provide explanation.
There is only a single record reported for the plan area (UNHP 2015).
3. Substantial concern for species persistence in the plan area
a. Describe briefly the distribution, abundance, and population trend of the species in the plan area
3
Intermountain Region Species of Conservation Concern Review DRAFT Template
The reported location in the plan area is approximately 1.3 air miles south- southwest from the Millsite Reservoir. Boat ramp parking area, on the south side of the Reservoir, and approx. 0.87 air miles west of the eastern Forest Service boundary (UNHP 2015). Abundance and population trend is unknown.
b. Describe briefly threats or risk factors to the species or the ecological conditions that support it (i.e. habitat) based on best available scientific information
No known threats or risks.
c. Considering the trend in populations or habitat and threats or risk factors for those populations or habitats, is there substantial concern for persistence of the species in the plan area?
Yes___ No_X__
1) If no, provide explanation
This species appears to be common on the San Rafael swell (IRHN 2016). Identification of C. jonesiana in the plan area is questionable as it is surrounded by C. flava (waiting verification from BRY).
4. Range Map
Map 1. UNHP 2015 map sowing reported location of C. jonesiana (purple).
4
Intermountain Region Species of Conservation Concern Review DRAFT Template
Map 2. Distribution map of Cryptantha jonesiana in UT (Franklin and UDNR 2005).
5. Literature Cited
Colorado Natural Heritage Program (CNHP). 2015. Tracked Vascular Plant Species. http://www.cnhp.colostate.edu/download/list/vascular.asp. (Accessed May 24, 2016).
Colorado State Wildlife Action Plan (SWAP). 2015. Colorado State Wildlife Action Plan: A plan for conserving wildlife in Colorado. Colorado Parks and Wildlife, Denver, CO. 865 pgs. http://cpw.state.co.us/aboutus/Pages/StateWildlifeActionPlan.aspx
Consortium of Intermountain Herbaria (COIH). 2016. http//:www.intermountainbiota.org/portal/index.php. (Accessed on May 10, 2016)
Franklin, M. A. and State of Utah Department of Natural Resources (UDNR). 2005. "Plant Information Compiled by the Utah Natural Heritage Program: A Progress Report". All U.S. Government Documents (Utah Regional Depository). Paper 474. http://digitalcommons.usu.edu/govdocs/474
NatureServe. 2015. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web
5
Intermountain Region Species of Conservation Concern Review DRAFT Template application]. Version 7.1. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available http://explorer.natureserve.org. (Accessed: May 23, 2016 ).
Stone, R. D. Inventory of sensitive species and ecosystems in Utah. Endemic and rare plants of Utah: an overview of their distribution and status. Salt Lake City (UT): 1998. 696p. Cooperating Agreement Number UC-95-0015 Section V.A.10.a. Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, Utah Natural Heritage Program.
Utah Department of Natural Resources (UDNR). Division of Wildlife Resources. 2015. Utah Sensitive Species List.
Utah Natural Heritage Program (UNHP). 2015. Utah Division of Wildlife Resources. UNHP Biodiversity Tracking and Conservation System (BIOTICS).
U.S. Forest Service (USFS). 2013. Proposed, Endangered, Threatened and Sensitive Species List, R4. Known / Suspected Distribution by Forest.
Utah Wildlife Action Plan (WAP) Joint Team. 2015. Utah Wildlife Action Plan: A plan for managing native wildlife species and their habitats to prevent listing under the Endangered Species Act. Draft version 2.0. DWR Publication No. 15-14. Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, Salt Lake City, UT. 400 pgs. http://wildlife.utah.gov/wap/wap2015draft2.pdf
6
Intermountain Region Species of Conservation Concern Review DRAFT Template
SPECIES: Scientific [common] Cymopterus beckii [Pinnate spring-parsley] CYBE2 Forest: Manti-La Sal National Forest Forest Reviewer: K. Anderson Date of Review: 25 May 2016 Forest concurrence (or recommendation if new) for No inclusion of species on list of potential SCC: (Enter Yes or No)
Forest review result:
The Forest concurs or recommends the species for inclusion on the list of potential SCC: Yes___ No_X__
Rationale for not concurring is based on (check all that apply): Species is not native to the plan area ______Species is not known to occur in the plan area ______Species persistence in the plan area is not of substantial concern __X____
Issue: Whether the species identified above should be listed as a species of Conservation Concern (SCC) for the Manti-La Sal National Forest (MLNF) as identified in the 2012 Planning Rule (36 CFR 219).
Rule: The 2012 Planning Rule [36 CFR 219.7(c)(3)] states that “The regional forester shall identify the species of conservation concern for the plan area in coordination with the responsible official.” It [36 CFR 219.9(b)(2)(c)] defines a species of conservation concern as “…a species, other than federally recognized threatened, endangered, proposed, or candidate species, that is known to occur in the plan area and for which the regional forester has determined that the best available scientific information indicates substantial concern about the species’ capability to persist over the long-term in the plan area.”
Analysis: The best available scientific information (BASI) indicates a there is not enough current scientific information to indicate a level of certainty that the species is capable to persist within the plan area.
Conclusion: Based upon the BASI documented herein, it is not recommended that this species be included in the potential list of SCC for the MLNF.
1
Intermountain Region Species of Conservation Concern Review DRAFT Template
Species: __CYBE2____
FOREST REVIEW INFORMATION
Status summary based on other methods (information is on the Regional Office list of species considered; correct as needed):
Entity Status/Rank (include definition if Other) NatureServe G2G3 (NatureServe 2015)
Natural UT - Not Listed (UDNR 2015) Heritage CO – Not Listed (CNHP 2015) Program State List UT – S1 (NatureServe 2015) Status CO – Not Listed (NatureServe 2015)
Not included in the CO or UT Wildlife Action Plans (SWAP 2015, WAP 2015) USDA Forest Cymopterus beckii is currently a FS Region 4 sensitive species for the Service Manti La-Sal and Dixie National Forests (USFS 2013).
As of May 2016, this species is not listed as a potential SCC or Sensitive Species for any adjoining National Forests (USFS 2013). USDI FWS Not a listed species. Other Navajo Nations – S1 (NatureServe 2015).
No longer listed on the as an Endangered Species by the Navajo Nations (NNDFW 2008).
Review of species of conservation concern criteria based on definition
1. Native to the plan area
a. Is the species native to the plan area?
Yes_X__ No___
1. If no, provide explanation.
2
Intermountain Region Species of Conservation Concern Review DRAFT Template
Species: __ CYBE2_____
2. Known to occur in the plan area
Table 2. Known Occurrence Frequency within the Planning Area (NRIS database) Occurrence: Number Source of Information Known Occurrences in the past N/A Intermountain Region 20 years Information Herbarium Network (COIH protected 2016) Year Last Observed N/A Intermountain Region Information Herbarium Network (COIH protected 2016)
a. Are all species occurrences only accidental or transient?
Yes___ No_X__
1) If yes, document source for determination.
b. Based on the number of observations and/or year of last observation, can the species be presumed to be established or becoming established in the plan area? Yes_X__ No___
1) If no, provide explanation.
3. Substantial concern for species persistence in the plan area
a. Describe briefly the distribution, abundance, and population trend of the species in the plan area
The Utah Natural History Programs’ GIS data reports 45 collections from the plan area (UNHP 2015). Thompson (2001) reports only four collections from the plan area and that 70-95 plants occur from three different populations. However NatureServe (2015) cites a 2012 report from the Utah Native Plant Society (UNPS) that states that the number of individuals has “greatly increased” to over 30,000.
Occurs beyond the plan area into Arizona and the Navajo Nation.
3
Intermountain Region Species of Conservation Concern Review DRAFT Template
b. Describe briefly threats or risk factors to the species or the ecological conditions that support it (i.e. habitat) based on best available scientific information
Grows in rock ledges and not likely available to livestock. One population may be impacted by road work. (Thompson 2001)
c. Considering the trend in populations or habitat and threats or risk factors for those populations or habitats, is there substantial concern for persistence of the species in the plan area?
Yes___ No_X__
1) If no, provide explanation
UNHP GIS data (2015) reports 45 collections from the plan area.
4. Range Map
Map 1. County distribution map for Cymopterus beckii (USDA 2016).
4
Intermountain Region Species of Conservation Concern Review DRAFT Template
Map 2. Distribution map for Cymopterus beckii (USDA 2016).
Literature Cited
Colorado Natural Heritage Program (CNHP). 2015. Tracked Vascular Plant Species. http://www.cnhp.colostate.edu/download/list/vascular.asp. (Accessed May 24, 2016).
Colorado State Wildlife Action Plan (SWAP). 2015. Colorado State Wildlife Action Plan: A plan for conserving wildlife in Colorado. Colorado Parks and Wildlife, Denver, CO. 865 pgs. http://cpw.state.co.us/aboutus/Pages/StateWildlifeActionPlan.aspx
Consortium of Intermountain Herbaria (COIH). 2016. http//:www.intermountainbiota.org/portal/index.php. (Accessed on June 01)
Franklin, M. A. and State of Utah Department of Natural Resources (UDNR). 2005. "Plant Information Compiled by the Utah Natural Heritage Program: A Progress Report". All U.S. Government Documents (Utah Regional Depository). Paper 474. http://digitalcommons.usu.edu/govdocs/474
NatureServe. 2015. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. Version 7.1. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available http://explorer.natureserve.org. (Accessed: April 27, 2016).
Navajo Nations Department of Fish and Wildlife (NNDFW). 2008. Navajo endangered species list; resource committee resolution. http://nndfw.org/nnhp/nnhp_nesl.pdf
5
Intermountain Region Species of Conservation Concern Review DRAFT Template
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), NRCS. 2016. The PLANTS Database http://plants.usda.gov. National Plant Data Team, Greensboro, NC 27401- 4901 USA. (Accessed: May 24, 2016) U.S. Forest Service (USFS). 2013. Proposed, Endangered, Threatened and Sensitive Species List, R4. Known / Suspected Distribution by Forest.
Utah Department of Natural Resources (UDNR). Division of Wildlife Resources. 2015. Utah Sensitive Species List.
Utah Natural Heritage Program (UNHP). 2015. Utah Division of Wildlife Resources. UNHP Biodiversity Tracking and Conservation System (BIOTICS).
Utah Wildlife Action Plan (WAP) Joint Team. 2015. Utah Wildlife Action Plan: A plan for managing native wildlife species and their habitats to prevent listing under the Endangered Species Act. Draft version 2.0. DWR Publication No. 15-14. Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, Salt Lake City, UT. 400 pgs. http://wildlife.utah.gov/wap/wap2015draft2.pdf
6
Intermountain Region Species of Conservation Concern Review DRAFT Template
SPECIES: Scientific [common] Draba fladnizensis v pattersonii [White Arctic Whitlow-grass / Petterson’s Draba (DRFLP)] Forest: Manti-La Sal National Forest Forest Reviewer: K. Anderson Date of Review: 5/6/2016 Forest concurrence (or recommendation if new) for No inclusion of species on list of potential SCC: (Enter Yes or No)
Forest review result:
The Forest concurs or recommends the species for inclusion on the list of potential SCC: Yes___ No_X_
Rationale for not concurring is based on (check all that apply): Species is not native to the plan area ______Species is not known to occur in the plan area ______Species persistence in the plan area is not of substantial concern __X____
Issue: Whether the species identified above should be listed as a species of Conservation Concern (SCC) for the Manti-La Sal National Forest (MLNF) as identified in the 2012 Planning Rule (36 CFR 219).
Rule: The 2012 Planning Rule [36 CFR 219.7(c)(3)] states that “The regional forester shall identify the species of conservation concern for the plan area in coordination with the responsible official.” It [36 CFR 219.9(b)(2)(c)] defines a species of conservation concern as “…a species, other than federally recognized threatened, endangered, proposed, or candidate species, that is known to occur in the plan area and for which the regional forester has determined that the best available scientific information indicates substantial concern about the species’ capability to persist over the long-term in the plan area.”
Analysis: The best available scientific information (BASI) indicates a level of uncertainty in identification and nomenclature with the wide spread occurrence of this species, as such, it is a species of local conservation concern.
Conclusion: Based upon the BASI documented herein, it is not recommended that this species be included in the potential list of SCC for the MLNF.
1
Intermountain Region Species of Conservation Concern Review DRAFT Template
Species: ___DRFLP______
FOREST REVIEW INFORMATION
Status summary based on other methods (information is on the Regional Office list of species considered; correct as needed):
Entity Status/Rank (include definition if Other) NatureServe G4 (NatureServe 2015).
Natural UT – Not Listed (UDNR 2015) Heritage CO – Watchlisted only (CNHP 2015) Program State List UT-SNR(Nature Serve 2015) Status CO-S2S3 (Nature Serve 2015)
Not included in the CO or UT Wildlife Action Plans (SWAP 2015, WAP 2015) USDA Forest As of May 2016, this species is not listed as a potential SCC or Sensitive Service Species for any adjoining National Forests (USFS 2013).
USDI FWS Not a listed species. Other
Review of species of conservation concern criteria based on definition
1. Native to the plan area
a. Is the species native to the plan area?
Yes_X__ No___
i. If no, provide explanation.
2
Intermountain Region Species of Conservation Concern Review DRAFT Template
Species: ____DRFLP______
2. Known to occur in the plan area
Table 2. Known Occurrence Frequency within the Planning Area (NRIS database) Occurrence: Number Source of Information Known Occurrences in the past 20 0 Intermountain Region Herbarium years Network (COIH 2016) Year Last Observed 1911 Intermountain Region Herbarium Network (COIH 2016)
a. Are all species occurrences only accidental or transient?
Yes___ No_X__
1) If yes, document source for determination.
b. Based on the number of observations and/or year of last observation, can the species be presumed to be established or becoming established in the plan area?
Yes___ No_X__
1) If no, provide explanation,
Only on locatable observation found.
Rydberg reports collecting it in the La Sal Mountains in 1911 (IRHN 2016)
Plant studies conducted on the La Sal Mountains in 2015 were summarized with a plant list that identified: Draba fladnizensis Wulf. 1A 3m RC disjunct. (MLNF 2015)
Welsh et al. ( 2015) state the following: “Our material is difficult to distinguish from the dwarf alpine specimens of D. stenoloba (q.v.), but apparently the white petals are diagnostic.”
UNHP (2015) indicate that SURVEYSITE, the point located in the plan area, on the La Sal mountains is: "MOUNT BARETTE", VICINITY OF DELANO PEAK. This information is based on a 1905 collection at the New York Botanical Garden.
3
Intermountain Region Species of Conservation Concern Review DRAFT Template
The full statement reads: GENCOM1 Mount Barette is an unknown location. However, their collection 7192, 23 July, is from "Mountains north of Bullion Creek, near Marysvale", their collections 7231 & 7233, 26 July, are from "Delano Peak", and 7274, 27 July, is from "Bullion Canon, in and near the Gorge." Their collection numbers for this place and day are (the low and high that I was able to find at NY on-line): 7195 – 7328
The La Sal point is about 172 air miles due east of the site referenced above. (UNHP 2015)
The Flora of North America points out that: “the differences between the two taxa [D. pattersonii and D. Fladnizensis hence, D. fladnizensis var pattersonii] are artificial” (Cruciferae and Al-Shehbaz 1997).
3. Substantial concern for species persistence in the plan area
a. Describe briefly the distribution, abundance, and population trend of the species in the plan area
The species is reported from the La Sal Mountains (IRHN 2016) No known population numbers nor trend.
b. Describe briefly threats or risk factors to the species or the ecological conditions that support it (i.e. habitat) based on best available scientific information
No known risks or threats.
c. Considering the trend in populations or habitat and threats or risk factors for those populations or habitats, is there substantial concern for persistence of the species in the plan area?
Yes___ No_X__
1) If no, provide explanation
The question of nomenclature suggests that the species does not exist at varietal level, but at species level, it encompasses a wide area (Cruciferae and Al-Shehbaz 1997).
4
Intermountain Region Species of Conservation Concern Review DRAFT Template
4. Range Map
Map 1. Regional distribution map for Draba fladnizensis var. pattersonnii (USDA 2016).
Map 2. Global distribution map for Draba fladnizensis var. pattersonnii (NatureServe 2016).
5
Intermountain Region Species of Conservation Concern Review DRAFT Template
Map 3. Occurrence point for Draba fladnizensis var. pattersonnii (IRHN 2016).
5. Literature Cited
Colorado Natural Heritage Program (CNHP). 2015. Tracked Vascular Plant Species. http://www.cnhp.colostate.edu/download/list/vascular.asp. (Accessed May 24, 2016).
Colorado State Wildlife Action Plan (SWAP). 2015. Colorado State Wildlife Action Plan: A plan for conserving wildlife in Colorado. Colorado Parks and Wildlife, Denver, CO. 865 pgs. http://cpw.state.co.us/aboutus/Pages/StateWildlifeActionPlan.aspx
Consortium of Intermountain Herbaria (COIH). 2016. http//:www.intermountainbiota.org/portal/index.php. (Accessed on June 01)
Cruciferae J. and I.A. Al-Shehbaz. 1997. Draba fladnizensis. In: Flora of North America Editorial Committee, eds. 1993+. Flora of North America North of Mexico. 19+ vols. New York and Oxford. Vol. 7, pp. 307.
Manti-La Sal National Forest (MLNF). 2015. Manti-La Sal National Forest. La Sal sp. List 2015. 2p.
NatureServe. 2015. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. Version 7.1. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available http://explorer.natureserve.org. (Accessed: April 27, 2016).
6
Intermountain Region Species of Conservation Concern Review DRAFT Template
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), NRCS. 2016. The PLANTS Database http://plants.usda.gov. National Plant Data Team, Greensboro, NC 27401- 4901 USA. (Accessed: May 25, 2016)
Utah Department of Natural Resources (UDNR). Division of Wildlife Resources. 2015. Utah Sensitive Species List.
Utah Natural Heritage Program (UNHP). 2015. Utah Division of Wildlife Resources. UNHP Biodiversity Tracking and Conservation System (BIOTICS).
Welsh, S. L., N. D. Atwood, S. Goodrich, and L. C. Higgins. 2015. A Utah Flora. Provo Utah. 987p
7
Intermountain Region Species of Conservation Concern Review DRAFT Template
SPECIES: Scientific [common] Echinocereus triglochidiatus var inermis Syn: Echinocereus coccineus var. coccineus (USDA 2016)
[Spineless Hedgehog / Claretcup cactus (ECTRI)] Forest: Manti-La Sal National Forest Forest Reviewer: K. Anderson Date of Review: 9 May 2016 Forest concurrence (or recommendation if new) for No inclusion of species on list of potential SCC: (Enter Yes or No)
Forest review result:
The Forest concurs or recommends the species for inclusion on the list of potential SCC: Yes___ No_X_
Rationale for not concurring is based on (check all that apply): Species is not native to the plan area ______Species is not known to occur in the plan area ______Species persistence in the plan area is not of substantial concern __X____
Issue: Whether the species identified above should be listed as a species of Conservation Concern (SCC) for the Manti-La Sal National Forest (MLNF) as identified in the 2012 Planning Rule (36 CFR 219).
Rule: The 2012 Planning Rule [36 CFR 219.7(c)(3)] states that “The regional forester shall identify the species of conservation concern for the plan area in coordination with the responsible official.” It [36 CFR 219.9(b)(2)(c)] defines a species of conservation concern as “…a species, other than federally recognized threatened, endangered, proposed, or candidate species, that is known to occur in the plan area and for which the regional forester has determined that the best available scientific information indicates substantial concern about the species’ capability to persist over the long-term in the plan area.”
Analysis: The best available scientific information (BASI) indicates uncertainty in taxonomy of this species as valid species within the plan area.
Conclusion: Based upon the BASI documented herein, it is not recommended that this species be included in the potential list of SCC for the MLNF.
1
Intermountain Region Species of Conservation Concern Review DRAFT Template
Species: ____ECTRI______
FOREST REVIEW INFORMATION
Status summary based on other methods (information is on the Regional Office list of species considered; correct as needed):
Entity Status/Rank (include definition if Other) NatureServe G4T4T5(NatureServe 2015)
Natural Utah – Not listed (UDNR 2015) Heritage Colorado – Not listed (CNHP 2015) Program State List UT – SNR (NatureServe 2015) Status CO – SNR (NatureServe 2015)
USDA Forest As of May 2016, this species is not listed as a potential SCC or Sensitive Service Species for any adjoining National Forests (USFS 2013).
USDI FWS Not a listed species. Other
Review of species of conservation concern criteria based on definition
1. Native to the plan area
a. Is the species native to the plan area?
Yes_X__ No___
i. If no, provide explanation.
2
Intermountain Region Species of Conservation Concern Review DRAFT Template
Species: ____ECTRI______
2. Known to occur in the plan area
Table 2. Known Occurrence Frequency within the Planning Area (NRIS database) Occurrence: Number Source of Information Known Occurrences in the past 20 N/A COIH 2016 years Location protected Year Last Observed N/A COIH 2016 Location protection
a. Are all species occurrences only accidental or transient?
Yes___ No_X__
1) If yes, document source for determination.
b. Based on the number of observations and/or year of last observation, can the species be presumed to be established or becoming established in the plan area? Yes_X__ No___
1) If no, provide explanation.
3. Substantial concern for species persistence in the plan area
a. Describe briefly the distribution, abundance, and population trend of the species in the plan area
Welsh et al. (2003) state that: “There is a cline within the specimens from eastern Utah and western Colorado from densely spiny to no spines at all….but they do not seem to represent a taxon.”
The Plants database shows synonymy with E. coccineus var. coccineus (USDA 2016). As well as seven other formerly recognized species or varieties for a total of eight spp. now under the aforementioned name.
The Integrated Taxonomic Information System (ITIS) lists the name as: “not accepted” and synonymous with E. coccineus var. coccineus (ITIS 2016).
3
Intermountain Region Species of Conservation Concern Review DRAFT Template
b. Describe briefly threats or risk factors to the species or the ecological conditions that support it (i.e. habitat) based on best available scientific information
No known threats/risks.
c. Considering the trend in populations or habitat and threats or risk factors for those populations or habitats, is there substantial concern for persistence of the species in the plan area?
Yes___ No_X__
1) If no, provide explanation
Based on taxonomic disparities there is no information to validate a concern for persistence in the plan area.
4. Range Map
Map 1. Range map for Echinocereus coccineus Engelm. var. coccineus (USDA 2016).
4
Intermountain Region Species of Conservation Concern Review DRAFT Template
5. Literature Cited
Colorado Natural Heritage Program (CNHP). 2015. Tracked Vascular Plant Species. http://www.cnhp.colostate.edu/download/list/vascular.asp. (Accessed May 24, 2016).
Colorado State Wildlife Action Plan (SWAP). 2015. Colorado State Wildlife Action Plan: A plan for conserving wildlife in Colorado. Colorado Parks and Wildlife, Denver, CO. 865 pgs. http://cpw.state.co.us/aboutus/Pages/StateWildlifeActionPlan.aspx
Consortium of Intermountain Herbaria (COIH). 2016. http//:www.intermountainbiota.org/portal/index.php. (Accessed on June 01)
Integrated Taxonomic Information System (ITIS). 2016. Online database. http://www.itis.gov/. (Accessed June 03, 2016)
NatureServe. 2015. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. Version 7.1. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available http://explorer.natureserve.org. (Accessed: April 27, 2016).
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), NRCS. 2016. The PLANTS Database http://plants.usda.gov. National Plant Data Team, Greensboro, NC 27401- 4901 USA. (Accessed: May 24, 2016)
U.S. Forest Service (USFS). 2013. Intermountain Region (R4) threatened, endangered, proposed and sensitive species: known / suspected distribution by Forest.
Utah Department of Natural Resources (UDNR). Division of Wildlife Resources. 2015. Utah Sensitive Species List.
Utah Wildlife Action Plan (WAP) Joint Team. 2015. Utah Wildlife Action Plan: A plan for managing native wildlife species and their habitats to prevent listing under the Endangered Species Act. Draft version 2.0. DWR Publication No. 15-14. Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, Salt Lake City, UT. 400 pgs. http://wildlife.utah.gov/wap/wap2015draft2.pdf
Welsh, S.L., N. D. Atwood, S. Goodrich, L. C. Higgins. 2003. A Utah Flora. Provo, Utah. 912p
5
Intermountain Region Species of Conservation Concern Review DRAFT Template
SPECIES: Scientific [common] Erigeron abajoensis [Abajo daisy] ERAB3 Forest: Manti-La Sal National Forest Forest Reviewer: B. Smith Date of Review: 28may2016 Forest concurrence (or No recommendation if new) for inclusion of species on list of potential SCC: (Enter Yes or No)
Forest review result:
The Forest concurs or recommends the species for inclusion on the list of potential SCC: Yes___ No_X_
Rationale for not concurring is based on (check all that apply): Species is not native to the plan area ______Species is not known to occur in the plan area ______Species persistence in the plan area is not of substantial concern _X___
Issue: Whether the species identified above should be listed as a species of Conservation Concern (SCC) for the Manti-La Sal National Forest (MLNF) as identified in the 2012 Planning Rule (36 CFR 219).
Rule: The 2012 Planning Rule [36 CFR 219.7(c)(3)] states that “The regional forester shall identify the species of conservation concern for the plan area in coordination with the responsible official.” It [36 CFR 219.9(b)(2)(c)] defines a species of conservation concern as “…a species, other than federally recognized threatened, endangered, proposed, or candidate species, that is known to occur in the plan area and for which the regional forester has determined that the best available scientific information indicates substantial concern about the species’ capability to persist over the long-term in the plan area.”
Analysis: The best available scientific information (BASI) indicates that the species is not of local conservation concern.
Conclusion: Based upon the BASI documented herein, it is not recommended that this species be included in the potential list of SCC for the MLNF.
1
Intermountain Region Species of Conservation Concern Review DRAFT Template
Species: _Abajo daisy______
FOREST REVIEW INFORMATION
Status summary based on other methods (information is on the Regional Office list of species considered; correct as needed):
Entity Status/Rank (include definition if Other) NatureServe G1G2/N1N2 (NatureServe 2015)
Natural UT - No Conservation Status Issued (Franklin and UDNR 2005) Heritage CO – “Fully Tracked” (CNHP 2015) Program State List Utah – S1S2 (NatureServe 2015) Status CO – S1? (NatureServe 2015)
Not included in the CO or UT Wildlife Action Plans (SWAP 2015, WAP 2015) USDA Forest Erigeron abajoensis is currently a FS Region 4 sensitive species for the Service Manti La-Sal National Forest (USFS 2013).
As of May 2016, this species is not listed as a potential SCC or Sensitive Species for any adjoining National Forests (USFS 2013). USDI FWS Not a listed species. Other
Review of species of conservation concern criteria based on definition
1. Native to the plan area
a. Is the species native to the plan area?
Yes_X__ No___
i. If no, provide explanation.
2
Intermountain Region Species of Conservation Concern Review DRAFT Template
Species: _Abajo daisy______
2. Known to occur in the plan area
Table 2. Known Occurrence Frequency within the Planning Area (NRIS database) Occurrence: Number Source of Information Known Occurrences in the past 20 1000s MLNF 2016 years Year Last Observed 2012 MLNF 2016
a. Are all species occurrences only accidental or transient?
Yes___ No__X_
1) If yes, document source for determination.
b. Based on the number of observations and/or year of last observation, can the species be presumed to be established or becoming established in the plan area?
Yes_X__ No___
1) If no, provide explanation.
3. Substantial concern for species persistence in the plan area
a. Describe briefly the distribution, abundance, and population trend of the species in the plan area.
Endemic to 4 corners area of UT, CO, AZ and NM. While this species may occur from an elevation of 7,000 to 11,320 feet in ponderosa pine, pinyon/juniper and spruce/fir types in scattered locations in southeastern Utah (Welch et al 1993), on the Monticello district it has been located only on the open rocky ridgetops of the Abajo Mountains. At sites where it occurs, thousands of individuals have been observed. District surveys since 2000 indicate the population has remained stable (MLNF 2016).
3
Intermountain Region Species of Conservation Concern Review DRAFT Template
b. Describe briefly threats or risk factors to the species or the ecological conditions that support it (i.e. habitat) based on best available scientific information.
Threat impact ranking (NatureServe 2015) is high to medium from livestock grazing and trampling. In the plan area, past terracing and seeding with introduced grasses such as smooth brome impacted its habitat and distribution. The biggest current threat to the population on NFS lands is off-road vehicle use (Smith 2015). Livestock grazing no longer occurs on most of the high slopes and ridgetops where the plant grows.
c. Considering the trend in populations or habitat and threats or risk factors for those populations or habitats, is there substantial concern for persistence of the species in the plan area?
Yes___ No_X__
1) If no, provide explanation.
Threats from OHVs are being managed on NFS lands. The plant population has been stable.
4. Range Map
Map 1. UT occurence map of Erigeron abajoensis (Franklin and UDNR 2005).
4
Intermountain Region Species of Conservation Concern Review DRAFT Template
Map 2. Occurence map of Erigeron abajoensis from Albee et al 1988.
Map 3. Distribution map of Erigeron abajoensis (USDA 2016).
5
Intermountain Region Species of Conservation Concern Review DRAFT Template
5. Literature Cited
Albee, B.J., L.M. Shultz and S. Goodrich. 1988. Atlas of the Vascular Plants of Utah. Utah Museum of Natural History Occasional Publication No. 7.
Colorado Natural Heritage Program (CNHP). 2015. Tracked Vascular Plant Species. http://www.cnhp.colostate.edu/download/list/vascular.asp. (Accessed May 24, 2016).
Colorado State Wildlife Action Plan (SWAP). 2015. Colorado State Wildlife Action Plan: A plan for conserving wildlife in Colorado. Colorado Parks and Wildlife, Denver, CO. 865 pgs. http://cpw.state.co.us/aboutus/Pages/StateWildlifeActionPlan.aspx
Franklin, M. A. and State of Utah Department of Natural Resources (UDNR). 2005. "Plant Information Compiled by the Utah Natural Heritage Program: A Progress Report". All U.S. Government Documents (Utah Regional Depository). Paper 474. http://digitalcommons.usu.edu/govdocs/474
Manti-La Sal National Forest (MLNF). 2016. District survey and EO data. Moab, UT.
NatureServe. 2015. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. Version 7.1. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available http://explorer.natureserve.org. (Accessed: May 28, 2016).
Smith, B. 2015. Personal observations of Erigeron abajoensis and its habitat. Wildlife Biologist - MLNF, Moab, UT.
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), NRCS. 2016. The PLANTS Database http://plants.usda.gov. National Plant Data Team, Greensboro, NC 27401- 4901 USA. (Accessed: May 24, 2016)
U.S. Forest Service (USFS). 2013. Proposed, Endangered, Threatened and Sensitive Species List, R4. Known / Suspected Distribution by Forest.
Utah Wildlife Action Plan (WAP) Joint Team. 2015. Utah Wildlife Action Plan: A plan for managing native wildlife species and their habitats to prevent listing under the Endangered Species Act. Draft version 2.0. DWR Publication No. 15-14. Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, Salt Lake City, UT. 400 pgs. http://wildlife.utah.gov/wap/wap2015draft2.pdf
Welsh, S.L., N.D. Atwood, S. Goodrich, L.C. Higgins. 1993. A Utah Flora, Second Edition, revised. Great Basin Naturalist Memoirs No. 9.
6
Intermountain Region Species of Conservation Concern Review DRAFT Template
SPECIES: Scientific [common] Erigeron carringtoniae Syn. Erigeron untermannii (USDA 2016) [Carrington’s Daisy / Fleabane] ERCA30 Forest: Manti-La Sal National Forest Forest Reviewer: K. Anderson Date of Review: 10 May 2016 Forest concurrence (or recommendation if new) for No inclusion of species on list of potential SCC: (Enter Yes or No)
Forest review result:
The Forest concurs or recommends the species for inclusion on the list of potential SCC: Yes___ No_X_
Rationale for not concurring is based on (check all that apply): Species is not native to the plan area ______Species is not known to occur in the plan area ______Species persistence in the plan area is not of substantial concern __X____
Issue: Whether the species identified above should be listed as a species of Conservation Concern (SCC) for the Manti-La Sal National Forest (MLNF) as identified in the 2012 Planning Rule (36 CFR 219).
Rule: The 2012 Planning Rule [36 CFR 219.7(c)(3)] states that “The regional forester shall identify the species of conservation concern for the plan area in coordination with the responsible official.” It [36 CFR 219.9(b)(2)(c)] defines a species of conservation concern as “…a species, other than federally recognized threatened, endangered, proposed, or candidate species, that is known to occur in the plan area and for which the regional forester has determined that the best available scientific information indicates substantial concern about the species’ capability to persist over the long-term in the plan area.”
Analysis: The best available scientific information (BASI) indicates synonymy of this species results in an extended distribution and increased population estimates.
Conclusion: Based upon the BASI documented herein, it is not recommended that this species be included in the potential list of SCC for the MLNF.
1
Intermountain Region Species of Conservation Concern Review DRAFT Template
Species: ___ERCA30______
FOREST REVIEW INFORMATION
Status summary based on other methods (information is on the Regional Office list of species considered; correct as needed):
Entity Status/Rank (include definition if Other) NatureServe G2 (NatureServe 2015)
Natural Listed as a USFS Region 4 Sensitive Species; no state status provided Heritage (Franklin and UDNR 2005) Program Not listed (CNHO 2015) State List UT – S2 (NatureServe 2015) Status CO – Not listed (NatureServe 2015)
USDA Forest E. carringtoniae is currently a FS Region 4 sensitive species on the MLNF Service (USFS 2013).
As of May 2016, this species is not listed as a potential SCC or Sensitive Species for any adjoining National Forests (USFS 2013). USDI FWS Not a listed species. Other
Review of species of conservation concern criteria based on definition
1. Native to the plan area
a. Is the species native to the plan area?
Yes_X__ No____
i. If no, provide explanation.
2
Intermountain Region Species of Conservation Concern Review DRAFT Template
Species: ____ERCA30______
2. Known to occur in the plan area
Table 2. Known Occurrence Frequency within the Planning Area (NRIS database) Occurrence: Number Source of Information Known Occurrences in the past 20 N/A COIH 2016 years Year Last Observed 1989 COIH 2016
a. Are all species occurrences only accidental or transient?
Yes____ No_X__
1) If yes, document source for determination.
b. Based on the number of observations and/or year of last observation, can the species be presumed to be established or becoming established in the plan area?
Yes_X__ No____
1) If no, provide explanation,
3. Substantial concern for species persistence in the plan area
a. Describe briefly the distribution, abundance, and population trend of the species in the plan area
Erigeron carringtoniae has been placed in synonymy with E. untermannii (USDA 2016, Barkey et al. 1997). E. carringtoniae is now not the recognized name, deferring to E. untermannii (Barkey et al. 1997). Franklin and UDNR (2005) report that based on the International Code of Botanical nomenclature the correct name for the two species should be E. carringtoniae. The Integrated Taxonomic Information System (ITIS) lists E. carringtoniae as: “not accepted” and E. untermannii as “Accepted Name” (ITIS 2016).
The most recent documented specimen identified as E. carringtoniae in the Intermountain Region Herbarium Network (COIH) was collected in 1989 (COIH 2016). Within the COIH, the most recent documented specimen
3
Intermountain Region Species of Conservation Concern Review DRAFT Template
identified as E. untermannii that was collected within the plan area was collected in 2004 by D. m. Barnes (COIH 2016).
According to the Franklin and UDNR (2005), there are 10 known occurrences of E. carringtoniae across the Wasatch portion of the Manti-La Sa NF. However, under synonymy with E. untermannii the distribution extends further. A survey performed on the Ashley National Forest in the late 1980’s recorded a population of 55,000 E. untermannii (Franklin and UDNR 2005).
The need for population mapping, abundance determinations and the identification of threats are needed within the plan area. Based on synonymy, the distribution for this species expands, and may negate the need to make this a SCC on the Manti-La Sal NF and remove it from the R4 sensitive species list.
b. Describe briefly threats or risk factors to the species or the ecological conditions that support it (i.e. habitat) based on best available scientific information
Off-road vehicle use, on-going road maintenance, and trampling by livestock are threats at some locations (Franklin and UDNR 2005).
c. Considering the trend in populations or habitat and threats or risk factors for those populations or habitats, is there substantial concern for persistence of the species in the plan area?
Yes___ No_X__
1) If no, provide explanation
Lack of information and synonymy of species, which extends distribution, precludes concern for persistence.
4
Intermountain Region Species of Conservation Concern Review DRAFT Template
4. Range Map
Map 1. UT occurrence map for Erigeron carringtoniae (Franklin and UDNR 2005).
Map 2. UT occurrence map for Erigeron untermannii (Franklin and UDNR 2005).
5
Intermountain Region Species of Conservation Concern Review DRAFT Template
Map 3. Range map for Erigeron carringtoniae (USDA 2016).
5. Literature Cited
Barkley, T.M., L. Brouillet, and J. L. Strother. 1997. Erigeron untermannii. In: Flora of North America Editorial Committee, eds. 1993+. Flora of North America North of Mexico. 19+ vols. New York and Oxford. Vol. 20, pp. 284.
Colorado Natural Heritage Program (CNHP). 2015. Tracked Vascular Plant Species. Accessed May 24, 2016. http://www.cnhp.colostate.edu/download/list/vascular.asp
Colorado State Wildlife Action Plan (SWAP). 2015. Colorado State Wildlife Action Plan: A plan for conserving wildlife in Colorado. Colorado Parks and Wildlife, Denver, CO. 865 pgs. http://cpw.state.co.us/aboutus/Pages/StateWildlifeActionPlan.aspx.
Consortium of Intermountain Herbaria (COIH). 2016. http//:www.intermountainbiota.org/portal/index.php. (Accessed on June 01)
Franklin, M. A. and State of Utah Department of Natural Resources (UDNR). 2005. "Plant Information Compiled by the Utah Natural Heritage Program: A Progress Report". All U.S. Government Documents (Utah Regional Depository). Paper 474. http://digitalcommons.usu.edu/govdocs/474
6
Intermountain Region Species of Conservation Concern Review DRAFT Template
Integrated Taxonomic Information System (ITIS). 2016. Online database. http://www.itis.gov/. (Accessed January 27, 2016)
NatureServe. 2015. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. Version 7.1. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available http://explorer.natureserve.org. (Accessed: April 27, 2016).
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), NRCS. 2016. The PLANTS Database http://plants.usda.gov. National Plant Data Team, Greensboro, NC 27401- 4901 USA. (Accessed: May 24, 2016)
U.S. Forest Service (USFS). 2013. Proposed, Endangered, Threatened and Sensitive Species List, R4. Known / Suspected Distribution by Forest.
Utah Wildlife Action Plan (WAP) Joint Team. 2015. Utah Wildlife Action Plan: A plan for managing native wildlife species and their habitats to prevent listing under the Endangered Species Act. Draft version 2.0. DWR Publication No. 15-14. Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, Salt Lake City, UT. 400 pgs. http://wildlife.utah.gov/wap/wap2015draft2.pdf
7
Intermountain Region Species of Conservation Concern Review DRAFT Template
SPECIES: Scientific [common] Eriogonum corymbosum var. revealianum [Reveal’s Corymbed Wild Buckwheat] ERCOR Forest: Manti-La Sal National Forest Forest Reviewer: K. Anderson Date of Review: 1 June 2016 Forest concurrence (or recommendation if new) for No inclusion of species on list of potential SCC: (Enter Yes or No)
Forest review result:
The Forest concurs or recommends the species for inclusion on the list of potential SCC: Yes___ No_X__
Rationale for not concurring is based on (check all that apply): Species is not native to the plan area ___X____ Species is not known to occur in the plan area ___X____ Species persistence in the plan area is not of substantial concern __X____
Issue: Whether the species identified above should be listed as a species of Conservation Concern (SCC) for the Manti-La Sal National Forest (MLNF) as identified in the 2012 Planning Rule (36 CFR 219).
Rule: The 2012 Planning Rule [36 CFR 219.7(c)(3)] states that “The regional forester shall identify the species of conservation concern for the plan area in coordination with the responsible official.” It [36 CFR 219.9(b)(2)(c)] defines a species of conservation concern as “…a species, other than federally recognized threatened, endangered, proposed, or candidate species, that is known to occur in the plan area and for which the regional forester has determined that the best available scientific information indicates substantial concern about the species’ capability to persist over the long-term in the plan area.”
Analysis: The best available scientific information (BASI) does not document this species as established within the plan area.
Conclusion: Based upon the BASI documented herein, it is not recommended that this species be included in the potential list of SCC for the MLNF.
1
Intermountain Region Species of Conservation Concern Review DRAFT Template
Species: _ERCOR_____
FOREST REVIEW INFORMATION
Status summary based on other methods (information is on the Regional Office list of species considered; correct as needed):
Entity Status/Rank (include definition if Other) NatureServe G5T3 (NatureServe 2015)
Natural UT – Not listed (UDNR 2015) Heritage CO – Not listed (CNHP 2015) Program State List UT - S3 (NatureServe 2016) Status CO- Not Listed (NatureServe 2016)
Not included in the CO or UT Wildlife Action Plans (SWAP 2015, WAP 2015) USDA Forest As of May 2016, this species is not listed as a potential SCC or Sensitive Service Species for any adjoining National Forests (USFS 2013).
USDI FWS Not a listed species. Other
Review of species of conservation concern criteria based on definition
1. Native to the plan area
a. Is the species native to the plan area?
Yes___ No_X__
1. If no, provide explanation.
Welsh et al. (2015) report the species from Garfield, Kane, Piute, and Wayne counties. None of those counties are in the plan area.
2
Intermountain Region Species of Conservation Concern Review DRAFT Template
Species: _ERCOR______
2. Known to occur in the plan area
Table 2. Known Occurrence Frequency within the Planning Area (NRIS database) Occurrence: Number Source of Information Known Occurrences in the past 20 0 Intermountain Region Herbarium years Network (COIH 2016) Year Last Observed 0 Intermountain Region Herbarium Network (COIH 2016)
a. Are all species occurrences only accidental or transient?
Yes___ No_X__
1) If yes, document source for determination.
Not reported for the plan area (Welsh et al. 2015)
b. Based on the number of observations and/or year of last observation, can the species be presumed to be established or becoming established in the plan area?
Yes___ No_X__
1) If no, provide explanation.
Not reported for the plan area (Welsh et al. 2015)
3. Substantial concern for species persistence in the plan area
a. Describe briefly the distribution, abundance, and population trend of the species in the plan area
Not reported for the plan area (Welsh et al. 2015)
USDA Plants database puts E. corymbosum var revealinum under E. c. var corymbosum, along with 7 other species, which extends habitat range (USDA 2016). However, Welsh et al. (2015) maintain the varietal distinctions but report E. c. var revealianum (senso stricto) as
3
Intermountain Region Species of Conservation Concern Review DRAFT Template
occurring in areas outside the plan area, that being in the southern counties.
b. Describe briefly threats or risk factors to the species or the ecological conditions that support it (i.e. habitat) based on best available scientific information
Not reported for the plan area (Welsh et al. 2015)
c. Considering the trend in populations or habitat and threats or risk factors for those populations or habitats, is there substantial concern for persistence of the species in the plan area?
Yes___ No_X__
1) If no, provide explanation
Not reported for the plan area (Welsh et al. 2015).
4. Range Map
Map 1. Utah occurrence map for Eriogonum corymbosum var. revealianum (Franklin
4
Intermountain Region Species of Conservation Concern Review DRAFT Template
and UDNR 2005).
5. Literature Cited
Colorado Natural Heritage Program (CNHP). 2015. Tracked Vascular Plant Species. http://www.cnhp.colostate.edu/download/list/vascular.asp. (Accessed May 24, 2016).
Colorado State Wildlife Action Plan (SWAP). 2015. Colorado State Wildlife Action Plan: A plan for conserving wildlife in Colorado. Colorado Parks and Wildlife, Denver, CO. 865 pgs. http://cpw.state.co.us/aboutus/Pages/StateWildlifeActionPlan.aspx
Consortium of Intermountain Herbaria (COIH). 2016. http//:www.intermountainbiota.org/portal/index.php. (Accessed on June 01)
Franklin, M. A. and State of Utah Department of Natural Resources (UDNR). 2005. "Plant Information Compiled by the Utah Natural Heritage Program: A Progress Report". All U.S. Government Documents (Utah Regional Depository). Paper 474. http://digitalcommons.usu.edu/govdocs/474
NatureServe. 2015. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. Version 7.1. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available http://explorer.natureserve.org. (Accessed: April 27, 2016).
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), NRCS. 2016. The PLANTS Database http://plants.usda.gov. National Plant Data Team, Greensboro, NC 27401- 4901 USA. (Accessed: May 24, 2016)
U.S. Forest Service (USFS). 2013. Proposed, Endangered, Threatened and Sensitive Species List, R4. Known / Suspected Distribution by Forest.
Utah Department of Natural Resources (UDNR). Division of Wildlife Resources. 2015. Utah Sensitive Species List.
Utah Wildlife Action Plan (WAP) Joint Team. 2015. Utah Wildlife Action Plan: A plan for managing native wildlife species and their habitats to prevent listing under the Endangered Species Act. Draft version 2.0. DWR Publication No. 15-14. Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, Salt Lake City, UT. 400 pgs. http://wildlife.utah.gov/wap/wap2015draft2.pdf
Welsh, S. L., N. D. Atwood, S. Goodrich, and L. C. Higgins. 2015. A Utah Flora. Provo Utah. 987p.
5
Intermountain Region Species of Conservation Concern Review DRAFT Template
SPECIES: Scientific [common] Erigeron kachinensis [Kachina daisy] ERKA Forest: Manti-La Sal National Forest Forest Reviewer: B. Smith Date of Review: 28may2016 Forest concurrence (or No recommendation if new) for inclusion of species on list of potential SCC: (Enter Yes or No)
Forest review result:
The Forest concurs or recommends the species for inclusion on the list of potential SCC: Yes___ No_X__
Rationale for not concurring is based on (check all that apply): Species is not native to the plan area ______Species is not known to occur in the plan area ______Species persistence in the plan area is not of substantial concern _X___
Issue: Whether the species identified above should be listed as a species of Conservation Concern (SCC) for the Manti-La Sal National Forest (MLNF) as identified in the 2012 Planning Rule (36 CFR 219).
Rule: The 2012 Planning Rule [36 CFR 219.7(c)(3)] states that “The regional forester shall identify the species of conservation concern for the plan area in coordination with the responsible official.” It [36 CFR 219.9(b)(2)(c)] defines a species of conservation concern as “…a species, other than federally recognized threatened, endangered, proposed, or candidate species, that is known to occur in the plan area and for which the regional forester has determined that the best available scientific information indicates substantial concern about the species’ capability to persist over the long-term in the plan area.”
Analysis: The best available scientific information (BASI) indicates that the species is not of local conservation concern.
Conclusion: Based upon the BASI documented herein, it is not recommended that this species be included in the potential list of SCC for the MLNF.
1
Intermountain Region Species of Conservation Concern Review DRAFT Template
Species: _Kachina daisy______
FOREST REVIEW INFORMATION
Status summary based on other methods (information is on the Regional Office list of species considered; correct as needed):
Entity Status/Rank (include definition if Other) NatureServe G2/N2 (NatureServe 2015)
Natural UT - No Conservation Status Issued (Franklin and UDNR 2005) Heritage CO – “Fully Tracked” (CNHP 2015) Program State List UT – S2 (NatureServe 2015) Status CO – S1 (NatureServe 2015)
Not included in the CO or UT Wildlife Action Plans (SWAP 2015, WAP 2015) USDA Forest Erigeron kachinensis is currently a FS Region 4 sensitive species for the Service Manti La-Sal National Forest (USFS 2013).
As of May 2016, this species is not listed as a potential SCC or Sensitive Species for any adjoining National Forests (USFS 2013). USDI FWS Not a listed species. Other
Review of species of conservation concern criteria based on definition
1. Native to the plan area
a. Is the species native to the plan area?
Yes_X__ No___
i. If no, provide explanation.
2
Intermountain Region Species of Conservation Concern Review DRAFT Template
Species: _Kachina daisy______
2. Known to occur in the plan area
Table 2. Known Occurrence Frequency within the Planning Area (NRIS database) Occurrence: Number Source of Information Known Occurrences in the past 20 36 MLNF 2013 years Year Last Observed 2013 MLNF 2013
a. Are all species occurrences only accidental or transient?
Yes___ No__X_
1) If yes, document source for determination.
b. Based on the number of observations and/or year of last observation, can the species be presumed to be established or becoming established in the plan area?
Yes_X__ No___
1) If no, provide explanation.
3. Substantial concern for species persistence in the plan area
a. Describe briefly the distribution, abundance, and population trend of the species in the plan area.
This Colorado Plateau endemic is known from a few sites in southeastern Utah and adjacent Colorado. It has been found in widely scattered locations on the Monticello district and adjacent BLM land. It grows in seeps and hanging gardens on Mossback and Navajo sandstone formations and in moist pockets on open slickrock in ponderosa pine habitat types at elevations of 7,000 to 8,000 feet (Welsh et al 1993, Atwood et al 1991). Known populations appear stable (MLNF 2013).
3
Intermountain Region Species of Conservation Concern Review DRAFT Template
b. Describe briefly threats or risk factors to the species or the ecological conditions that support it (i.e. habitat) based on best available scientific information.
This plant’s habitat is specific to seeps within the fins and rock ledges of sandstone walls. Livestock grazing rarely disturbs this inaccessible habitat type within the canyons. Known populations in the plan area have not been adversely affected by fire (MLNF 2013). Identified threats include recreation and drought (NatureServe 2015).
c. Considering the trend in populations or habitat and threats or risk factors for those populations or habitats, is there substantial concern for persistence of the species in the plan area?
Yes___ No_X__
1) If no, provide explanation.
The known occurrences in the plan area are protected by inaccessibility of habitat, and are not threatened by management activities.
4. Range Map
Map 1. UT occurence map of Erigeron kachinensis (Franklin and UDNR 2005).
4
Intermountain Region Species of Conservation Concern Review DRAFT Template
Map 2. UT occurence map of Erigeron kachinensis from Albee et al 1988.
Map 3. Distribution map of Erigeron kachinensis (USDA 2016).
5
Intermountain Region Species of Conservation Concern Review DRAFT Template
5. Literature Cited
Albee, B.J., L.M. Shultz and S. Goodrich. 1988. Atlas of the Vascular Plants of Utah. Utah Museum of Natural History Occasional Publication No. 7.
Atwood, D., J. Holland, R. Bolander, B. Franklin, D. E. House, L. Armstrong, K. Thorne, and L. England. 1991. Utah Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Plant Field Guide. USFS, NPS, BLM, UNHP, USFWS, EPA, Navajo Nation, and Skull Valley Goshute Tribe.
Colorado Natural Heritage Program (CNHP). 2015. Tracked Vascular Plant Species. http://www.cnhp.colostate.edu/download/list/vascular.asp. (Accessed May 24, 2016).
Colorado State Wildlife Action Plan (SWAP). 2015. Colorado State Wildlife Action Plan: A plan for conserving wildlife in Colorado. Colorado Parks and Wildlife, Denver, CO. 865 pgs. http://cpw.state.co.us/aboutus/Pages/StateWildlifeActionPlan.aspx
Franklin, M. A. and State of Utah Department of Natural Resources (UDNR). 2005. "Plant Information Compiled by the Utah Natural Heritage Program: A Progress Report". All U.S. Government Documents (Utah Regional Depository). Paper 474. http://digitalcommons.usu.edu/govdocs/474
Manti-La Sal National Forest (MLNF). 2013. District survey and EO data. MLNF, Moab District.
NatureServe. 2015. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. Version 7.1. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available http://explorer.natureserve.org. (Accessed: May 28, 2016).
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), NRCS. 2016. The PLANTS Database http://plants.usda.gov. National Plant Data Team, Greensboro, NC 27401- 4901 USA. (Accessed: May 24, 2016)
U.S. Forest Service (USFS). 2013. Proposed, Endangered, Threatened and Sensitive Species List, R4. Known / Suspected Distribution by Forest.
Utah Wildlife Action Plan (WAP) Joint Team. 2015. Utah Wildlife Action Plan: A plan for managing native wildlife species and their habitats to prevent listing under the Endangered Species Act. Draft version 2.0. DWR Publication No. 15-14. Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, Salt Lake City, UT. 400 pgs. http://wildlife.utah.gov/wap/wap2015draft2.pdf
6
Intermountain Region Species of Conservation Concern Review DRAFT Template
Welsh, S.L., N.D. Atwood, S. Goodrich, L.C. Higgins. 1993. A Utah Flora, Second Edition, revised. Great Basin Naturalist Memoirs No. 9.
7
Intermountain Region Species of Conservation Concern Review DRAFT Template
SPECIES: Scientific [common] Erigeron melanocephalus [Black-head Fleabane / Dark head Daisy] ERME2 Forest: Manti-La Sal National Forest Forest Reviewer: K. Anderson Date of Review: 10 May 2016 Forest concurrence (or recommendation if new) for No inclusion of species on list of potential SCC: (Enter Yes or No)
Forest review result:
The Forest concurs or recommends the species for inclusion on the list of potential SCC: Yes___ No_X_
Rationale for not concurring is based on (check all that apply): Species is not native to the plan area ______Species is not known to occur in the plan area ______Species persistence in the plan area is not of substantial concern __X____
Issue: Whether the species identified above should be listed as a species of Conservation Concern (SCC) for the Manti-La Sal National Forest (MLNF) as identified in the 2012 Planning Rule (36 CFR 219).
Rule: The 2012 Planning Rule [36 CFR 219.7(c)(3)] states that “The regional forester shall identify the species of conservation concern for the plan area in coordination with the responsible official.” It [36 CFR 219.9(b)(2)(c)] defines a species of conservation concern as “…a species, other than federally recognized threatened, endangered, proposed, or candidate species, that is known to occur in the plan area and for which the regional forester has determined that the best available scientific information indicates substantial concern about the species’ capability to persist over the long-term in the plan area.”
Analysis: The best available scientific information (BASI) indicates that there are minimal threats/risks to the species and its habitat in the plan area.
Conclusion: Based upon the BASI documented herein, it is not recommended that this species be included in the potential list of SCC for the MLNF.
1
Intermountain Region Species of Conservation Concern Review DRAFT Template
Species: ____ERME2______
FOREST REVIEW INFORMATION
Status summary based on other methods (information is on the Regional Office list of species considered; correct as needed):
Entity Status/Rank (include definition if Other) NatureServe G4 (NatureServe 2015)
Natural UT – Not Listed (UDNR 2015) Heritage CO – Not Listed (CNHP 2015) Program State List Utah – S1 (NatureServe 2015) Status CO – S4 (NatureServe 2015)
Not included in the CO or UT Wildlife Action Plans (SWAP 2015, WAP 2015) USDA Forest As of May 2016, this species is not listed as a potential SCC or Sensitive Service Species for any adjoining National Forests.
USDI FWS Not a listed species. Other
Review of species of conservation concern criteria based on definition
1. Native to the plan area
a. Is the species native to the plan area?
Yes_X__ No___
i. If no, provide explanation.
2
Intermountain Region Species of Conservation Concern Review DRAFT Template
Species: _____ERME2______
2. Known to occur in the plan area
Table 2. Known Occurrence Frequency within the Planning Area (NRIS database) Occurrence: Number Source of Information Known Occurrences in the past 20 2 COIH 2016 years Year Last Observed 2008 COIH 2016
a. Are all species occurrences only accidental or transient?
Yes___ No_X__
1) If yes, document source for determination.
b. Based on the number of observations and/or year of last observation, can the species be presumed to be established or becoming established in the plan area?
Yes_X__ No___
1) If no, provide explanation.
3. Substantial concern for species persistence in the plan area
a. Describe briefly the distribution, abundance, and population trend of the species in the plan area
Appears to be native to the plan area, but is more abundant elsewhere. Found on the La Sal Mountains (COIH 2016).
b. Describe briefly threats or risk factors to the species or the ecological conditions that support it (i.e. habitat) based on best available scientific information
No known threats/risks.
3
Intermountain Region Species of Conservation Concern Review DRAFT Template
c. Considering the trend in populations or habitat and threats or risk factors for those populations or habitats, is there substantial concern for persistence of the species in the plan area?
Baseline data collected in 2008 may help to determine trend and sustainability. Yes___ No_X__
1) If no, provide explanation
Species has been known and collected from the area for over fifty years (COIH 2016)
More abundant in Colorado. Based on 482 herbarium records only 4 were found in the plan area for a < 1% presence in the accessed herbarium record. Lack of information on species (IRHN 2016).
4. Range Map
Map 1. Regional range map for Erigeron melanocephalus (NatureServe 2015).
4
Intermountain Region Species of Conservation Concern Review DRAFT Template
5. Literature Cited
Colorado Natural Heritage Program (CNHP). 2015. Tracked Vascular Plant Species. http://www.cnhp.colostate.edu/download/list/vascular.asp. (Accessed May 24, 2016).
Colorado State Wildlife Action Plan (SWAP). 2015. Colorado State Wildlife Action Plan: A plan for conserving wildlife in Colorado. Colorado Parks and Wildlife, Denver, CO. 865 pgs. http://cpw.state.co.us/aboutus/Pages/StateWildlifeActionPlan.aspx
Consortium of Intermountain Herbaria (COIH). 2016. http//:www.intermountainbiota.org/portal/index.php. (Accessed on May 10, 2016)
NatureServe. 2015. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. Version 7.1. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available http://explorer.natureserve.org. (Accessed: May 23, 2016 ).
Utah Department of Natural Resources (UDNR). Division of Wildlife Resources. 2015. Utah Sensitive Species List.
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), NRCS. 2016. The PLANTS Database http://plants.usda.gov. National Plant Data Team, Greensboro, NC 27401- 4901 USA. (Accessed: May 24, 2016)
U.S. Forest Service (USFS). 2013. Proposed, Endangered, Threatened and Sensitive Species List, R4. Known / Suspected Distribution by Forest.
Utah Wildlife Action Plan (WAP) Joint Team. 2015. Utah Wildlife Action Plan: A plan for managing native wildlife species and their habitats to prevent listing under the Endangered Species Act. Draft version 2.0. DWR Publication No. 15-14. Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, Salt Lake City, UT. 400 pgs. http://wildlife.utah.gov/wap/wap2015draft2.pdf
5
Intermountain Region Species of Conservation Concern DRAFT Review Template
SPECIES: Scientific [common] Erigeron untermannii Sny. Erigeron carringtoniae (USDA 2016)
[Utterman’s Daisy / Indian Canyon Fleabane] ERUN5 Forest: Manti-La Sal National Forest Forest Reviewer: K. Anderson Date of Review: 10 May 2016 Forest concurrence (or recommendation if new) for No inclusion of species on list of potential SCC: (Enter Yes or No)
Forest review result:
The Forest concurs or recommends the species for inclusion on the list of potential SCC: Yes___ No_X_
Rationale for not concurring is based on (check all that apply): Species is not native to the plan area ______Species is not known to occur in the plan area ______Species persistence in the plan area is not of substantial concern __X____
Issue: Whether the species identified above should be listed as a species of Conservation Concern (SCC) for the Manti-La Sal National Forest (MLNF) as identified in the 2012 Planning Rule (36 CFR 219).
Rule: The 2012 Planning Rule [36 CFR 219.7(c)(3)] states that “The regional forester shall identify the species of conservation concern for the plan area in coordination with the responsible official.” It [36 CFR 219.9(b)(2)(c)] defines a species of conservation concern as “…a species, other than federally recognized threatened, endangered, proposed, or candidate species, that is known to occur in the plan area and for which the regional forester has determined that the best available scientific information indicates substantial concern about the species’ capability to persist over the long-term in the plan area.”
Analysis: The best available scientific information (BASI) indicates a level of uncertainty in identification of this species as an established species within the plan area.
Conclusion: Based upon the BASI documented herein, it is not recommended that this species be included in the potential list of SCC for the MLNF.
1
Intermountain Region Species of Conservation Concern DRAFT Review Template
Species: ___ERUN5______
FOREST REVIEW INFORMATION
Status summary based on other methods (information is on the Regional Office list of species considered; correct as needed):
Entity Status/Rank (include definition if Other) NatureServe G2 (NatureServe 2015)
Natural UT – Not Listed (UDNR 2015) Heritage CO - Not listed (CNHO 2015) Program State List UT – S2 (NatureServe 2015) Status CO – Not listed (NatureServe 2015)
USDA Forest E. untermannii is currently a FS Region 4 sensitive species on the Manti Service La-Sal NF (USFS 2013).
As of May 2016, the Ashley National Forest has recommended to the Regional Forester that this species be considered as a potential SCC candidate, but it is not listed as a sensitive species on any other adjoining National Forests (USFS 2013). USDI FWS Not a listed species. Other
Review of species of conservation concern criteria based on definition
1. Native to the plan area
a. Is the species native to the plan area?
Yes___ No_X__
i. If no, provide explanation. Under the strict sense, this species is endemic to Duchesne County (Franklin and UDNR 2005).
2
Intermountain Region Species of Conservation Concern DRAFT Review Template
Species: ____ERUN5______
2. Known to occur in the plan area
Table 2. Known Occurrence Frequency within the Planning Area (NRIS database) Occurrence: Number Source of Information Known Occurrences in the past 20 1 COIH 2016 years Year Last Observed 2004 COIH 2016
a. Are all species occurrences only accidental or transient?
Yes_X__ No___
1) If yes, document source for determination. Under the strict sense, this species is endemic to Uinta Co.
b. Based on the number of observations and/or year of last observation, can the species be presumed to be established or becoming established in the plan area?
Yes___ No_X__
1) If no, provide explanation, Under the strict sense, this species is endemic to Duchesne County (Franklin and UDNR 2005).
3. Substantial concern for species persistence in the plan area
a. Describe briefly the distribution, abundance, and population trend of the species in the plan area
Based on UNHP (2015), E. untermannii (senso stricto) does not occur on the Manti-La Sal NF. However, this species has been placed in synonymy with E. carringtoniae (Barkley et al 1997), which is currently also a FS Region 4 sensitive species. E. carringtoniae is now not the recognized name, deferring to E. untermannii (Barkley et al 1997). However, Franklin and UDNR (2005) reports that based on the International Code of Botanical Nomenclature the correct name should be E. carringtoniae. The Integrated Taxonomic Information System (ITIS) lists E. carringtoniae as: “not accepted” and E. untermannii as “Accepted Name” (ITIS 2016).
3
Intermountain Region Species of Conservation Concern DRAFT Review Template
A survey performed on the Ashley National Forest in the late 1980’s recorded a population of 55,000 E. untermannii (Franklin and UDNR 2005). Based on synonymy, the distribution for this species expands, and may negate the need to make this a SCC on the Manti-La Sal NF.
b. Describe briefly threats or risk factors to the species or the ecological conditions that support it (i.e. habitat) based on best available scientific information
Oil/gas exploration and grazing (Franklin and UDNR 2005)
c. Considering the trend in populations or habitat and threats or risk factors for those populations or habitats, is there substantial concern for persistence of the species in the plan area?
Yes___ No_X__
1) If no, provide explanation Lack of information precludes concern for persistence. 4. Range Map
Map 1. UT occurrence map for Erigeron untermannii (Franklin and UDNR 2005).
4
Intermountain Region Species of Conservation Concern DRAFT Review Template
Map 2. UT occurrence map for Erigeron carringtoniae (Franklin and UDNR 2005).
Map 3. Range map for Erigeron untermannii (USDA 2016).
5. Supporting Literature
Barkley, T.M., L. Brouillet, and J. L. Strother. 1997. Erigeron untermannii. In: Flora of North America Editorial Committee, eds. 1993+. Flora of North America North of Mexico. 19+ vols. New York and Oxford. Vol. 20, pp. 284.
5
Intermountain Region Species of Conservation Concern DRAFT Review Template
Colorado Natural Heritage Program (CNHP). 2015. Tracked Vascular Plant Species. Accessed May 24, 2016. http://www.cnhp.colostate.edu/download/list/vascular.asp
Colorado State Wildlife Action Plan (SWAP). 2015. Colorado State Wildlife Action Plan: A plan for conserving wildlife in Colorado. Colorado Parks and Wildlife, Denver, CO. 865 pgs. http://cpw.state.co.us/aboutus/Pages/StateWildlifeActionPlan.aspx
Consortium of Intermountain Herbaria (COIH). 2016. http//:www.intermountainbiota.org/portal/index.php. (Accessed on June 01)
Franklin, M. A. and State of Utah Department of Natural Resources (UDNR). 2005. "Plant Information Compiled by the Utah Natural Heritage Program: A Progress Report". All U.S. Government Documents (Utah Regional Depository). Paper 474. http://digitalcommons.usu.edu/govdocs/474
Integrated Taxonomic Information System (ITIS). 2016. Online database. http://www.itis.gov/. (Accessed January 27, 2016)
NatureServe. 2015. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. Version 7.1. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available http://explorer.natureserve.org. (Accessed: April 27, 2016).
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), NRCS. 2016. The PLANTS Database http://plants.usda.gov. National Plant Data Team, Greensboro, NC 27401- 4901 USA. (Accessed: May 24, 2016)
U.S. Forest Service (USFS). 2013. Proposed, Endangered, Threatened and Sensitive Species List, R4. Known / Suspected Distribution by Forest.
Utah Department of Natural Resources (UDNR). Division of Wildlife Resources. 2015. Utah Sensitive Species List.
Utah Natural Heritage Program (UNHP). 2015. Utah Division of Wildlife Resources. UNHP Biodiversity Tracking and Conservation System (BIOTICS).
Utah Wildlife Action Plan (WAP) Joint Team. 2015. Utah Wildlife Action Plan: A plan for managing native wildlife species and their habitats to prevent listing under the Endangered Species Act. Draft version 2.0. DWR Publication No. 15-14. Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, Salt Lake City, UT. 400 pgs. http://wildlife.utah.gov/wap/wap2015draft2.pdf
6
Intermountain Region Species of Conservation Concern Review DRAFT Template
SPECIES: Scientific [common] Festuca dasyclada [Sedge / Utah Fescue] FEDA Forest: Manti-La Sal National Forest Forest Reviewer: K. Anderson Date of Review: 11 May 2016 Forest concurrence (or recommendation if new) for No inclusion of species on list of potential SCC: (Enter Yes or No)
Forest review result:
The Forest concurs or recommends the species for inclusion on the list of potential SCC: Yes___ No_X_
Rationale for not concurring is based on (check all that apply): Species is not native to the plan area ______Species is not known to occur in the plan area ______Species persistence in the plan area is not of substantial concern _X_____
Issue: Whether the species identified above should be listed as a species of Conservation Concern (SCC) for the Manti-La Sal National Forest (MLNF) as identified in the 2012 Planning Rule (36 CFR 219).
Rule: The 2012 Planning Rule [36 CFR 219.7(c)(3)] states that “The regional forester shall identify the species of conservation concern for the plan area in coordination with the responsible official.” It [36 CFR 219.9(b)(2)(c)] defines a species of conservation concern as “…a species, other than federally recognized threatened, endangered, proposed, or candidate species, that is known to occur in the plan area and for which the regional forester has determined that the best available scientific information indicates substantial concern about the species’ capability to persist over the long-term in the plan area.”
Analysis: The best available scientific information (BASI) indicates a there is not enough current scientific information to indicate a level of uncertainty in the species capability to persist within the plan area.
Conclusion: Based upon the BASI documented herein, it is not recommended that this species be included in the potential list of SCC for the MLNF.
1
Intermountain Region Species of Conservation Concern Review DRAFT Template
Species: ___FEDA______
FOREST REVIEW INFORMATION
Status summary based on other methods (information is on the Regional Office list of species considered; correct as needed):
Entity Status/Rank (include definition if Other) NatureServe G3 (NatureServe 2015)
Natural Utah - Not listed (UDNR 2015) Heritage Colorado – Not listed (CNHP 2015) Program State List UT – S1 (NatureServe 2015) Status CO – S3 (NatureServe 2015)
Not included in the CO or UT Wildlife Action Plans (SWAP 2015, WAP 2015) USDA Forest As of May 2016, this species is not listed as a potential SCC or Sensitive Service Species for any adjoining National Forests (USFS 2013).
USDI FWS Not a listed species. Other
Review of species of conservation concern criteria based on definition
1. Native to the plan area
a. Is the species native to the plan area?
Yes_X__ No___
i. If no, provide explanation.
2
Intermountain Region Species of Conservation Concern Review DRAFT Template
Species: ____ FEDA ______
2. Known to occur in the plan area
Table 2. Known Occurrence Frequency within the Planning Area (NRIS database) Occurrence: Number Source of Information Known Occurrences in the past 20 0 Intermountain Region Herbarium years Network (COIH 2016) Year Last Observed N/A Collection from ‘Wagon Road Ridge, Em[e]ry Co.’ cited by Cronquist et al. 1977
a. Are all species occurrences only accidental or transient?
Yes___ No_X__
1) If yes, document source for determination.
b. Based on the number of observations and/or year of last observation, can the species be presumed to be established or becoming established in the plan area?
Yes_X__ No___
1) If no, provide explanation.
3. Substantial concern for species persistence in the plan area
a. Describe briefly the distribution, abundance, and population trend of the species in the plan area
No known information.
b. Describe briefly threats or risk factors to the species or the ecological conditions that support it (i.e. habitat) based on best available scientific information
No known information. However, grazing can be assumed to have an effect.
3
Intermountain Region Species of Conservation Concern Review DRAFT Template
c. Considering the trend in populations or habitat and threats or risk factors for those populations or habitats, is there substantial concern for persistence of the species in the plan area?
Yes___ No_X__
1) If no, provide explanation
Lack of information precludes a concern for persistence.
4. Range Map
Map 1. UT occurrence map for Festuca dasyclada (Franklin and UDNR 2005).
4
Intermountain Region Species of Conservation Concern Review DRAFT Template
Map 2. Range map for Festuca dasyclada (USDA 2016).
5. Supporting Literature
Colorado Natural Heritage Program (CNHP). 2015. Tracked Vascular Plant Species. http://www.cnhp.colostate.edu/download/list/vascular.asp. (Accessed May 24, 2016).
Colorado State Wildlife Action Plan (SWAP). 2015. Colorado State Wildlife Action Plan: A plan for conserving wildlife in Colorado. Colorado Parks and Wildlife, Denver, CO. 865 pgs. http://cpw.state.co.us/aboutus/Pages/StateWildlifeActionPlan.aspx
Consortium of Intermountain Herbaria (COIH). 2016. http//:www.intermountainbiota.org/portal/index.php. (Accessed on June 01)
Cronquist, A., A. H. Holmgren, N. H. Holmgren, J. L. Reveal, P. K. Holmgren. 1984. Intermountain Flora. Vol. 4. New York Botanical Garden, Bronx, NY.
Franklin, M. A. and State of Utah Department of Natural Resources (UDNR). 2005. "Plant Information Compiled by the Utah Natural Heritage Program: A Progress Report". All U.S. Government Documents (Utah Regional Depository). Paper 474. http://digitalcommons.usu.edu/govdocs/474
NatureServe. 2015. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. Version 7.1. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available http://explorer.natureserve.org. (Accessed: April 27, 2016).
5
Intermountain Region Species of Conservation Concern Review DRAFT Template
6
Intermountain Region Species of Conservation Concern Review DRAFT Template
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), NRCS. 2016. The PLANTS Database http://plants.usda.gov. National Plant Data Team, Greensboro, NC 27401- 4901 USA. (Accessed: May 24, 2016)
U.S. Forest Service (USFS). 2013. Proposed, Endangered, Threatened and Sensitive Species List, R4. Known / Suspected Distribution by Forest.
Utah Department of Natural Resources (UDNR). Division of Wildlife Resources. 2015. Utah Sensitive Species List.
Utah Wildlife Action Plan (WAP) Joint Team. 2015. Utah Wildlife Action Plan: A plan for managing native wildlife species and their habitats to prevent listing under the Endangered Species Act. Draft version 2.0. DWR Publication No. 15-14. Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, Salt Lake City, UT. 400 pgs. http://wildlife.utah.gov/wap/wap2015draft2.pdf
7
Intermountain Region Species of Conservation Concern Review DRAFT Template
SPECIES: Scientific [common] Habenaria zothecina Sny. Platanthera zothecina (USDA 2016) [Alcove bog orchid] HAZO Forest: Manti-La Sal National Forest Forest Reviewer: K. Anderson Date of Review: 25 May 2016 Forest concurrence (or recommendation if new) for No inclusion of species on list of potential SCC: (Enter Yes or No)
Forest review result:
The Forest concurs or recommends the species for inclusion on the list of potential SCC: Yes___ No_X__
Rationale for not concurring is based on (check all that apply): Species is not native to the plan area ______Species is not known to occur in the plan area ______Species persistence in the plan area is not of substantial concern __X____
Issue: Whether the species identified above should be listed as a species of Conservation Concern (SCC) for the Manti-La Sal National Forest (MLNF) as identified in the 2012 Planning Rule (36 CFR 219).
Rule: The 2012 Planning Rule [36 CFR 219.7(c)(3)] states that “The regional forester shall identify the species of conservation concern for the plan area in coordination with the responsible official.” It [36 CFR 219.9(b)(2)(c)] defines a species of conservation concern as “…a species, other than federally recognized threatened, endangered, proposed, or candidate species, that is known to occur in the plan area and for which the regional forester has determined that the best available scientific information indicates substantial concern about the species’ capability to persist over the long-term in the plan area.”
Analysis: The best available scientific information (BASI) indicates that there is not enough scientific information to indicate a “substantial concern about the species capability to persist” within the plan area.
Conclusion: Based upon the BASI documented herein, it is not recommended that this species be included in the potential list of SCC for the MLNF.
1
Intermountain Region Species of Conservation Concern Review DRAFT Template
Species: __HAZO____
FOREST REVIEW INFORMATION
Status summary based on other methods (information is on the Regional Office list of species considered; correct as needed):
Entity Status/Rank (include definition if Other) NatureServe G2G3 (NatureServe 2015)
Natural UT – Not Listed (UDNR 2015) Heritage CO – Not Listed (CNHP 2015) Program State List UT – S2 (NatureServe 2015) Status CO – S1 (NatureServe 2015)
Not included in the CO or UT Wildlife Action Plans (SWAP 2015, WAP 2015) USDA Forest As of May 2016, this species is not listed as a potential SCC or Sensitive Service Species for any adjoining National Forests (USFS 2013).
USDI FWS Not a listed species. Other Navajo Nation – S1 (NatureServe 2015)
This species is listed on the Navajo Nation’s Threatened and Endangered Species List (NNDFW 20008) as G3 – “A species or subspecies whose prospects of survival or recruitment are likely to be in jeopardy in the foreseeable future.”
Review of species of conservation concern criteria based on definition
1. Native to the plan area
a. Is the species native to the plan area?
Yes_X__ No___
1. If no, provide explanation.
2
Intermountain Region Species of Conservation Concern Review DRAFT Template
Species: __ HAZO _____
2. Known to occur in the plan area
Table 2. Known Occurrence Frequency within the Planning Area (NRIS database) Occurrence: Number Source of Information Known Occurrences in the past N/A Intermountain Region 20 years Information Herbarium Network protected (COIH 2016) Year Last Observed N/A Intermountain Region Information Herbarium Network protected (COIH 2016)
a. Are all species occurrences only accidental or transient?
Yes___ No_X__
1) If yes, document source for determination.
b. Based on the number of observations and/or year of last observation, can the species be presumed to be established or becoming established in the plan area?
Yes___ No_X__
1) If no, provide explanation.
Occurrence appears to be based on a single 1990 collection from Notch Canyon (UNHP 2015).
3. Substantial concern for species persistence in the plan area
a. Describe briefly the distribution, abundance, and population trend of the species in the plan area
Synonyms include Limnorchis zothecina and Platanthera zothecina (USDA 2016). Welsh et al. 2015 use H. zothecina, however P. zothecina is the accepted name (ITIS 2016).
3
Intermountain Region Species of Conservation Concern Review DRAFT Template
b. Describe briefly threats or risk factors to the species or the ecological conditions that support it (i.e. habitat) based on best available scientific information
No information but suspected to relate to anthropogenic recreation due to the difficult to access hanging-garden habitat
c. Considering the trend in populations or habitat and threats or risk factors for those populations or habitats, is there substantial concern for persistence of the species in the plan area?
Yes___ No_X__
1) If no, provide explanation
There is not enough scientific information to indicate a “substantial concern for persistence”.
4. Range Map
Map 1. UT species occurrence map for Habenaria zothecina (Franklin and UDNR 2005).
4
Intermountain Region Species of Conservation Concern Review DRAFT Template
Map 2. County distribution map for Habenaria zothecina (USDA 2016).
Map 3. Distribution map for Habenaria zothecina (USDA 2016).
5. Literature Cited
Colorado Natural Heritage Program (CNHP). 2015. Tracked Vascular Plant Species. http://www.cnhp.colostate.edu/download/list/vascular.asp. (Accessed May 24, 2016).
5
Intermountain Region Species of Conservation Concern Review DRAFT Template
Colorado State Wildlife Action Plan (SWAP). 2015. Colorado State Wildlife Action Plan: A plan for conserving wildlife in Colorado. Colorado Parks and Wildlife, Denver, CO. 865 pgs. http://cpw.state.co.us/aboutus/Pages/StateWildlifeActionPlan.aspx
Consortium of Intermountain Herbaria (COIH). 2016. http//:www.intermountainbiota.org/portal/index.php. (Accessed on June 01)
Franklin, M. A. and State of Utah Department of Natural Resources (UDNR). 2005. "Plant Information Compiled by the Utah Natural Heritage Program: A Progress Report". All U.S. Government Documents (Utah Regional Depository). Paper 474. http://digitalcommons.usu.edu/govdocs/474
Integrated Taxonomic Information System (ITIS). 2016. Online database. http://www.itis.gov/. (Accessed January 27, 2016)
NatureServe. 2015. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. Version 7.1. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available http://explorer.natureserve.org. (Accessed: April 27, 2016).
Navajo Nations Department of Fish and Wildlife (NNDFW). 2008. Navajo endangered species list; resource committee resolution. http://nndfw.org/nnhp/nnhp_nesl.pdf
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), NRCS. 2016. The PLANTS Database http://plants.usda.gov. National Plant Data Team, Greensboro, NC 27401- 4901 USA. (Accessed: May 24, 2016)
U.S. Forest Service (USFS). 2013. Proposed, Endangered, Threatened and Sensitive Species List, R4. Known / Suspected Distribution by Forest.
Utah Department of Natural Resources (UDNR). Division of Wildlife Resources. 2015. Utah Sensitive Species List.
Utah Natural Heritage Program (UNHP). 2015. Utah Division of Wildlife Resources. UNHP Biodiversity Tracking and Conservation System (BIOTICS).
Utah Wildlife Action Plan (WAP) Joint Team. 2015. Utah Wildlife Action Plan: A plan for managing native wildlife species and their habitats to prevent listing under the Endangered Species Act. Draft version 2.0. DWR Publication No. 15-14. Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, Salt Lake City, UT. 400 pgs. http://wildlife.utah.gov/wap/wap2015draft2.pdf
6
Intermountain Region Species of Conservation Concern Review DRAFT Template
7
Intermountain Region Species of Conservation Concern Review DRAFT Template
SPECIES: Scientific [common] Hedysarum occidentale var canone [Canyon sweetvetch] HEOCC Forest: Manti-La Sal National Forest Forest Reviewer: K. Anderson Date of Review: 26 May 2016 Forest concurrence (or recommendation if new) for No inclusion of species on list of potential SCC: (Enter Yes or No)
Forest review result:
The Forest concurs or recommends the species for inclusion on the list of potential SCC: Yes___ No_X__
Rationale for not concurring is based on (check all that apply): Species is not native to the plan area ______Species is not known to occur in the plan area ______Species persistence in the plan area is not of substantial concern __X____
Issue: Whether the species identified above should be listed as a species of Conservation Concern (SCC) for the Manti-La Sal National Forest (MLNF) as identified in the 2012 Planning Rule (36 CFR 219).
Rule: The 2012 Planning Rule [36 CFR 219.7(c)(3)] states that “The regional forester shall identify the species of conservation concern for the plan area in coordination with the responsible official.” It [36 CFR 219.9(b)(2)(c)] defines a species of conservation concern as “…a species, other than federally recognized threatened, endangered, proposed, or candidate species, that is known to occur in the plan area and for which the regional forester has determined that the best available scientific information indicates substantial concern about the species’ capability to persist over the long-term in the plan area.”
Analysis: The best available scientific information (BASI) indicates that there is not enough scientific information to indicate a “substantial concern for persistence” for this species in the plan area. Currently on Forest Sensitive Species list
Conclusion: Based upon the BASI documented herein, it is not recommended that this species be included in the potential list of SCC for the MLNF.
1
Intermountain Region Species of Conservation Concern Review DRAFT Template
Species: __HEOCC____
FOREST REVIEW INFORMATION
Status summary based on other methods (information is on the Regional Office list of species considered; correct as needed):
Entity Status/Rank (include definition if Other) NatureServe G2G3 (NatureServe 2015)
Natural UT - Not Listed (UDNR 2015) Heritage CO – Not Listed (CNHP 2015) Program State List UT – S2 (NatureServe 2015) Status CO – S1 (NatureServe 2015)
Not included in the CO or UT Wildlife Action Plans (SWAP 2015, WAP 2015) USDA Forest Hedysarum occidentale var canone is currently a FS Region 4 sensitive Service species for the Manti La-Sal National Forest (USFS 2013).
As of May 2016, this species is not listed as a potential SCC or Sensitive Species for any adjoining National Forests (USFS 2013). USDI FWS Not a listed species. Other
Review of species of conservation concern criteria based on definition
1. Native to the plan area
a. Is the species native to the plan area?
Yes_X__ No___
1. If no, provide explanation.
2
Intermountain Region Species of Conservation Concern Review DRAFT Template
Species: __ HEOCC _____
2. Known to occur in the plan area
Table 2. Known Occurrence Frequency within the Planning Area (NRIS database) Occurrence: Number Source of Information Known Occurrences in the past 20 4 Intermountain Region Herbarium years Network (COIH 2016) Year Last Observed 2016 Manti-La Sal NF field surveys
a. Are all species occurrences only accidental or transient?
Yes___ No_X__
1) If yes, document source for determination.
b. Based on the number of observations and/or year of last observation, can the species be presumed to be established or becoming established in the plan area?
Yes_X__ No___
1) If no, provide explanation.
3. Substantial concern for species persistence in the plan area
a. Describe briefly the distribution, abundance, and population trend of the species in the plan area
Six to twenty small scattered occurrence of this species are located in mountain brush, sagebrush and lower spruce-fir communities (1770-2430m) within Western Duchesne, Carbon and Embry Counties in Utah (NatureServe 2015).
Cronquist et al. (1989) place this species under synonymy with H. occidentale, along with H. lancifolium, H. marginatum, and H. uintahense. Their rational for combining the five species is that leaflet, raceme, and calyx characteristics “…occur separately elsewhere in the whole range of H. occidentale and do not form a convincing diagnostic syndrome.”
3
Intermountain Region Species of Conservation Concern Review DRAFT Template
Welsh proposed the canone varietal level in 1978, eleven years prior to the Cronquist et al. determination so they had access to the Welsh determination and rational. Welsh et al. (2015) cite the differences between var. canone and var. occidentale as; leaflet size, flower size, and locality, all of which have potential for overlap, or uncertainty when keying out the species.
The USDA (2016), NatureServe (2015), and ITIS (2016) follow Welsh et al. (2015) in nomenclature.
2016 vegetation surveys show the plant to be common in the known locations in the plan area and moving into disturbed sites (road to Anderson Mine) (Fugal et al. 2016).
b. Describe briefly threats or risk factors to the species or the ecological conditions that support it (i.e. habitat) based on best available scientific information
Coal mining, road expansion/road work and recreation are all potential threats to this species (NatureServe 2015).
c. Considering the trend in populations or habitat and threats or risk factors for those populations or habitats, is there substantial concern for persistence of the species in the plan area?
Yes___ No_X__
1) If no, provide explanation
Preliminary data indicates little impact to the species (Fugal et al. 2016)
4
Intermountain Region Species of Conservation Concern Review DRAFT Template
4. Range Map
Map 1. UT occurrence map for Hedysarum occidentale var. occidentale (Franklin and UDNR 2005).
Map 2.County distribution map for Hedysarum occidentale var. occidentale (USDA 2016).
5
Intermountain Region Species of Conservation Concern Review DRAFT Template
5. Literature Cited
Colorado Natural Heritage Program (CNHP). 2015. Tracked Vascular Plant Species. http://www.cnhp.colostate.edu/download/list/vascular.asp. (Accessed May 24, 2016).
Colorado State Wildlife Action Plan (SWAP). 2015. Colorado State Wildlife Action Plan: A plan for conserving wildlife in Colorado. Colorado Parks and Wildlife, Denver, CO. 865 pgs. http://cpw.state.co.us/aboutus/Pages/StateWildlifeActionPlan.aspx
Consortium of Intermountain Herbaria (COIH). 2016. http//:www.intermountainbiota.org/portal/index.php. (Accessed on June 01)
Cronquist, A., A. H. Holmgren, N. H. Holmgren, J. L. Reveal, P. K. Holmgren. 1984. Intermountain Flora. Vol. 4. New York Botanical Garden, Bronx, NY.
Franklin, M. A. and State of Utah Department of Natural Resources (UDNR). 2005. "Plant Information Compiled by the Utah Natural Heritage Program: A Progress Report". All U.S. Government Documents (Utah Regional Depository). Paper 474. http://digitalcommons.usu.edu/govdocs/474
Fugal, R., E. McCroskey, D. Cunningham, J. DeMordaunt, and K. Lund. 2016. Rare Plant Bouldering Survey Reprt. Manti-La Sal National Forest. 2p.
Integrated Taxonomic Information System (ITIS). 2016. Online database. http://www.itis.gov/. (Accessed January 27, 2016)
Integrated Taxonomic Information System (ITIS). 2016. Online database. Accessed January 27, 2016. http://www.itis.gov/
NatureServe. 2015. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. Version 7.1. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available http://explorer.natureserve.org. (Accessed: April 27, 2016).
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), NRCS. 2016. The PLANTS Database http://plants.usda.gov. National Plant Data Team, Greensboro, NC 27401- 4901 USA. (Accessed: May 24, 2016)
U.S. Forest Service (USFS). 2013. Proposed, Endangered, Threatened and Sensitive Species List, R4. Known / Suspected Distribution by Forest.
Utah Department of Natural Resources (UDNR). Division of Wildlife Resources. 2015. Utah Sensitive Species List.
6
Intermountain Region Species of Conservation Concern Review DRAFT Template
Utah Wildlife Action Plan (WAP) Joint Team. 2015. Utah Wildlife Action Plan: A plan for managing native wildlife species and their habitats to prevent listing under the Endangered Species Act. Draft version 2.0. DWR Publication No. 15-14. Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, Salt Lake City, UT. 400 pgs. http://wildlife.utah.gov/wap/wap2015draft2.pdf
Welsh, S. L., N. D. Atwood, S. Goodrich, and L. C. Higgins. 2015. A Utah Flora. Provo Utah. 987p.
7
Intermountain Region Species of Conservation Concern Review DRAFT Template
SPECIES: Scientific [common] Hymenoxys acaulis var nana [Low hymenoxys] HYCAN Forest: Manti-La Sal National Forest Forest Reviewer: K. Anderson Date of Review: 25 May 2016 Forest concurrence (or recommendation if new) for No inclusion of species on list of potential SCC: (Enter Yes or No)
Forest review result:
The Forest concurs or recommends the species for inclusion on the list of potential SCC: Yes___ No_X__
Rationale for not concurring is based on (check all that apply): Species is not native to the plan area ______Species is not known to occur in the plan area ______Species persistence in the plan area is not of substantial concern ___X___
Issue: Whether the species identified above should be listed as a species of Conservation Concern (SCC) for the Manti-La Sal National Forest (MLNF) as identified in the 2012 Planning Rule (36 CFR 219).
Rule: The 2012 Planning Rule [36 CFR 219.7(c)(3)] states that “The regional forester shall identify the species of conservation concern for the plan area in coordination with the responsible official.” It [36 CFR 219.9(b)(2)(c)] defines a species of conservation concern as “…a species, other than federally recognized threatened, endangered, proposed, or candidate species, that is known to occur in the plan area and for which the regional forester has determined that the best available scientific information indicates substantial concern about the species’ capability to persist over the long-term in the plan area.”
Analysis: The best available scientific information (BASI) indicates disagreement and inconsistent use of nomenclature, additionally, does not clearly identify threats/risks to species’ capability to persist within the plan area.
Conclusion: Based upon the BASI documented herein, it is not recommended that this species be included in the potential list of SCC for the MLNF.
1
Intermountain Region Species of Conservation Concern Review DRAFT Template
Species: __HYCAN____
FOREST REVIEW INFORMATION
Status summary based on other methods (information is on the Regional Office list of species considered; correct as needed):
Entity Status/Rank (include definition if Other) NatureServe G5T1T2Q (NatureServe 2015)
Natural UT - Not Listed (UDNR 2015) Heritage CO – Not Listed (CNHP 2015) Program State List UT – S1S2 (NatureServe 2015) Status CO – Not Listed (CNHP 2015)
Not included in the CO or UT Wildlife Action Plans (SWAP 2015, WAP 2015) USDA Forest As of May 2016, this species is not listed as a potential SCC or Sensitive Service Species for any adjoining National Forests (USFS 2013).
USDI FWS Not a listed species. Other
Review of species of conservation concern criteria based on definition
1. Native to the plan area
a. Is the species native to the plan area?
Yes_X__ No___
1. If no, provide explanation.
2
Intermountain Region Species of Conservation Concern Review DRAFT Template
Species: __ HYCAN _____
2. Known to occur in the plan area
Table 2. Known Occurrence Frequency within the Planning Area (NRIS database) Occurrence: Number Source of Information Known Occurrences in the past 20 N/A Intermountain region Herbarium years Network (COIH 2016) Year Last Observed 1991 UNHP GIS data (UNHP 2015)
a. Are all species occurrences only accidental or transient?
Yes___ No_X__
1) If yes, document source for determination.
b. Based on the number of observations and/or year of last observation, can the species be presumed to be established or becoming established in the plan area?
Yes_X__ No___
1) If no, provide explanation.
3. Substantial concern for species persistence in the plan area
a. Describe briefly the distribution, abundance, and population trend of the species in the plan area
The plant is considered endemic to Utah and is found in 5 counties. It is also listed for New Mexico in NRCS; however, disagreement of the taxonomy of this plant exists. Treated as Hymenoxys acaulis var. nana in A Utah Flora (Welsh et al. 2015) and by Cronquist et al. (1994). The Flora of North America (FNA) and Integrated Taxonomic Information system (ITIS 2016) treat it as Tetraneuris acaulis var. arizonica. And as Tetraneuris acaulis var. nana in NatureServe and NRCS. Its reduction to synonymy under var. arizonica in FNA (Barker et al 1997) broadens its distribution from Utah to 6 western
3
Intermountain Region Species of Conservation Concern Review DRAFT Template
states. Disagreement in treatments and a widened distribution validates not listing the plant. b. Describe briefly threats or risk factors to the species or the ecological conditions that support it (i.e. habitat) based on best available scientific information
For Hymenoxys acaulis var. nana, NatureServe reports that known threats include grazing, recreation (ORVs and trampling), road and powerline maintenance.
c. Considering the trend in populations or habitat and threats or risk factors for those populations or habitats, is there substantial concern for persistence of the species in the plan area?
Yes___ No_X__
1) If no, provide explanation
The plant is not recommended for listing based on its taxonomic disagreements and its apparent widespread distribution across 8 western states under the Flora of North America treatment of the plant.
4. Supporting Literature
Barker. T.M., L. Brouillet and J.L. Strother. 1997. Tetraneuris acaulis. In: Flora of North America Editorial Committee, eds. 1993+. Flora of North America North of Mexico. 19+ vols. New York and Oxford. Vol. 21, pp. 451.
Colorado Natural Heritage Program (CNHP). 2015. Tracked Vascular Plant Species. http://www.cnhp.colostate.edu/download/list/vascular.asp. (Accessed May 24, 2016).
Colorado State Wildlife Action Plan (SWAP). 2015. Colorado State Wildlife Action Plan: A plan for conserving wildlife in Colorado. Colorado Parks and Wildlife, Denver, CO. 865 pgs. http://cpw.state.co.us/aboutus/Pages/StateWildlifeActionPlan.aspx
Consortium of Intermountain Herbaria (COIH). 2016. http//:www.intermountainbiota.org/portal/index.php. (Accessed on June 01)
Cronquist, A., A. H. Holmgren, N. H. Holmgren, J. L. Reveal, P. K. Holmgren. 1994. Intermountain Flora. Vol. 4. New York Botanical Garden, Bronx, NY.
Integrated Taxonomic Information System (ITIS). 2016. Online database. http://www.itis.gov/. (Accessed January 27, 2016)
4
Intermountain Region Species of Conservation Concern Review DRAFT Template
NatureServe. 2015. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. Version 7.1. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available http://explorer.natureserve.org. (Accessed: April 27, 2016).
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), NRCS. 2016. The PLANTS Database http://plants.usda.gov. National Plant Data Team, Greensboro, NC 27401- 4901 USA. (Accessed: May 24, 2016)
U.S. Forest Service (USFS). 2013. Proposed, Endangered, Threatened and Sensitive Species List, R4. Known / Suspected Distribution by Forest.
Utah Department of Natural Resources (UDNR). Division of Wildlife Resources. 2015. Utah Sensitive Species List.
Utah Natural Heritage Program (UNHP). 2015. Utah Division of Wildlife Resources. UNHP Biodiversity Tracking and Conservation System (BIOTICS).
Utah Wildlife Action Plan (WAP) Joint Team. 2015. Utah Wildlife Action Plan: A plan for managing native wildlife species and their habitats to prevent listing under the Endangered Species Act. Draft version 2.0. DWR Publication No. 15-14. Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, Salt Lake City, UT. 400 pgs. http://wildlife.utah.gov/wap/wap2015draft2.pdf
Welsh, S. L., N. D. Atwood, S. Goodrich, and L. C. Higgins. 2015. A Utah Flora. Provo Utah. 987p.
5
Intermountain Region Species of Conservation Concern Review DRAFT Template
SPECIES: Scientific [common] Hymenoxys helenioides [Intermountain bitterweed] HYHE Forest: Manti-La Sal National Forest Forest Reviewer: K. Anderson Date of Review: 1 June 2016 Forest concurrence (or recommendation if new) for No inclusion of species on list of potential SCC: (Enter Yes or No)
Forest review result:
The Forest concurs or recommends the species for inclusion on the list of potential SCC: Yes___ No_X__
Rationale for not concurring is based on (check all that apply): Species is not native to the plan area ______Species is not known to occur in the plan area ______Species persistence in the plan area is not of substantial concern __X____
Issue: Whether the species identified above should be listed as a species of Conservation Concern (SCC) for the Manti-La Sal National Forest (MLNF) as identified in the 2012 Planning Rule (36 CFR 219).
Rule: The 2012 Planning Rule [36 CFR 219.7(c)(3)] states that “The regional forester shall identify the species of conservation concern for the plan area in coordination with the responsible official.” It [36 CFR 219.9(b)(2)(c)] defines a species of conservation concern as “…a species, other than federally recognized threatened, endangered, proposed, or candidate species, that is known to occur in the plan area and for which the regional forester has determined that the best available scientific information indicates substantial concern about the species’ capability to persist over the long-term in the plan area.”
Analysis: The best available scientific information (BASI) indicates a there is not enough current scientific information to indicate a level of uncertainty in the species capability to persist within the plan area.
Conclusion: Based upon the BASI documented herein, it is not recommended that this species be included in the potential list of SCC for the MLNF.
1
Intermountain Region Species of Conservation Concern Review DRAFT Template
Species: __HYHE____
FOREST REVIEW INFORMATION
Status summary based on other methods (information is on the Regional Office list of species considered; correct as needed):
Entity Status/Rank (include definition if Other) NatureServe G3G4Q (NatureServe 2015)
Natural UT – Not listed (UDNR 2015) Heritage CO – Not listed (CNHP 2015) Program State List UT-S3 (NatureServe 2015) Status CO-SNR (NatureServe 2015)
Not included in the CO or UT Wildlife Action Plans (SWAP 2015, WAP 2015) USDA Forest As of May 2016, this species is not listed as a potential SCC or Sensitive Service Species for any adjoining National Forests (USFS 2013).
USDI FWS Not a listed species. Other
Review of species of conservation concern criteria based on definition
1. Native to the plan area
a. Is the species native to the plan area?
Yes_X__ No___
1. If no, provide explanation.
2
Intermountain Region Species of Conservation Concern Review DRAFT Template
Species: __HYHE_____
2. Known to occur in the plan area
Table 2. Known Occurrence Frequency within the Planning Area (NRIS database) Occurrence: Number Source of Information Known Occurrences in the past N/A Intermountain Region 20 years Information Herbarium Network protected. (COIH 2016) Year Last Observed N/A Intermountain Region Information Herbarium Network protected. (COIH 2016)
a. Are all species occurrences only accidental or transient?
Yes___ No_X__
1) If yes, document source for determination.
b. Based on the number of observations and/or year of last observation, can the species be presumed to be established or becoming established in the plan area?
Yes_X__ No___
1) If no, provide explanation.
3. Substantial concern for species persistence in the plan area
a. Describe briefly the distribution, abundance, and population trend of the species in the plan area
Reported from Muddy Creek to Nuck Woodard Canyon. (Thompson 2001)
Questionable taxonomy and distribution. NatureServe (2015) “…considered more common than once thought due to confusion with another plant”. Welsh et al. (2015) “Observations in the field suggests that it might, indeed, be a recurring hybrid between Hymenoxys richardsonii and H. hoopesii and not a taxon in the traditional sense.”
3
Intermountain Region Species of Conservation Concern Review DRAFT Template
b. Describe briefly threats or risk factors to the species or the ecological conditions that support it (i.e. habitat) based on best available scientific information
No known threats/risks.
c. Considering the trend in populations or habitat and threats or risk factors for those populations or habitats, is there substantial concern for persistence of the species in the plan area?
Yes___ No_X__
1) If no, provide explanation
No information to determine concern for persistence in plan area.
4. Range Map
A range map was not available for this species.
4. Literature Cited
Colorado Natural Heritage Program (CNHP). 2015. Tracked Vascular Plant Species. http://www.cnhp.colostate.edu/download/list/vascular.asp. (Accessed May 24, 2016).
Colorado State Wildlife Action Plan (SWAP). 2015. Colorado State Wildlife Action Plan: A plan for conserving wildlife in Colorado. Colorado Parks and Wildlife, Denver, CO. 865 pgs. http://cpw.state.co.us/aboutus/Pages/StateWildlifeActionPlan.aspx
Consortium of Intermountain Herbaria (COIH). 2016. http//:www.intermountainbiota.org/portal/index.php. (Accessed on June 01)
NatureServe. 2015. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. Version 7.1. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available http://explorer.natureserve.org. (Accessed: April 27, 2016).
Thompson, R. 2001. Endangered, Threatened, and Sensitive Plant Species. Manti-La Sal National Forest.
U.S. Forest Service (USFS). 2013. Proposed, Endangered, Threatened and Sensitive Species List, R4. Known / Suspected Distribution by Forest.
4
Intermountain Region Species of Conservation Concern Review DRAFT Template
Utah Wildlife Action Plan (WAP) Joint Team. 2015. Utah Wildlife Action Plan: A plan for managing native wildlife species and their habitats to prevent listing under the Endangered Species Act. Draft version 2.0. DWR Publication No. 15-14. Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, Salt Lake City, UT. 400 pgs. http://wildlife.utah.gov/wap/wap2015draft2.pdf
Welsh, S. L., N. D. Atwood, S. Goodrich, and L. C. Higgins. 2015. A Utah Flora. Provo Utah. 987p.
5
Intermountain Region Species of Conservation Concern Review DRAFT Template
SPECIES: Scientific [common] Kobresia simpliciuscula [Compound Kobersia / Simple Sedge] KOSI2 Forest: Manti-La Sal National Forest Forest Reviewer: K. Anderson Date of Review: 12 May 2016 Forest concurrence (or recommendation if new) for No inclusion of species on list of potential SCC: (Enter Yes or No)
Forest review result:
The Forest concurs or recommends the species for inclusion on the list of potential SCC: Yes___ No_X_
Rationale for not concurring is based on (check all that apply): Species is not native to the plan area ______Species is not known to occur in the plan area ______Species persistence in the plan area is not of substantial concern __X____
Issue: Whether the species identified above should be listed as a species of Conservation Concern (SCC) for the Manti-La Sal National Forest (MLNF) as identified in the 2012 Planning Rule (36 CFR 219).
Rule: The 2012 Planning Rule [36 CFR 219.7(c)(3)] states that “The regional forester shall identify the species of conservation concern for the plan area in coordination with the responsible official.” It [36 CFR 219.9(b)(2)(c)] defines a species of conservation concern as “…a species, other than federally recognized threatened, endangered, proposed, or candidate species, that is known to occur in the plan area and for which the regional forester has determined that the best available scientific information indicates substantial concern about the species’ capability to persist over the long-term in the plan area.”
Analysis: The best available scientific information (BASI) does not document this species as currently established within the plan area.
Conclusion: Based upon the BASI documented herein, it is not recommended that this species be included in the potential list of SCC for the MLNF.
1
Intermountain Region Species of Conservation Concern Review DRAFT Template
Species: ___KOSI2______
FOREST REVIEW INFORMATION
Status summary based on other methods (information is on the Regional Office list of species considered; correct as needed):
Entity Status/Rank (include definition if Other) NatureServe G5 (NatureServe 2015)
Natural Utah –Not Listed (UDNR 2015) Heritage CO - “Fully Tracked” (CNHO 2015) Program State List UT – S1 (NatureServe 2015) Status CO – S2 (NatureServe 2015)
Not included in the CO or UT Wildlife Action Plans (SWAP 2015, WAP 2015) USDA Forest As of May 2016, this species is not listed as a potential SCC or Sensitive Service Species for any adjoining National Forests (USFS 2013).
USDI FWS Not a listed species. Other
Review of species of conservation concern criteria based on definition
1. Native to the plan area
a. Is the species native to the plan area?
Yes_X__ No___
1. If no, provide explanation.
2
Intermountain Region Species of Conservation Concern Review DRAFT Template
Species: ___KOSI2______
2. Known to occur in the plan area
Table 2. Known Occurrence Frequency within the Planning Area (NRIS database) Occurrence: Number Source of Information Known Occurrences in the past 20 N/A Intermountain Region Herbarium years Network (COIH 2016) Year Last Observed N/A Intermountain Region Herbarium Network (COIH 2016)
a. Are all species occurrences only accidental or transient?
Yes___ No_X__
1) If yes, document source for determination.
b. Based on the number of observations and/or year of last observation, can the species be presumed to be established or becoming established in the plan area? Yes_X__ No___
1) If no, provide explanation.
3. Substantial concern for species persistence in the plan area
a. Describe briefly the distribution, abundance, and population trend of the species in the plan area
This is a circumboreal species, reported from: the U.S., Canada, Sweden, Switzerland, Norway and Eurasia. The type specimen came from England. In Utah it is reported from: Daggett, Duchesne, Emery, and Summit counties (NatureServe 2015).
Information in the Intermountain Region Herbarium Network (IRHN) identifies 2 collections made on the Mani-La Sal NF Based on the dates both collections were made by M. Lewis in the early 1980's (COIH 2016). The species has not been reported since the early 1980’s, despite recent surveys (Madsen 2011). The collection site is still intact and may need current survey work specific to the species.
3
Intermountain Region Species of Conservation Concern Review DRAFT Template
b. Describe briefly threats or risk factors to the species or the ecological conditions that support it (i.e. habitat) based on best available scientific information
The USDA NRCS Plant database identifies this species as having an indicator status of ‘Faculative Wetland’ (FACW) meaning is usually occurs in wetlands (USDA 2016). As such, threats would include loss of wetland habitat due to water diversions and climate change.
c. Considering the trend in populations or habitat and threats or risk factors for those populations or habitats, is there substantial concern for persistence of the species in the plan area?
Yes___ No_X__
1) If no, provide explanation
It has a wide distribution. Additionally, as it is identified as a FAWC, it is already protected under forest and national regulations for wetlands.
4. Range Map
Map 1. UT occurrence map for Kobresia simpliciuscula (Franklin and UDNR 2005).
4
Intermountain Region Species of Conservation Concern Review DRAFT Template
Map 2. Range map for Kobresia simpliciuscula (USDA 2016).
5. Supporting Literature
Colorado Natural Heritage Program (CNHP). 2015. Tracked Vascular Plant Species. http://www.cnhp.colostate.edu/download/list/vascular.asp. (Accessed May 24, 2016).
Colorado State Wildlife Action Plan (SWAP). 2015. Colorado State Wildlife Action Plan: A plan for conserving wildlife in Colorado. Colorado Parks and Wildlife, Denver, CO. 865 pgs. http://cpw.state.co.us/aboutus/Pages/StateWildlifeActionPlan.aspx
Consortium of Intermountain Herbaria (COIH). 2016. http//:www.intermountainbiota.org/portal/index.php. (Accessed on April 27, 2016)
Franklin, M. A. and State of Utah Department of Natural Resources (UDNR). 2005. "Plant Information Compiled by the Utah Natural Heritage Program: A Progress Report". All U.S. Government Documents (Utah Regional Depository). Paper 474. http://digitalcommons.usu.edu/govdocs/474 NatureServe. 2015. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. Version 7.1. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available http://explorer.natureserve.org. (Accessed: April 27, 2016).
5
Intermountain Region Species of Conservation Concern Review DRAFT Template
Madsen, M. 2011. Level III Riparian Inventory Report. Ferron-Price Ranger District, Manti-La Sal National Forest.
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), NRCS. 2016. The PLANTS Database http://plants.usda.gov. National Plant Data Team, Greensboro, NC 27401- 4901 USA. (Accessed: May 24, 2016)
U.S. Forest Service (USFS). 2013. Proposed, Endangered, Threatened and Sensitive Species List, R4. Known / Suspected Distribution by Forest.
Utah Department of Natural Resources (UDNR). Division of Wildlife Resources. 2015. Utah Sensitive Species List.
Utah Wildlife Action Plan (WAP) Joint Team. 2015. Utah Wildlife Action Plan: A plan for managing native wildlife species and their habitats to prevent listing under the Endangered Species Act. Draft version 2.0. DWR Publication No. 15-14. Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, Salt Lake City, UT. 400 pgs. http://wildlife.utah.gov/wap/wap2015draft2.pdf
6
Intermountain Region Species of Conservation Concern Review DRAFT Template
SPECIES: Scientific [common] Lesquerella hemiphysaria v lucens [Intermountain bladderpod] LEHEL Forest: Manti-La Sal National Forest Forest Reviewer: K. Anderson Date of Review: 13 May 2016 Forest concurrence (or recommendation if new) for No inclusion of species on list of potential SCC: (Enter Yes or No)
Forest review result:
The Forest concurs or recommends the species for inclusion on the list of potential SCC: Yes___ No_X__
Rationale for not concurring is based on (check all that apply): Species is not native to the plan area __X_____ Species is not known to occur in the plan area ___X____ Species persistence in the plan area is not of substantial concern __X____
Issue: Whether the species identified above should be listed as a species of Conservation Concern (SCC) for the Manti-La Sal National Forest (MLNF) as identified in the 2012 Planning Rule (36 CFR 219).
Rule: The 2012 Planning Rule [36 CFR 219.7(c)(3)] states that “The regional forester shall identify the species of conservation concern for the plan area in coordination with the responsible official.” It [36 CFR 219.9(b)(2)(c)] defines a species of conservation concern as “…a species, other than federally recognized threatened, endangered, proposed, or candidate species, that is known to occur in the plan area and for which the regional forester has determined that the best available scientific information indicates substantial concern about the species’ capability to persist over the long-term in the plan area.”
Analysis: The best available scientific information (BASI) does not clearly indicate that the species is present within the plan area.
Conclusion: Based upon the BASI documented herein, it is not recommended that this species be included in the potential list of SCC for the MLNF.
1
Intermountain Region Species of Conservation Concern Review DRAFT Template
Species: ____LEHEL______
FOREST REVIEW INFORMATION
Status summary based on other methods (information is on the Regional Office list of species considered; correct as needed):
Entity Status/Rank (include definition if Other) NatureServe G4T1 (NatureServe 2015)
Natural Utah - Not listed (UDNR 2015) Heritage Colorado – Not listed (CNHP 2015) Program State List UT - S1 (NatureServe 2015) Status CO – Not Listed (NatureServe 2015)
Not included in the CO or UT Wildlife Action Plans (SWAP 2015, WAP 2015) USDA Forest As of May 2016, this species is not listed as a potential SCC or Sensitive Service Species for any adjoining National Forests (USFS 2013).
USDI FWS Not a listed species. Other
Review of species of conservation concern criteria based on definition
1. Native to the plan area
a. Is the species native to the plan area?
Yes___ No_X__
1. If no, provide explanation.
The Utah Natural Heritage Program (UNHP) GIS data layer identifies three occurrences of LEHEL on the Forest (Plan area) however, one of the occurrences is mis-labeled, the other two have a question as to identification [“Silicles are glabrous…var. lucens?”] (UNHP 2015). It is likely that comment is a ‘copy/paste’ situation and the ‘question mark’ indicates a level of uncertainty as to identification.
2
Intermountain Region Species of Conservation Concern Review DRAFT Template
Species: _____LEHEL______
Of the three collections of “L. hemiphysaria” found in the MALS herbarium, two appear to be Lesquerella (Physaria) wardii. The third is Lesquerella (Physaria) hemiphysaria var. hemiphysaria (MALS 2016)
The Intermountain Region Herbarium Network (IRHN) reports fourteen records for L. h. v. lucens from three different herbaria (BRY, USU:UTC, NY). None of the records are from the plan area. Based on collections in the IRHN, L. h. var. lucens appears to be a Tavaputs endemic and is not found in the plan area (COIH 2016).
2. Known to occur in the plan area
Table 2. Known Occurrence Frequency within the Planning Area (NRIS database) Occurrence: Number Source of Information Known Occurrences in the past 20 0 Intermountain Region Herbarium years Network (COIH 2016).
Year Last Observed 0 Intermountain Region Herbarium Network (COIH 2016).
a. Are all species occurrences only accidental or transient?
Yes___ No_X__
1) If yes, document source for determination.
b. Based on the number of observations and/or year of last observation, can the species be presumed to be established or becoming established in the plan area? Yes___ No_X__
1) If no, provide explanation,
Nomenclature for the species has had a genus change from Lesquerella to Physaria. Welsh (2003) states: “Two scarcely differentiated varieties are known:…Plants in the population at the head of Range Creek vary from glabrous to sparingly pubescent; possibly they do not warrant taxonomic recognition[italics added], but they are isolated from the reminder of the species.”
3
Intermountain Region Species of Conservation Concern Review DRAFT Template
3. Substantial concern for species persistence in the plan area
a. Describe briefly the distribution, abundance, and population trend of the species in the plan area
Range Creek, Tavaputs Plateau. There are limited collections from Carbon, Duchesne, Emery, Utah, and Wasatch Counties (NatureServe 2015)
b. Describe briefly threats or risk factors to the species or the ecological conditions that support it (i.e. habitat) based on best available scientific information
No know threats or risks
c. Considering the trend in populations or habitat and threats or risk factors for those populations or habitats, is there substantial concern for persistence of the species in the plan area?
Yes___ No_X__
1) If no, provide explanation
Since this species is neither native nor currently documented within the plan area there is no concern for its persistence in the plan area. 4. Range Map
Map 1. UT occurrence map for Lesquerella hemiphysaria v lucens (Franklin and UDNR 2005).
4
Intermountain Region Species of Conservation Concern Review DRAFT Template
Map 2. UT county distribution map for Lesquerella hemiphysaria v lucens (USDA 2016).
Map 3. Distribution map for Lesquerella hemiphysaria v lucens (USDA 2016).
5. Literature Cited
Colorado Natural Heritage Program (CNHP). 2015. Tracked Vascular Plant Species. http://www.cnhp.colostate.edu/download/list/vascular.asp. (Accessed May 24, 2016).
5
Intermountain Region Species of Conservation Concern Review DRAFT Template
Colorado State Wildlife Action Plan (SWAP). 2015. Colorado State Wildlife Action Plan: A plan for conserving wildlife in Colorado. Colorado Parks and Wildlife, Denver, CO. 865 pgs. http://cpw.state.co.us/aboutus/Pages/StateWildlifeActionPlan.aspx
Consortium of Intermountain Herbaria (COIH). 2016. http//:www.intermountainbiota.org/portal/index.php. (Accessed on June 01)
Franklin, M. A. and State of Utah Department of Natural Resources (UDNR), "Plant Information Compiled by the Utah Natural Heritage Program: A Progress Report" (2005). All U.S. Government Documents (Utah Regional Depository). Paper 474. http://digitalcommons.usu.edu/govdocs/474
Manti-La Sal National Forest Herbarium (MALS). 2016. Price, Utah
NatureServe. 2015. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. Version 7.1. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available http://explorer.natureserve.org. (Accessed: April 27, 2016).
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), NRCS. 2016. The PLANTS Database http://plants.usda.gov. National Plant Data Team, Greensboro, NC 27401- 4901 USA. (Accessed: May 24, 2016)
U.S. Forest Service (USFS). 2013. Proposed, Endangered, Threatened and Sensitive Species List, R4. Known / Suspected Distribution by Forest.
Utah Department of Natural Resources (UDNR). Division of Wildlife Resources. 2015. Utah Sensitive Species List.
Utah Natural Heritage Program (UNHP). 2015. Utah Division of Wildlife Resources. UNHP Biodiversity Tracking and Conservation System (BIOTICS).
Utah Wildlife Action Plan (WAP) Joint Team. 2015. Utah Wildlife Action Plan: A plan for managing native wildlife species and their habitats to prevent listing under the Endangered Species Act. Draft version 2.0. DWR Publication No. 15-14. Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, Salt Lake City, UT. 400 pgs. http://wildlife.utah.gov/wap/wap2015draft2.pdf
6
Intermountain Region Species of Conservation Concern Review DRAFT Template
SPECIES: Scientific [common] Lomatium junceum [Rush Desert-Parsley] LOJU3 Forest: Manti-La Sal National Forest Forest Reviewer: K. Anderson Date of Review: 1 June 2016 Forest concurrence (or recommendation if new) for No inclusion of species on list of potential SCC: (Enter Yes or No)
Forest review result:
The Forest concurs or recommends the species for inclusion on the list of potential SCC: Yes___ No_X__
Rationale for not concurring is based on (check all that apply): Species is not native to the plan area ______Species is not known to occur in the plan area ______Species persistence in the plan area is not of substantial concern __X____
Issue: Whether the species identified above should be listed as a species of Conservation Concern (SCC) for the Manti-La Sal National Forest (MLNF) as identified in the 2012 Planning Rule (36 CFR 219).
Rule: The 2012 Planning Rule [36 CFR 219.7(c)(3)] states that “The regional forester shall identify the species of conservation concern for the plan area in coordination with the responsible official.” It [36 CFR 219.9(b)(2)(c)] defines a species of conservation concern as “…a species, other than federally recognized threatened, endangered, proposed, or candidate species, that is known to occur in the plan area and for which the regional forester has determined that the best available scientific information indicates substantial concern about the species’ capability to persist over the long-term in the plan area.”
Analysis: The best available scientific information (BASI) indicates a there is not enough current scientific information to indicate a level of uncertainty in the species capability to persist within the plan area.
Conclusion: Based upon the BASI documented herein, it is not recommended that this species be included in the potential list of SCC for the MLNF.
1
Intermountain Region Species of Conservation Concern Review DRAFT Template
Species: __LOJU3____
FOREST REVIEW INFORMATION
Status summary based on other methods (information is on the Regional Office list of species considered; correct as needed):
Entity Status/Rank (include definition if Other) NatureServe G3 (Nature Serve 2015)
Natural UT – Not listed (UDNR 2015) Heritage CO- Not listed (CNHP 2015) Program State List UT - S3 (Nature Serve 2015) Status CO – Not listed (Nature Serve 2015)
Not included in the CO or UT Wildlife Action Plans (SWAP 2015, WAP 2015) USDA Forest As of May 2016, this species is not listed as a potential SCC or Sensitive Service Species for any adjoining National Forests (USFS 2013).
USDI FWS Not a listed species. Other
Review of species of conservation concern criteria based on definition
1. Native to the plan area
a. Is the species native to the plan area?
Yes__X_ No___
1. If no, provide explanation.
2
Intermountain Region Species of Conservation Concern Review DRAFT Template
Species: __LOJU3_____
2. Known to occur in the plan area
Table 2. Known Occurrence Frequency within the Planning Area (NRIS database) Occurrence: Number Source of Information Known Occurrences in the past 20 1 Thompson 1999 years Year Last Observed 1999 Thompson 1999
a. Are all species occurrences only accidental or transient?
Yes___ No_X__
1) If yes, document source for determination.
b. Based on the number of observations and/or year of last observation, can the species be presumed to be established or becoming established in the plan area? Yes_X__ No___
1) If no, provide explanation.
3. Substantial concern for species persistence in the plan area
a. Describe briefly the distribution, abundance, and population trend of the species in the plan area
Two locations reported for the plan area; reported from Muddy Creek, Ferron Canyon, and Dry Wash. Most reports from the San Rafael Swell (COIH 2016).
No information as to population size or threats.
b. Describe briefly threats or risk factors to the species or the ecological conditions that support it (i.e. habitat) based on best available scientific information
No known risks/threats.
3
Intermountain Region Species of Conservation Concern Review DRAFT Template
c. Considering the trend in populations or habitat and threats or risk factors for those populations or habitats, is there substantial concern for persistence of the species in the plan area?
Yes___ No_X__
1) If no, provide explanation
Lack of information precludes concern for persistence in plan area.
4. Range Map
Map 1. Utah occurrence map for Lomatium junceum (Franklin and UDNR 2005).
4
Intermountain Region Species of Conservation Concern Review DRAFT Template
Map 2. Distribution map for Lomatium junceum (USDA 2016).
5. Literature Cited
Colorado Natural Heritage Program (CNHP). 2015. Tracked Vascular Plant Species. http://www.cnhp.colostate.edu/download/list/vascular.asp. (Accessed May 24, 2016).
Colorado State Wildlife Action Plan (SWAP). 2015. Colorado State Wildlife Action Plan: A plan for conserving wildlife in Colorado. Colorado Parks and Wildlife, Denver, CO. 865 pgs. http://cpw.state.co.us/aboutus/Pages/StateWildlifeActionPlan.aspx
Consortium of Intermountain Herbaria (COIH). 2016. http//:www.intermountainbiota.org/portal/index.php. (Accessed on June 01)
Franklin, M. A. and State of Utah Department of Natural Resources (UDNR). 2005. "Plant Information Compiled by the Utah Natural Heritage Program: A Progress Report". All U.S. Government Documents (Utah Regional Depository). Paper 474. http://digitalcommons.usu.edu/govdocs/474
Thompson, R. 1999. Lomatium junceum. #3279. MALS.
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), NRCS. 2016. The PLANTS Database http://plants.usda.gov. National Plant Data Team, Greensboro, NC 27401- 4901 USA. (Accessed: May 24, 2016)
5
Intermountain Region Species of Conservation Concern Review DRAFT Template
U.S. Forest Service (USFS). 2013. Proposed, Endangered, Threatened and Sensitive Species List, R4. Known / Suspected Distribution by Forest.
Utah Department of Natural Resources (UDNR). Division of Wildlife Resources. 2015. Utah Sensitive Species List.
Utah Wildlife Action Plan (WAP) Joint Team. 2015. Utah Wildlife Action Plan: A plan for managing native wildlife species and their habitats to prevent listing under the Endangered Species Act. Draft version 2.0. DWR Publication No. 15-14. Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, Salt Lake City, UT. 400 pgs. http://wildlife.utah.gov/wap/wap2015draft2.pdf
6
Intermountain Region Species of Conservation Concern Review DRAFT Template
SPECIES: Scientific [common] Lomatium latilobum [Canyonlands biscuitroot] LOLA4 Forest: Manti-La Sal National Forest Forest Reviewer: K. Anderson Date of Review: 17 May 2016 Forest concurrence (or recommendation if new) for No inclusion of species on list of potential SCC: (Enter Yes or No)
Forest review result:
The Forest concurs or recommends the species for inclusion on the list of potential SCC: Yes___ No_X__
Rationale for not concurring is based on (check all that apply): Species is not native to the plan area __X_____ Species is not known to occur in the plan area ___X____ Species persistence in the plan area is not of substantial concern __X____
Issue: Whether the species identified above should be listed as a species of Conservation Concern (SCC) for the Manti-La Sal National Forest (MLNF) as identified in the 2012 Planning Rule (36 CFR 219).
Rule: The 2012 Planning Rule [36 CFR 219.7(c)(3)] states that “The regional forester shall identify the species of conservation concern for the plan area in coordination with the responsible official.” It [36 CFR 219.9(b)(2)(c)] defines a species of conservation concern as “…a species, other than federally recognized threatened, endangered, proposed, or candidate species, that is known to occur in the plan area and for which the regional forester has determined that the best available scientific information indicates substantial concern about the species’ capability to persist over the long-term in the plan area.”
Analysis: The best available scientific information (BASI) does not clearly indicate that the species is present within the plan area.
Conclusion: Based upon the BASI documented herein, it is not recommended that this species be included in the potential list of SCC for the MLNF.
1
Intermountain Region Species of Conservation Concern Review DRAFT Template
Species: ____LOLA4______
FOREST REVIEW INFORMATION
Status summary based on other methods (information is on the Regional Office list of species considered; correct as needed):
Entity Status/Rank (include definition if Other) NatureServe G1G2 (NatureServe 2015)
Natural Utah - Not listed (UDNR 2015) Heritage Colorado – Not listed (CNHP 2015) Program State List UT – S1 (NatureServe 2015) Status CO – S1 (NatureServe 2015)
Not included in the CO or UT Wildlife Action Plans (SWAP 2015, WAP 2015) USDA Forest Lomatium latilobum is currently a FS Region 4 sensitive species on the Service Manti La-Sal NF (USFS 2013).
As of May 2016, this species is not listed as a potential SCC or Sensitive Species for any adjoining National Forests (USFS 2013). USDI FWS Not a listed species. Other
Review of species of conservation concern criteria based on definition
1. Native to the plan area
a. Is the species native to the plan area?
Yes___ No_X__
1. If no, provide explanation.
Collection records from the Intermountain Region Herbarium Network (IRHN) show the plant occurring primarily in or near Arches National Park, Natural Bridges with some occurrences in the surrounding area (COIH 2016). One record collected by N. D. Atwood in 1982 is recorded as having been collected 1/4 –mile West of the Forest Service boundary (COIH 2016). No collections are reported with in the plan area.
2
Intermountain Region Species of Conservation Concern Review DRAFT Template
Species: ____LOLA4______
2. Known to occur in the plan area
Table 2. Known Occurrence Frequency within the Planning Area (NRIS database) Occurrence: Number Source of Information Known Occurrences in the past 20 0 Intermountain Region Herbarium years Network (COIH 2016) Year Last Observed 0 Intermountain Region Herbarium Network (COIH 2016)
a. Are all species occurrences only accidental or transient?
Yes___ No_X__
1) If yes, document source for determination.
b. Based on the number of observations and/or year of last observation, can the species be presumed to be established or becoming established in the plan area? Yes___ No_X__
1) If no, provide explanation.
A review the Intermountain Region Herbarium Network (COIH 2016) web site show no collections of LOLA4 in the plan area (Map 1).
3. Substantial concern for species persistence in the plan area
a. Describe briefly the distribution, abundance, and population trend of the species in the plan area
Not found in plan area (Map 1 & 2).
b. Describe briefly threats or risk factors to the species or the ecological conditions that support it (i.e. habitat) based on best available scientific information
Reportedly, hiking, mountain biking and invasive species (NatureServe 2015).
3
Intermountain Region Species of Conservation Concern Review DRAFT Template
c. Considering the trend in populations or habitat and threats or risk factors for those populations or habitats, is there substantial concern for persistence of the species in the plan area?
Yes___ No_X__
1) If no, provide explanation
Not found in plan area (CPIH 2016, Map 1 & 2).
4. Range Map
Map 1. Google map showsing the locations of recorded Lomatium latilobum speciums within the COIH (2016).
4
Intermountain Region Species of Conservation Concern Review DRAFT Template
Map 2. UT occurrence map for Lomatium latilobum (Franklin and UDNR 2005).
Map 3. Distribution map for Lomatium latilobum (USDA 2016).
5
Intermountain Region Species of Conservation Concern Review DRAFT Template
5. Literature Cited
Colorado Natural Heritage Program (CNHP). 2015. Tracked Vascular Plant Species. http://www.cnhp.colostate.edu/download/list/vascular.asp. (Accessed May 24, 2016).
Colorado State Wildlife Action Plan (SWAP). 2015. Colorado State Wildlife Action Plan: A plan for conserving wildlife in Colorado. Colorado Parks and Wildlife, Denver, CO. 865 pgs. http://cpw.state.co.us/aboutus/Pages/StateWildlifeActionPlan.aspx
Consortium of Intermountain Herbaria (COIH). 2016. http//:www.intermountainbiota.org/portal/index.php. (Accessed on June 01)
Franklin, M. A. and State of Utah Department of Natural Resources (UDNR). 2005. "Plant Information Compiled by the Utah Natural Heritage Program: A Progress Report". All U.S. Government Documents (Utah Regional Depository). Paper 474. http://digitalcommons.usu.edu/govdocs/474
NatureServe. 2015. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. Version 7.1. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available http://explorer.natureserve.org. (Accessed: April 27, 2016).
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), NRCS. 2016. The PLANTS Database http://plants.usda.gov. National Plant Data Team, Greensboro, NC 27401- 4901 USA. (Accessed: May 24, 2016)
U.S. Forest Service (USFS). 2013. Proposed, Endangered, Threatened and Sensitive Species List, R4. Known / Suspected Distribution by Forest.
Utah Department of Natural Resources (UDNR). Division of Wildlife Resources. 2015. Utah Sensitive Species List.
Utah Wildlife Action Plan (WAP) Joint Team. 2015. Utah Wildlife Action Plan: A plan for managing native wildlife species and their habitats to prevent listing under the Endangered Species Act. Draft version 2.0. DWR Publication No. 15-14. Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, Salt Lake City, UT. 400 pgs. http://wildlife.utah.gov/wap/wap2015draft2.pdf
6
Intermountain Region Species of Conservation Concern Review DRAFT Template
SPECIES: Scientific [common] Lupinus crassus [Payson’s / Paradox lupine] LUCR2 Forest: Manti-La Sal National Forest Forest Reviewer: K. Anderson Date of Review: 18 May 2016 Forest concurrence (or recommendation if new) for No inclusion of species on list of potential SCC: (Enter Yes or No)
Forest review result:
The Forest concurs or recommends the species for inclusion on the list of potential SCC: Yes___ No_X__
Rationale for not concurring is based on (check all that apply): Species is not native to the plan area ___X____ Species is not known to occur in the plan area ___X____ Species persistence in the plan area is not of substantial concern __X____
Issue: Whether the species identified above should be listed as a species of Conservation Concern (SCC) for the Manti-La Sal National Forest (MLNF) as identified in the 2012 Planning Rule (36 CFR 219).
Rule: The 2012 Planning Rule [36 CFR 219.7(c)(3)] states that “The regional forester shall identify the species of conservation concern for the plan area in coordination with the responsible official.” It [36 CFR 219.9(b)(2)(c)] defines a species of conservation concern as “…a species, other than federally recognized threatened, endangered, proposed, or candidate species, that is known to occur in the plan area and for which the regional forester has determined that the best available scientific information indicates substantial concern about the species’ capability to persist over the long-term in the plan area.”
Analysis: The best available scientific information (BASI) does not clearly indicate that the species is present within the plan area.
Conclusion: Based upon the BASI documented herein, it is not recommended that this species be included in the potential list of SCC for the MLNF.
1
Intermountain Region Species of Conservation Concern Review DRAFT Template
Species: ____LUCR2______
FOREST REVIEW INFORMATION
Status summary based on other methods (information is on the Regional Office list of species considered; correct as needed):
Entity Status/Rank (include definition if Other) NatureServe G2 (NatureServe 2015)
Natural Utah – Not Listed (UDNR 2015) Heritage Colorado – “Fully Tracked” (CNHP 2015) Program State List UT – Not Listed (NatureServe 2015) Status CO – S2 (NatureServe 2015)
Not included in the CO or UT Wildlife Action Plans (SWAP 2015, WAP 2015) USDA Forest As of May 2016, this species is not listed as a potential SCC or Sensitive Service Species for any adjoining National Forests (USFS 2013).
USDI FWS Not a listed species. Other
Review of species of conservation concern criteria based on definition
1. Native to the plan area
a. Is the species native to the plan area?
Yes___ No_X__
1. If no, provide explanation.
No collections from the plan area were found in among the 38 records from nine herbaria in the Intermountain Region Herbarium Network (IRIS) (COIH 2016).
Locations reported in Southwest Environmental Information Network (SEINet) are outside the Colorado portion of the plan area (Map 1, SEINet 2016).
2
Intermountain Region Species of Conservation Concern Review DRAFT Template
Species: ____LUCR2______
2. Known to occur in the plan area
Table 2. Known Occurrence Frequency within the Planning Area (NRIS database) Occurrence: Number Source of Information Known Occurrences in the past 20 0 COIH 2016 years SEINet 2016 Year Last Observed 0 COIH 2016 SEINet 2016
a. Are all species occurrences only accidental or transient?
Yes___ No_X__
1) If yes, document source for determination.
b. Based on the number of observations and/or year of last observation, can the species be presumed to be established or becoming established in the plan area?
Yes___ No_X__
1) If no, provide explanation. See 1.a.1 above.
3. Substantial concern for species persistence in the plan area
a. Describe briefly the distribution, abundance, and population trend of the species in the plan area
Neither this species, nor its synonym, is discussed in A Utah Flora (Welsh et al. 2015). Cronquist et al. (1989) list L. ammophilus and L. crassus as synonymous with L. polyphyllus. In this treatment, L. ammophilus is considered a variety of L. polyphyllus and L. crassus is synonymous with var. ammophilus. L. polyphyllus v. ammophilus is the nomenclature used by Welsh et al. 2015.
3
Intermountain Region Species of Conservation Concern Review DRAFT Template
b. Describe briefly threats or risk factors to the species or the ecological conditions that support it (i.e. habitat) based on best available scientific information.
Threats include incompatible grazing, road construction and oil and gas exploration and extraction (NatureServe 2015).
c. Considering the trend in populations or habitat and threats or risk factors for those populations or habitats, is there substantial concern for persistence of the species in the plan area?
Yes___ No_X__
1) If no, provide explanation
There are no recorded records of this species occurring within the plan area (COIH 2016, SEINet 2016).
4. Range Map
Map 1. Google map with locations of Lupinus crassus occurrence records as recorded in the SEInt (2016).
4
Intermountain Region Species of Conservation Concern Review DRAFT Template
Map 2. Distribution map for Lupinus crassus (USDA 2016).
5. Literature Cited
Colorado Natural Heritage Program (CNHP). 2015. Tracked Vascular Plant Species. http://www.cnhp.colostate.edu/download/list/vascular.asp. (Accessed May 24, 2016).
Colorado State Wildlife Action Plan (SWAP). 2015. Colorado State Wildlife Action Plan: A plan for conserving wildlife in Colorado. Colorado Parks and Wildlife, Denver, CO. 865 pgs. http://cpw.state.co.us/aboutus/Pages/StateWildlifeActionPlan.aspx
Consortium of Intermountain Herbaria (COIH). 2016. http//:www.intermountainbiota.org/portal/index.php. (Accessed on June 01)
Cronquist, A., A. H. Holmgren, N. H. Holmgren, J. L. Reveal, P. K. Holmgren. 1984. Intermountain Flora. Vol. 4. New York Botanical Garden, Bronx, NY.
NatureServe. 2015. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. Version 7.1. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available http://explorer.natureserve.org. (Accessed: April 27, 2016).
Soutwest Environmental Information Network (SEINet) - Arizona Chapter. 2016. http//:swbiodiversity.org/seinet/index.php. Accessed in May.
5
Intermountain Region Species of Conservation Concern Review DRAFT Template
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), NRCS. 2016. The PLANTS Database http://plants.usda.gov. National Plant Data Team, Greensboro, NC 27401- 4901 USA. (Accessed: May 24, 2016)
U.S. Forest Service (USFS). 2013. Proposed, Endangered, Threatened and Sensitive Species List, R4. Known / Suspected Distribution by Forest.
Utah Department of Natural Resources (UDNR). Division of Wildlife Resources. 2015. Utah Sensitive Species List.
Utah Wildlife Action Plan (WAP) Joint Team. 2015. Utah Wildlife Action Plan: A plan for managing native wildlife species and their habitats to prevent listing under the Endangered Species Act. Draft version 2.0. DWR Publication No. 15-14. Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, Salt Lake City, UT. 400 pgs. http://wildlife.utah.gov/wap/wap2015draft2.pdf
Welsh, S. L., N. D. Atwood, S. Goodrich, and L. C. Higgins. 2015. A Utah Flora. Provo Utah. 987p
6
Intermountain Region Species of Conservation Concern Review DRAFT Template
SPECIES: Scientific [common] Paeonia brownii [Western / Brown’s peony] PABR Forest: Manti-La Sal National Forest Forest Reviewer: K. Anderson Date of Review: 18 May 2016 Forest concurrence (or recommendation if new) for No inclusion of species on list of potential SCC: (Enter Yes or No)
Forest review result:
The Forest concurs or recommends the species for inclusion on the list of potential SCC: Yes___ No_X__
Rationale for not concurring is based on (check all that apply): Species is not native to the plan area ___X____ Species is not known to occur in the plan area ___X____ Species persistence in the plan area is not of substantial concern __X____
Issue: Whether the species identified above should be listed as a species of Conservation Concern (SCC) for the Manti-La Sal National Forest (MLNF) as identified in the 2012 Planning Rule (36 CFR 219).
Rule: The 2012 Planning Rule [36 CFR 219.7(c)(3)] states that “The regional forester shall identify the species of conservation concern for the plan area in coordination with the responsible official.” It [36 CFR 219.9(b)(2)(c)] defines a species of conservation concern as “…a species, other than federally recognized threatened, endangered, proposed, or candidate species, that is known to occur in the plan area and for which the regional forester has determined that the best available scientific information indicates substantial concern about the species’ capability to persist over the long-term in the plan area.”
Analysis: The best available scientific information (BASI) does not clearly indicate that the species is present within the plan area.
Conclusion: Based upon the BASI documented herein, it is not recommended that this species be included in the potential list of SCC for the MLNF.
1
Intermountain Region Species of Conservation Concern Review DRAFT Template
Species: ___PABR______
FOREST REVIEW INFORMATION
Status summary based on other methods (information is on the Regional Office list of species considered; correct as needed):
Entity Status/Rank (include definition if Other) NatureServe G5 (NatureServe 2015)
Natural Utah - Not listed (UDNR 2015) Heritage Colorado – Not listed (CNHP 2015) Program State List UT – S1 (NatureServe 2015) Status CO – Not Listed (NatureServe 2015)
Not included in the CO or UT Wildlife Action Plans (SWAP 2015, WAP 2015) USDA Forest As of May 2016, this species is not listed as a potential SCC or Sensitive Service Species for any adjoining National Forests (USFS 2013).
USDI FWS Not a listed species. Other
Review of species of conservation concern criteria based on definition
1. Native to the plan area
a. Is the species native to the plan area?
Yes___ No_X__
1. If no, provide explanation.
Nativity is based on a single collection made in 1936 at the Great Basin Experimental Range Station (COIH 2016). It is possible that the collection found was cultivated in one of the flower gardens or greenhouse that existed at the compound. “…the Station headquarters area was landscaped in 1934” (USDA 1972). Peonys are common cultivated ornamentals in many parts of Utah (Welsh 2015), or brought in with one of the experimental seed mixes (USDA 1972).
2
Intermountain Region Species of Conservation Concern Review DRAFT Template
Species: ____PABR______
No other collections of PABR have been reported from the area. The site, (Great Basin Experimental Station) other than buildings, has since succumbed to natural succession. Many, if not all, of the experimental plots at the Station are overgrown with native species (Personal observation 2013).
2. Known to occur in the plan area
Table 2. Known Occurrence Frequency within the Planning Area (NRIS database) Occurrence: Number Source of Information Known Occurrences in the past 20 0 Intermountain Region Herbarium years Network (COIH 2016) Year Last Observed 1936 Intermountain Region Herbarium Network (IR COIH HN 2016)
a. Are all species occurrences only accidental or transient?
Yes_X__ No___
1) If yes, document source for determination.
Nativity is based on a single collection made in 1936 by B. Crane (and confirmed in 2011 by M. B. Piep) at the Great Basin Experimental Range Station (COIH 2016).
b. Based on the number of observations and/or year of last observation, can the species be presumed to be established or becoming established in the plan area?
Yes___ No_X__
1) If no, provide explanation,
Only one collection has been reported from the area (COIH 2016).
3
Intermountain Region Species of Conservation Concern Review DRAFT Template
3. Substantial concern for species persistence in the plan area
a. Describe briefly the distribution, abundance, and population trend of the species in the plan area
Nativity is based on a single collection made in 1936 at the Great Basin Research Station (GBR) (COIH 2016). Probably extirpated.
b. Describe briefly threats or risk factors to the species or the ecological conditions that support it (i.e. habitat) based on best available scientific information
No known threats.
c. Considering the trend in populations or habitat and threats or risk factors for those populations or habitats, is there substantial concern for persistence of the species in the plan area?
Yes___ No_X__
1) If no, provide explanation
Probably extirpated from the plan area, but large distribution beyond the plan area. It is known from Canada to Mexico, and from the west coast, inland, to Montana, Wyoming, and north-east corner of Utah (NatureServe 2015, Franklin and UDNR 2005).
4
Intermountain Region Species of Conservation Concern Review DRAFT Template
4. Range Map
Map 1. . UT occurrence map for Paeonia brownii (Franklin and UDNR 2005).
Map 2. Distribution map for Paeonia brownii (USDA 2016).
5
Intermountain Region Species of Conservation Concern Review DRAFT Template
5. Literature Citation
Colorado Natural Heritage Program (CNHP). 2015. Tracked Vascular Plant Species. http://www.cnhp.colostate.edu/download/list/vascular.asp. (Accessed May 24, 2016).
Colorado State Wildlife Action Plan (SWAP). 2015. Colorado State Wildlife Action Plan: A plan for conserving wildlife in Colorado. Colorado Parks and Wildlife, Denver, CO. 865 pgs. http://cpw.state.co.us/aboutus/Pages/StateWildlifeActionPlan.aspx
Consortium of Intermountain Herbaria (COIH). 2016. http//:www.intermountainbiota.org/portal/index.php. (Accessed on June 01)
Franklin, M. A. and State of Utah Department of Natural Resources (UDNR). 2005. "Plant Information Compiled by the Utah Natural Heritage Program: A Progress Report". All U.S. Government Documents (Utah Regional Depository). Paper 474. http://digitalcommons.usu.edu/govdocs/474
NatureServe. 2015. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. Version 7.1. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available http://explorer.natureserve.org. (Accessed: April 27, 2016).
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), NRCS. 2016. The PLANTS Database http://plants.usda.gov. National Plant Data Team, Greensboro, NC 27401- 4901 USA. (Accessed: May 24, 2016)
______1972. Great Basin Station-Sixty years of Progress in Range and Watershed Research. INT-118. Ogden, Utah. Pgs 4, 18, 19
U.S. Forest Service (USFS). 2013. Proposed, Endangered, Threatened and Sensitive Species List, R4. Known / Suspected Distribution by Forest.
Utah Department of Natural Resources (UDNR). Division of Wildlife Resources. 2015. Utah Sensitive Species List.
Utah Wildlife Action Plan (WAP) Joint Team. 2015. Utah Wildlife Action Plan: A plan for managing native wildlife species and their habitats to prevent listing under the Endangered Species Act. Draft version 2.0. DWR Publication No. 15-14. Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, Salt Lake City, UT. 400 pgs. http://wildlife.utah.gov/wap/wap2015draft2.pdf
Welsh, S. L., N. D. Atwood, S. Goodrich, and L. C. Higgins. 2015. A Utah Flora. Provo Utah. 987p.
6
Intermountain Region Species of Conservation Concern Review DRAFT Template
7
Intermountain Region Species of Conservation Concern Review DRAFT Template
SPECIES: Scientific [common] Packera dimorphophylla var intermedia Syn: Senecio dimorphophyllus var. intermedius [Splitleaf groundsel] (PADII4) Forest: Manti-La Sal National Forest Forest Reviewer: K. Anderson Date of Review: 25 May 2016 Forest concurrence (or recommendation if new) for No inclusion of species on list of potential SCC: (Enter Yes or No)
Forest review result:
The Forest concurs or recommends the species for inclusion on the list of potential SCC: Yes___ No_X__
Rationale for not concurring is based on (check all that apply): Species is not native to the plan area ______Species is not known to occur in the plan area ______Species persistence in the plan area is not of substantial concern ___X___
Issue: Whether the species identified above should be listed as a species of Conservation Concern (SCC) for the Manti-La Sal National Forest (MLNF) as identified in the 2012 Planning Rule (36 CFR 219).
Rule: The 2012 Planning Rule [36 CFR 219.7(c)(3)] states that “The regional forester shall identify the species of conservation concern for the plan area in coordination with the responsible official.” It [36 CFR 219.9(b)(2)(c)] defines a species of conservation concern as “…a species, other than federally recognized threatened, endangered, proposed, or candidate species, that is known to occur in the plan area and for which the regional forester has determined that the best available scientific information indicates substantial concern about the species’ capability to persist over the long-term in the plan area.”
Analysis: The best available scientific information (BASI) does not clearly document that the species is established within the plan area.
Conclusion: Based upon the BASI documented herein, it is not recommended that this species be included in the potential list of SCC for the MLNF.
1
Intermountain Region Species of Conservation Concern Review DRAFT Template
Species: __PADII4____
FOREST REVIEW INFORMATION
Status summary based on other methods (information is on the Regional Office list of species considered; correct as needed):
Entity Status/Rank (include definition if Other) NatureServe G4T2Q (NatureServe 2015)
Natural UT - No Conservation Status Issued (Franklin and UDNR 2005) Heritage CO – Not Listed (CNHP 2015) Program State List UT – S2 (NatureServe 2015) Status CO – Not Listed (NatureServe 2015)
Not included in the CO or UT Wildlife Action Plans (SWAP 2015, WAP 2015) USDA Forest As of May 2016, this species is not listed as a potential SCC or Sensitive Service Species for any adjoining National Forests (USFS 2013).
USDI FWS Not a listed species. Other
Review of species of conservation concern criteria based on definition
1. Native to the plan area
a. Is the species native to the plan area?
Yes_X__ No___
1. If no, provide explanation. A lack of scientific information prevents confirmation that this species has recently (within the last 20-years) been established within the planning area.
2
Intermountain Region Species of Conservation Concern Review DRAFT Template
Species: __ PADII4_____
2. Known to occur in the plan area
Table 2. Known Occurrence Frequency within the Planning Area (NRIS database) Occurrence: Number Source of Information Known Occurrences in the past 20 0 Intermountain Region Herbarium years Network (COIH 2016) Year Last Observed 1984 Thompson 1984
a. Are all species occurrences only accidental or transient?
Yes_X__ No___
1) If yes, document source for determination.
COIH (2016) cites only collections made prior to 1962. Thompson (Reviewed 2016) has one collection from 1976 and one from 1984. No recent collections are known.
b. Based on the number of observations and/or year of last observation, can the species be presumed to be established or becoming established in the plan area?
Yes_X__ No___
1) If no, provide explanation
3. Substantial concern for species persistence in the plan area
a. Describe briefly the distribution, abundance, and population trend of the species in the plan area
The plant is considered endemic to Utah and is found in six counties. It is also listed for Colorado in NRCS; however, disagreement of the taxonomy of this plant exists.
Treated as Senecio dimorphophyllus var. intermedius in A Utah Flora (Welsh et al. 2015), by Cronquist et al. (1994) and in the Utah Department of Natural Resources, Utah Natural Heritage Program’s Plant Report (Franklin and UDNR 2005). The Flora of North America (Barkley et al. 2006) and Integrated Taxonomic Information system (ITIS 2016),
3
Intermountain Region Species of Conservation Concern Review DRAFT Template
NatureServe (2015) and the USDA (2016) treat it as Packera dimorphophylla var. intermedia.
Welsh et al. (2015) state; “Two very weakly discernible varieties have been recognized in Utah; probably they are best combined.” The determination between the two “weakly discernible varieties” is the level of lobing found on the cauline leaves.
According to NatureServe (2015) during a review of element occurrences in 2012, all of the 11 occurrences of this variety were either ranked Historical or had Last Observation dates between the 1930s and 1980s. The number of extant occurrences of this variety is unknown.
Welsh et al. (2015) indicate that 4 specimens were reviewed for the A Utah Flora treatment, but this is not an indication that those specimens are from populations that are still extant. The number of occurrences appears to be unknown at this point (NatureServe 2015).
b. Describe briefly threats or risk factors to the species or the ecological conditions that support it (i.e. habitat) based on best available scientific information
Summer grazing is a potential threat to this species (NatureServe 2015).
c. Considering the trend in populations or habitat and threats or risk factors for those populations or habitats, is there substantial concern for persistence of the species in the plan area?
Yes___ No_X__
1) If no, provide explanation
A lack of scientific information prevents confirmation that this species has recently (within the last 20-years) been established within the planning area. Further surveys need to be conducted to verify current status.
4
Intermountain Region Species of Conservation Concern Review DRAFT Template
4. Range Map
Map 1. UT occurrence map for Senecio dimorphophyllus var. intermedius (Franklin and UDNR 2005).
Map 2. County distribution map for Packera dimorphophylla var intermedia (USDA 2016).
5
Intermountain Region Species of Conservation Concern Review DRAFT Template
5. Literature Cited Barkley, T.M., L. Brouillet, and J. Strother. 2006. Packera dimorphophylla. In: Flora of North America Editorial Committee, eds. 1993+. Flora of North America North of Mexico. 19+ vols. New York and Oxford. Vol. 20, pp. 584.
Colorado Natural Heritage Program (CNHP). 2015. Tracked Vascular Plant Species. http://www.cnhp.colostate.edu/download/list/vascular.asp. (Accessed May 24, 2016).
Colorado State Wildlife Action Plan (SWAP). 2015. Colorado State Wildlife Action Plan: A plan for conserving wildlife in Colorado. Colorado Parks and Wildlife, Denver, CO. 865 pgs. http://cpw.state.co.us/aboutus/Pages/StateWildlifeActionPlan.aspx
Consortium of Intermountain Herbaria (COIH). 2016. http//:www.intermountainbiota.org/portal/index.php. (Accessed on June 01)
Cronquist, A., A. H. Holmgren, N. H. Holmgren, J. L. Reveal, P. K. Holmgren. 1984. Intermountain Flora. Vol. 4. New York Botanical Garden, Bronx, NY
Franklin, M. A. and State of Utah Department of Natural Resources (UDNR). 2005. "Plant Information Compiled by the Utah Natural Heritage Program: A Progress Report". All U.S. Government Documents (Utah Regional Depository). Paper 474. http://digitalcommons.usu.edu/govdocs/474
Integrated Taxonomic Information System (ITIS). 2016. Online database. http://www.itis.gov/. (Accessed January 27, 2016)
NatureServe. 2015. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. Version 7.1. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available http://explorer.natureserve.org. (Accessed: April 27, 2016
Thompson, R. 1984. Senecio dimorphyllus var. intermedius. La Sal Mountains. Coll. No. 2465.
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), NRCS. 2016. The PLANTS Database http://plants.usda.gov. National Plant Data Team, Greensboro, NC 27401- 4901 USA. (Accessed: May 24, 2016)
U.S. Forest Service (USFS). 2013. Proposed, Endangered, Threatened and Sensitive Species List, R4. Known / Suspected Distribution by Forest.
Utah Department of Natural Resources (UDNR). Division of Wildlife Resources. 2015.
6
Intermountain Region Species of Conservation Concern Review DRAFT Template
Utah Sensitive Species List.
Utah Wildlife Action Plan (WAP) Joint Team. 2015. Utah Wildlife Action Plan: A plan for managing native wildlife species and their habitats to prevent listing under the Endangered Species Act. Draft version 2.0. DWR Publication No. 15-14. Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, Salt Lake City, UT. 400 pgs. http://wildlife.utah.gov/wap/wap2015draft2.pdf
Welsh, S. L., N. D. Atwood, S. Goodrich, and L. C. Higgins. 2015. A Utah Flora. Provo Utah. 987p.
7
Intermountain Region Species of Conservation Concern Review DRAFT Template
SPECIES: Scientific [common] Penstemon crandallii ssp, atratus [La Sal penstemon] PECRA Forest: Manti-La Sal National Forest Forest Reviewer: K. Anderson Date of Review: 1 June 2016 Forest concurrence (or recommendation if new) for No inclusion of species on list of potential SCC: (Enter Yes or No)
Forest review result:
The Forest concurs or recommends the species for inclusion on the list of potential SCC: Yes___ No_X__
Rationale for not concurring is based on (check all that apply): Species is not native to the plan area ______Species is not known to occur in the plan area ______Species persistence in the plan area is not of substantial concern __X____
Issue: Whether the species identified above should be listed as a species of Conservation Concern (SCC) for the Manti-La Sal National Forest (MLNF) as identified in the 2012 Planning Rule (36 CFR 219).
Rule: The 2012 Planning Rule [36 CFR 219.7(c)(3)] states that “The regional forester shall identify the species of conservation concern for the plan area in coordination with the responsible official.” It [36 CFR 219.9(b)(2)(c)] defines a species of conservation concern as “…a species, other than federally recognized threatened, endangered, proposed, or candidate species, that is known to occur in the plan area and for which the regional forester has determined that the best available scientific information indicates substantial concern about the species’ capability to persist over the long-term in the plan area.”
Analysis: The best available scientific information (BASI) indicates a there is not enough current scientific information to indicate a level of uncertainty in the species capability to persist within the plan area.
Conclusion: Based upon the BASI documented herein, it is not recommended that this species be included in the potential list of SCC for the MLNF.
1
Intermountain Region Species of Conservation Concern Review DRAFT Template
Species: __PECRA____
FOREST REVIEW INFORMATION
Status summary based on other methods (information is on the Regional Office list of species considered; correct as needed):
Entity Status/Rank (include definition if Other) NatureServe G4T3 (Nature Serve 2015)
Natural UT – Not listed (UDNR 2015) Heritage CO – SU “Unrankable; status cannot be determined at this time.” (CNHP Program 2015) State List UT-S3(Nature Serve 2015) Status CO-SU (Nature Serve 2015)
Not included in the CO or UT Wildlife Action Plans (SWAP 2015, WAP 2015) USDA Forest As of May 2016, this species is not listed as a potential SCC or Sensitive Service Species for any adjoining National Forests (USFS 2013).
USDI FWS Not a listed species. Other
Review of species of conservation concern criteria based on definition
1. Native to the plan area
a. Is the species native to the plan area?
Yes_X__ No___
1. If no, provide explanation.
2
Intermountain Region Species of Conservation Concern Review DRAFT Template
Species: __PECRA_____
2. Known to occur in the plan area
Table 2. Known Occurrence Frequency within the Planning Area (NRIS database) Occurrence: Number Source of Information Known Occurrences in the past 20 0 Intermountain Region Herbarium years 6* Network (COIH 2016) Year Last Observed 1914 Intermountain Region Herbarium 2010* Network (COIH 2016) *Based on variety atratus not subspecies atratus.
a. Are all species occurrences only accidental or transient?
Yes___ No_X__
1) If yes, document source for determination.
b. Based on the number of observations and/or year of last observation, can the species be presumed to be established or becoming established in the plan area?
Yes_X__ No___
1) If no, provide explanation.
3. Substantial concern for species persistence in the plan area
a. Describe briefly the distribution, abundance, and population trend of the species in the plan area
Questionable taxonomy. USDA Plants database uses the subspecies status. Welsh et al. (2015) have reduced it to varietal status, in addition, stating: “Our material may be referred to two poorly [italics added] differentiated varieties.” Welsh et al. (2015) reviewed fourteen collections in preparation for addressing the species in A Utah Flora.
3
Intermountain Region Species of Conservation Concern Review DRAFT Template
b. Describe briefly threats or risk factors to the species or the ecological conditions that support it (i.e. habitat) based on best available scientific information
No known threats/risks.
c. Considering the trend in populations or habitat and threats or risk factors for those populations or habitats, is there substantial concern for persistence of the species in the plan area?
Yes___ No_X__
1) If no, provide explanation
Lack of information precludes concern for persistence in the plan area.
4. Range Map
Map 1. Utah occurrence map for Penstemon crandallii ssp, atratus (Franklin and UDNR 2005).
4
Intermountain Region Species of Conservation Concern Review DRAFT Template
Map 2. Distribution map for Penstemon crandallii ssp, atratus (USDA 2016).
5. Literature Cited
Colorado Natural Heritage Program (CNHP). 2015. Tracked Vascular Plant Species. http://www.cnhp.colostate.edu/download/list/vascular.asp. (Accessed May 24, 2016).
Colorado State Wildlife Action Plan (SWAP). 2015. Colorado State Wildlife Action Plan: A plan for conserving wildlife in Colorado. Colorado Parks and Wildlife, Denver, CO. 865 pgs. http://cpw.state.co.us/aboutus/Pages/StateWildlifeActionPlan.aspx
Consortium of Intermountain Herbaria (COIH). 2016. http//:www.intermountainbiota.org/portal/index.php. (Accessed on June 01)
Franklin, M. A. and State of Utah Department of Natural Resources (UDNR). 2005. "Plant Information Compiled by the Utah Natural Heritage Program: A Progress Report". All U.S. Government Documents (Utah Regional Depository). Paper 474. http://digitalcommons.usu.edu/govdocs/474
NatureServe. 2015. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. Version 7.1. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available http://explorer.natureserve.org. (Accessed: April 27, 2016).
5
Intermountain Region Species of Conservation Concern Review DRAFT Template
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), NRCS. 2016. The PLANTS Database http://plants.usda.gov. National Plant Data Team, Greensboro, NC 27401- 4901 USA. (Accessed: May 24, 2016)
U.S. Forest Service (USFS). 2013. Proposed, Endangered, Threatened and Sensitive Species List, R4. Known / Suspected Distribution by Forest. Utah Wildlife Action Plan (WAP) Joint Team. 2015. Utah Wildlife Action Plan: A plan for managing native wildlife species and their habitats to prevent listing under the Endangered Species Act. Draft version 2.0. DWR Publication No. 15-14. Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, Salt Lake City, UT. 400 pgs. http://wildlife.utah.gov/wap/wap2015draft2.pdf
Welsh, S. L., N. D. Atwood, S. Goodrich, and L. C. Higgins. 2015. A Utah Flora. Provo Utah. 987p.
6
Intermountain Region Species of Conservation Concern Review DRAFT Template
SPECIES: Scientific [common] Penstemon lentus v albiflorus [Handsome beardtonge] PELEA3 Forest: Manti-La Sal National Forest Forest Reviewer: K. Anderson Date of Review: 18 May 2016 Forest concurrence (or recommendation if new) for No inclusion of species on list of potential SCC: (Enter Yes or No)
Forest review result:
The Forest concurs or recommends the species for inclusion on the list of potential SCC: Yes___ No_X__
Rationale for not concurring is based on (check all that apply): Species is not native to the plan area ______Species is not known to occur in the plan area ______Species persistence in the plan area is not of substantial concern __X____
Issue: Whether the species identified above should be listed as a species of Conservation Concern (SCC) for the Manti-La Sal National Forest (MLNF) as identified in the 2012 Planning Rule (36 CFR 219).
Rule: The 2012 Planning Rule [36 CFR 219.7(c)(3)] states that “The regional forester shall identify the species of conservation concern for the plan area in coordination with the responsible official.” It [36 CFR 219.9(b)(2)(c)] defines a species of conservation concern as “…a species, other than federally recognized threatened, endangered, proposed, or candidate species, that is known to occur in the plan area and for which the regional forester has determined that the best available scientific information indicates substantial concern about the species’ capability to persist over the long-term in the plan area.”
Analysis: The best available scientific information (BASI) indicates a there is not enough current scientific information to indicate a level of certainty in the species capability to persist within the plan area.
Conclusion: Based upon the BASI documented herein, it is not recommended that this species be included in the potential list of SCC for the MLNF.
1
Intermountain Region Species of Conservation Concern Review DRAFT Template
Species: ___PELEA3______
FOREST REVIEW INFORMATION
Status summary based on other methods (information is on the Regional Office list of species considered; correct as needed):
Entity Status/Rank (include definition if Other) NatureServe G4T2T3(NatureServe 2015)
Natural Utah - Not listed (UDNR 2015) Heritage Colorado – Not listed (CNHP 2015) Program State List UT – S2S3 (NatureServe 2015) Status CO – Not Listed (NatureServe 2015)
Not included in the CO or UT Wildlife Action Plans (SWAP 2015, WAP 2015) USDA Forest As of May 2016, this species is not listed as a potential SCC or Sensitive Service Species for any adjoining National Forests (USFS 2013).
USDI FWS Not a listed species. Other
Review of species of conservation concern criteria based on definition
1. Native to the plan area
a. Is the species native to the plan area?
Yes_X__ No___
1. If no, provide explanation.
2
Intermountain Region Species of Conservation Concern Review DRAFT Template
Species: ___ PELEA3______
2. Known to occur in the plan area
Table 2. Known Occurrence Frequency within the Planning Area (NRIS database) Occurrence: Number Source of Information Known Occurrences in the past 20 2 Intermountain Region Herbarium years Network (COIH 2016) Year Last Observed 2013 Intermountain Region Herbarium Network (COIH 2016)
a. Are all species occurrences only accidental or transient?
Yes___ No_X__
1) If yes, document source for determination.
b. Based on the number of observations and/or year of last observation, can the species be presumed to be established or becoming established in the plan area?
Yes_X__ No___
1) If no, provide explanation.
3. Substantial concern for species persistence in the plan area
a. Describe briefly the distribution, abundance, and population trend of the species in the plan area
Unknown- There is limited scientific information available for this species.
b. Describe briefly threats or risk factors to the species or the ecological conditions that support it (i.e. habitat) based on best available scientific information
Unknown - There is limited scientific information available for this species.
3
Intermountain Region Species of Conservation Concern Review DRAFT Template
c. Considering the trend in populations or habitat and threats or risk factors for those populations or habitats, is there substantial concern for persistence of the species in the plan area?
Yes___ No_X__
1) If no, provide explanation
The species occurs in areas that have Federal protection (e.g. Dark Canyon, and Natural Bridges National Monument) (NatureServe 2015). There is limited scientific information available for this species.
4. Range Map
Map 1. UT occurrence map for Penstemon lentus (Franklin and UDNR 2005).
4
Intermountain Region Species of Conservation Concern Review DRAFT Template
Map 2. UNHP 2015
Map 3. Distribution map for Penstemon lentus (USDA 2016).
5
Intermountain Region Species of Conservation Concern Review DRAFT Template
5. Literature Cited
Colorado Natural Heritage Program (CNHP). 2015. Tracked Vascular Plant Species. http://www.cnhp.colostate.edu/download/list/vascular.asp. (Accessed May 24, 2016).
Colorado State Wildlife Action Plan (SWAP). 2015. Colorado State Wildlife Action Plan: A plan for conserving wildlife in Colorado. Colorado Parks and Wildlife, Denver, CO. 865 pgs. http://cpw.state.co.us/aboutus/Pages/StateWildlifeActionPlan.aspx
Consortium of Intermountain Herbaria (COIH). 2016. http//:www.intermountainbiota.org/portal/index.php. (Accessed on June 01)
Franklin, M. A. and State of Utah Department of Natural Resources (UDNR). 2005. "Plant Information Compiled by the Utah Natural Heritage Program: A Progress Report". All U.S. Government Documents (Utah Regional Depository). Paper 474. http://digitalcommons.usu.edu/govdocs/474 NatureServe. 2015. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. Version 7.1. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available http://explorer.natureserve.org. (Accessed: April 27, 2016).
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), NRCS. 2016. The PLANTS Database http://plants.usda.gov. National Plant Data Team, Greensboro, NC 27401- 4901 USA. (Accessed: May 24, 2016)
______1972. Great Basin Station-Sixty years of Progress in Range and Watershed Research. INT-118. Ogden, Utah. Pgs 4, 18, 19
U.S. Forest Service (USFS). 2013. Proposed, Endangered, Threatened and Sensitive Species List, R4. Known / Suspected Distribution by Forest.
Utah Department of Natural Resources (UDNR). Division of Wildlife Resources. 2015. Utah Sensitive Species List.
Utah Natural Heritage Program (UNHP). 2015. Utah Division of Wildlife Resources. UNHP Biodiversity Tracking and Conservation System (BIOTICS).
Utah Wildlife Action Plan (WAP) Joint Team. 2015. Utah Wildlife Action Plan: A plan for managing native wildlife species and their habitats to prevent listing under the Endangered Species Act. Draft version 2.0. DWR Publication No. 15-14. Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, Salt Lake City, UT. 400 pgs. http://wildlife.utah.gov/wap/wap2015draft2.pdf
6
Intermountain Region Species of Conservation Concern Review DRAFT Template
SPECIES: Scientific [common] Penstemon navajoa [Navajo Mountain beardtongue] PENA4 Forest: Manti-La Sal National Forest Forest Reviewer: K. Anderson Date of Review: 18 May 2016 Forest concurrence (or recommendation if new) for No inclusion of species on list of potential SCC: (Enter Yes or No)
Forest review result:
The Forest concurs or recommends the species for inclusion on the list of potential SCC: Yes___ No_X__
Rationale for not concurring is based on (check all that apply): Species is not native to the plan area ______Species is not known to occur in the plan area ______Species persistence in the plan area is not of substantial concern __X____
Issue: Whether the species identified above should be listed as a species of Conservation Concern (SCC) for the Manti-La Sal National Forest (MLNF) as identified in the 2012 Planning Rule (36 CFR 219).
Rule: The 2012 Planning Rule [36 CFR 219.7(c)(3)] states that “The regional forester shall identify the species of conservation concern for the plan area in coordination with the responsible official.” It [36 CFR 219.9(b)(2)(c)] defines a species of conservation concern as “…a species, other than federally recognized threatened, endangered, proposed, or candidate species, that is known to occur in the plan area and for which the regional forester has determined that the best available scientific information indicates substantial concern about the species’ capability to persist over the long-term in the plan area.”
Analysis: The best available scientific information (BASI) indicates a there is not enough current scientific information to indicate a level of certainty that the species is capability to persist within the plan area.
Conclusion: Based upon the BASI documented herein, it is not recommended that this species be included in the potential list of SCC for the MLNF.
1
Intermountain Region Species of Conservation Concern Review DRAFT Template
Species: ___PENA4______
FOREST REVIEW INFORMATION
Status summary based on other methods (information is on the Regional Office list of species considered; correct as needed):
Entity Status/Rank (include definition if Other) NatureServe G1 (NatureServe 2015)
Natural Utah - No Conservation Status Issued (Franklin and UDNR 2005) Heritage Colorado – Not listed (CNHP 2015) Program State List UT – S1 (NatureServe 2015) Status CO – Not listed (NatureServe 2015)
Not included in the CO or UT Wildlife Action Plans (SWAP 2015, WAP 2015) USDA Forest As of May 2016, this species is not listed as a potential SCC or Sensitive Service Species for any adjoining National Forests (USFS 2013).
USDI FWS Not a listed species. Other No longer listed on the as an Endangered Species by the Navajo Nations (NNDFW 2008).
Review of species of conservation concern criteria based on definition
1. Native to the plan area
a. Is the species native to the plan area?
Yes_X__ No___
1. If no, provide explanation.
2
Intermountain Region Species of Conservation Concern Review DRAFT Template
Species: ___ PENA4____
2. Known to occur in the plan area
Table 2. Known Occurrence Frequency within the Planning Area (NRIS database) Occurrence: Number Source of Information Known Occurrences in the past 20 N/A Intermountain Region years Info Herbarium Network (COIH 2016) protected Year Last Observed N/A Intermountain Region Info Herbarium Network (COIH 2016) protected
a. Are all species occurrences only accidental or transient?
Yes___ No_X__
1) If yes, document source for determination.
b. Based on the number of observations and/or year of last observation, can the species be presumed to be established or becoming established in the plan area?
Yes_X__ No___
1) If no, provide explanation.
3. Substantial concern for species persistence in the plan area
a. Describe briefly the distribution, abundance, and population trend of the species in the plan area
“This species is endemic in extreme southeast Utah, San Juan County. It has long been known from only the upper elevations of Navajo Mountain on the Navajo Nation. Recent collections now place it at the head of Dark Canyon, on Chippean Ridge and in the Abajo Mountains; both areas are on the Manti- La Sal National Forest. It is found at high elevations in ponderosa pine- Douglas fir-alpine fir, ponderosa pine-Gambel’s oak, grassland meadow- ponderosa pine, and, at one of the newer locations, aspen-Gambel’s oak communities (Franklin and UDNR 2005)”.
3
Intermountain Region Species of Conservation Concern Review DRAFT Template
b. Describe briefly threats or risk factors to the species or the ecological conditions that support it (i.e. habitat) based on best available scientific information
There is no information on the status of the new Dark Canyon or Abajo Mountain locations, i.e., estimates of population size, habitat condition or potential threats (Franklin and UDNR 2005).
c. Considering the trend in populations or habitat and threats or risk factors for those populations or habitats, is there substantial concern for persistence of the species in the plan area?
Yes___ No_X__
1) If no, provide explanation
“It is considered secure and stable with no real threats (on Navajo lands). There is no logging or off-road vehicle traffic, and, though some horses are present they have not yet been observed eating Penstemon (Franklin and UDNR 2005).”
4. Range Map
Map 1. UT occurrence map for Penstemon navajoa (Franklin and UDNR 2005).
4
Intermountain Region Species of Conservation Concern Review DRAFT Template
Map 2. UNHP 2015 Occurrence sites.
Map 3. Distribution map for Penstemon navajoa (USDA 2016).
5. Supporting Literature
Colorado Natural Heritage Program (CNHP). 2015. Tracked Vascular Plant Species. http://www.cnhp.colostate.edu/download/list/vascular.asp. (Accessed May 24, 2016).
Colorado State Wildlife Action Plan (SWAP). 2015. Colorado State Wildlife Action Plan: A plan for conserving wildlife in Colorado. Colorado Parks and Wildlife, Denver, CO. 865 pgs. http://cpw.state.co.us/aboutus/Pages/StateWildlifeActionPlan.aspx
5
Intermountain Region Species of Conservation Concern Review DRAFT Template
Consortium of Intermountain Herbaria (COIH). 2016. http//:www.intermountainbiota.org/portal/index.php. (Accessed on June 01)
Franklin, M. A. and State of Utah Department of Natural Resources (UDNR). 2005. "Plant Information Compiled by the Utah Natural Heritage Program: A Progress Report". All U.S. Government Documents (Utah Regional Depository). Paper 474. http://digitalcommons.usu.edu/govdocs/474
NatureServe. 2015. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. Version 7.1. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available http://explorer.natureserve.org. (Accessed: April 27, 2016).
Navajo Nations Department of Fish and Wildlife (NNDFW). 2008. Navajo endangered species list; resource committee resolution. http://nndfw.org/nnhp/nnhp_nesl.pdf
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), NRCS. 2016. The PLANTS Database http://plants.usda.gov. National Plant Data Team, Greensboro, NC 27401- 4901 USA. (Accessed: May 24, 2016)
______1972. Great Basin Station-Sixty years of Progress in Range and Watershed Research. INT-118. Ogden, Utah. Pgs 4, 18, 19
U.S. Forest Service (USFS). 2013. Proposed, Endangered, Threatened and Sensitive Species List, R4. Known / Suspected Distribution by Forest.
Utah Department of Natural Resources (UDNR). Division of Wildlife Resources. 2015. Utah Sensitive Species List.
Utah Natural Heritage Program (UNHP). 2015. Utah Division of Wildlife Resources. UNHP Biodiversity Tracking and Conservation System (BIOTICS).
Utah Wildlife Action Plan (WAP) Joint Team. 2015. Utah Wildlife Action Plan: A plan for managing native wildlife species and their habitats to prevent listing under the Endangered Species Act. Draft version 2.0. DWR Publication No. 15-14. Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, Salt Lake City, UT. 400 pgs. http://wildlife.utah.gov/wap/wap2015draft2.pdf
6
Intermountain Region Species of Conservation Concern Review DRAFT Template
SPECIES: Scientific [common] Penstemon tidestromii [Tidestrom’s beardtongue] PETI2 Forest: Manti-La Sal National Forest Forest Reviewer: K. Anderson Date of Review: 19 May 2016 Forest concurrence (or recommendation if new) for No inclusion of species on list of potential SCC: (Enter Yes or No)
Forest review result:
The Forest concurs or recommends the species for inclusion on the list of potential SCC: Yes___ No_X__
Rationale for not concurring is based on (check all that apply): Species is not native to the plan area ______Species is not known to occur in the plan area ______Species persistence in the plan area is not of substantial concern __X____
Issue: Whether the species identified above should be listed as a species of Conservation Concern (SCC) for the Manti-La Sal National Forest (MLNF) as identified in the 2012 Planning Rule (36 CFR 219).
Rule: The 2012 Planning Rule [36 CFR 219.7(c)(3)] states that “The regional forester shall identify the species of conservation concern for the plan area in coordination with the responsible official.” It [36 CFR 219.9(b)(2)(c)] defines a species of conservation concern as “…a species, other than federally recognized threatened, endangered, proposed, or candidate species, that is known to occur in the plan area and for which the regional forester has determined that the best available scientific information indicates substantial concern about the species’ capability to persist over the long-term in the plan area.”
Analysis: The best available scientific information (BASI) indicates a there is not enough current scientific information to indicate a level of certainty that the species is capable to persist within the plan area.
Conclusion: Based upon the BASI documented herein, it is not recommended that this species be included in the potential list of SCC for the MLNF.
1
Intermountain Region Species of Conservation Concern Review DRAFT Template
Species: ___PETI2______
FOREST REVIEW INFORMATION
Status summary based on other methods (information is on the Regional Office list of species considered; correct as needed):
Entity Status/Rank (include definition if Other) NatureServe G2G3(NatureServe 2015)
Natural Utah - Not listed (UDNR 2015) Heritage Colorado – Not listed (CNHP 2015) Program State List UT – S2S3 (NatureServe 2015) Status CO – Not Listed (NatureServe 2015)
Not included in the CO or UT Wildlife Action Plans (SWAP 2015, WAP 2015) USDA Forest As of May 2016, this species is not listed as a potential SCC or Sensitive Service Species for any adjoining National Forests (USFS 2013).
USDI FWS Not a listed species. Other
Review of species of conservation concern criteria based on definition
1. Native to the plan area
a. Is the species native to the plan area?
Yes_X__ No___
1. If no, provide explanation.
2
Intermountain Region Species of Conservation Concern Review DRAFT Template
Species: ___PETI2______
2. Known to occur in the plan area
Table 2. Known Occurrence Frequency within the Planning Area (NRIS database) Occurrence: Number Source of Information Known Occurrences in the past 20 0 Intermountain Region Herbarium years Network (COIH 2016) Year Last Observed 1993 Intermountain Region Herbarium Network (COIH 2016)
a. Are all species occurrences only accidental or transient?
Yes___ No_X__
1) If yes, document source for determination.
b. Based on the number of observations and/or year of last observation, can the species be presumed to be established or becoming established in the plan area?
Yes_X__ No___
1) If no, provide explanation.
3. Substantial concern for species persistence in the plan area
a. Describe briefly the distribution, abundance, and population trend of the species in the plan area
Appears to be abundant on the San Pitch Mountains. The UNHP (2015) attribute table states the following as associated with Atwood collection 13,588 [13,599] in Wales Canyon “estimated at 2,500-5,000. PHENOLOGY: flower, immature fruit. VIGOR: normal.”
3
Intermountain Region Species of Conservation Concern Review DRAFT Template
b. Describe briefly threats or risk factors to the species or the ecological conditions that support it (i.e. habitat) based on best available scientific information
Grazing (NatureServe 2015).
c. Considering the trend in populations or habitat and threats or risk factors for those populations or habitats, is there substantial concern for persistence of the species in the plan area?
Yes___ No_X__
1) If no, provide explanation Lack of information precludes concern for persistence.
4. Range Map
Map 1. UT occurrence map for Penstemon tidestromii (Franklin and UDNR 2005).
4
Intermountain Region Species of Conservation Concern Review DRAFT Template
Map 2. UT county map for Penstemon tidestromii (USDA 2016).
Map 3. Distribution map for Penstemon tidestromii (USDA 2016).
5. Supporting Literature Colorado Natural Heritage Program (CNHP). 2015. Tracked Vascular Plant Species. http://www.cnhp.colostate.edu/download/list/vascular.asp. (Accessed May 24, 2016).
5
Intermountain Region Species of Conservation Concern Review DRAFT Template
Colorado State Wildlife Action Plan (SWAP). 2015. Colorado State Wildlife Action Plan: A plan for conserving wildlife in Colorado. Colorado Parks and Wildlife, Denver, CO. 865 pgs. http://cpw.state.co.us/aboutus/Pages/StateWildlifeActionPlan.aspx
Consortium of Intermountain Herbaria (COIH). 2016. http//:www.intermountainbiota.org/portal/index.php. (Accessed on June 01)
Franklin, M. A. and State of Utah Department of Natural Resources (UDNR). 2005. "Plant Information Compiled by the Utah Natural Heritage Program: A Progress Report". All U.S. Government Documents (Utah Regional Depository). Paper 474. http://digitalcommons.usu.edu/govdocs/474
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), NRCS. 2016. The PLANTS Database http://plants.usda.gov. National Plant Data Team, Greensboro, NC 27401- 4901 USA. (Accessed: May 24, 2016)
U.S. Forest Service (USFS). 2013. Proposed, Endangered, Threatened and Sensitive Species List, R4. Known / Suspected Distribution by Forest.
Utah Department of Natural Resources (UDNR). Division of Wildlife Resources. 2015. Utah Sensitive Species List.
Utah Natural Heritage Program (UNHP). 2015. Utah Division of Wildlife Resources. UNHP Biodiversity Tracking and Conservation System (BIOTICS).
Utah Wildlife Action Plan (WAP) Joint Team. 2015. Utah Wildlife Action Plan: A plan for managing native wildlife species and their habitats to prevent listing under the Endangered Species Act. Draft version 2.0. DWR Publication No. 15-14. Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, Salt Lake City, UT. 400 pgs. http://wildlife.utah.gov/wap/wap2015draft2.pdf
6
Intermountain Region Species of Conservation Concern Review DRAFT Template
SPECIES: Scientific [common] Physaria acutifolia var. purpurea [Sharpleaf / Book Cliffs/ Purple twinpod] PHACP Forest: Manti-La Sal National Forest Forest Reviewer: K. Anderson Date of Review: 19 May 2016 Forest concurrence (or recommendation if new) for No inclusion of species on list of potential SCC: (Enter Yes or No)
Forest review result:
The Forest concurs or recommends the species for inclusion on the list of potential SCC: Yes___ No_X__
Rationale for not concurring is based on (check all that apply): Species is not native to the plan area ______Species is not known to occur in the plan area ______Species persistence in the plan area is not of substantial concern __X____
Issue: Whether the species identified above should be listed as a species of Conservation Concern (SCC) for the Manti-La Sal National Forest (MLNF) as identified in the 2012 Planning Rule (36 CFR 219).
Rule: The 2012 Planning Rule [36 CFR 219.7(c)(3)] states that “The regional forester shall identify the species of conservation concern for the plan area in coordination with the responsible official.” It [36 CFR 219.9(b)(2)(c)] defines a species of conservation concern as “…a species, other than federally recognized threatened, endangered, proposed, or candidate species, that is known to occur in the plan area and for which the regional forester has determined that the best available scientific information indicates substantial concern about the species’ capability to persist over the long-term in the plan area.”
Analysis: The best available scientific information (BASI) indicates a there is not enough current scientific information to indicate a level of certainty in the species capability to persist. Inconsistent nomenclature within the plan area.
Conclusion: Based upon the BASI documented herein, it is not recommended that this species be included in the potential list of SCC for the MLNF.
1
Intermountain Region Species of Conservation Concern Review DRAFT Template
Species: ___PHACP______
FOREST REVIEW INFORMATION
Status summary based on other methods (information is on the Regional Office list of species considered; correct as needed):
Entity Status/Rank (include definition if Other) NatureServe G5T2 (NatureServe 2015)
Natural Utah - Not listed (UDNR 2015) Heritage Colorado – Not listed (CNHP 2015) Program State List UT – S2 (NatureServe 2015) Status CO – Not Listed (NatureServe 2015)
Not included in the CO or UT Wildlife Action Plans (SWAP 2015, WAP 2015) USDA Forest As of May 2016, this species is not listed as a potential SCC or Sensitive Service Species for any adjoining National Forests (USFS 2013).
USDI FWS Not a listed species. Other
Review of species of conservation concern criteria based on definition
1. Native to the plan area
a. Is the species native to the plan area?
Yes___ No_X__
1. If no, provide explanation.
Nativity cannot be determined from a single collection (COIH 2016).
2
Intermountain Region Species of Conservation Concern Review DRAFT Template
Species: ___ PHACP ______
2. Known to occur in the plan area
Table 2. Known Occurrence Frequency within the Planning Area (NRIS database) Occurrence: Number Source of Information Known Occurrences in the past 20 0 Intermountain Region Herbarium years Network (COIH 2016) Year Last Observed 1985 Intermountain Region Herbarium Network (COIH 2016)
a. Are all species occurrences only accidental or transient?
Yes___ No_X__
1) If yes, document source for determination.
b. Based on the number of observations and/or year of last observation, can the species be presumed to be established or becoming established in the plan area? Yes___ No_X__
1) If no, provide explanation.
Establishment in the plan area cannot be based on a single collection.
3. Substantial concern for species persistence in the plan area
a. Describe briefly the distribution, abundance, and population trend of the species in the plan area
In the IRHN (COIH 2016), a single record exists for Physaria acutifolia var. purpurea occurring on the Manti La-Sal National Forest. No abundance or population trend information can be established from a single record.
Nomenclature appears to be an issue with this species. NatureServe (2016)
b. Describe briefly threats or risk factors to the species or the ecological conditions that support it (i.e. habitat) based on best available scientific information
3
Intermountain Region Species of Conservation Concern Review DRAFT Template
No known threats/risks.
c. Considering the trend in populations or habitat and threats or risk factors for those populations or habitats, is there substantial concern for persistence of the species in the plan area?
Yes___ No_X__
1) If no, provide explanation
Lack of information precludes concern for persistence.
4. Range Map
Map 1. UT occurrence map for Physaria acutifolia var. purpurea (Franklin and UDNR 2005).
4
Intermountain Region Species of Conservation Concern Review DRAFT Template
Map 2. UT county map for Physaria acutifolia var. purpurea (USDA 2016).
Map 3. Distribution map for Physaria acutifolia var. purpurea (USDA 2016).
5
Intermountain Region Species of Conservation Concern Review DRAFT Template
5. Literature Cited
Colorado Natural Heritage Program (CNHP). 2015. Tracked Vascular Plant Species. http://www.cnhp.colostate.edu/download/list/vascular.asp. (Accessed May 24, 2016).
Colorado State Wildlife Action Plan (SWAP). 2015. Colorado State Wildlife Action Plan: A plan for conserving wildlife in Colorado. Colorado Parks and Wildlife, Denver, CO. 865 pgs. http://cpw.state.co.us/aboutus/Pages/StateWildlifeActionPlan.aspx
Consortium of Intermountain Herbaria (COIH). 2016. http//:www.intermountainbiota.org/portal/index.php. (Accessed on June 01)
Franklin, M. A. and State of Utah Department of Natural Resources (UDNR). 2005. "Plant Information Compiled by the Utah Natural Heritage Program: A Progress Report". All U.S. Government Documents (Utah Regional Depository). Paper 474. http://digitalcommons.usu.edu/govdocs/474
NatureServe. 2015. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. Version 7.1. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available http://explorer.natureserve.org. (Accessed: April 27, 2016).
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), NRCS. 2016. The PLANTS Database http://plants.usda.gov. National Plant Data Team, Greensboro, NC 27401- 4901 USA. (Accessed: May 24, 2016)
U.S. Forest Service (USFS). 2013. Proposed, Endangered, Threatened and Sensitive Species List, R4. Known / Suspected Distribution by Forest.
Utah Department of Natural Resources (UDNR). Division of Wildlife Resources. 2015. Utah Sensitive Species List.
Utah Wildlife Action Plan (WAP) Joint Team. 2015. Utah Wildlife Action Plan: A plan for managing native wildlife species and their habitats to prevent listing under the Endangered Species Act. Draft version 2.0. DWR Publication No. 15-14. Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, Salt Lake City, UT. 400 pgs. http://wildlife.utah.gov/wap/wap2015draft2.pdf
6
Intermountain Region Species of Conservation Concern Review DRAFT Template
SPECIES: Scientific [common] Phlox austromontana var. lutescens Syn. Phlox austromontana ssp. austromontana (USDA 2016)
[Yellowish phlox] PHAUL Forest: Manti-La Sal National Forest Forest Reviewer: K. Anderson Date of Review: 1 June 2016 Forest concurrence (or recommendation if new) for No inclusion of species on list of potential SCC: (Enter Yes or No)
Forest review result:
The Forest concurs or recommends the species for inclusion on the list of potential SCC: Yes___ No_X__
Rationale for not concurring is based on (check all that apply): Species is not native to the plan area __X_____ Species is not known to occur in the plan area ___X____ Species persistence in the plan area is not of substantial concern __X____
Issue: Whether the species identified above should be listed as a species of Conservation Concern (SCC) for the Manti-La Sal National Forest (MLNF) as identified in the 2012 Planning Rule (36 CFR 219).
Rule: The 2012 Planning Rule [36 CFR 219.7(c)(3)] states that “The regional forester shall identify the species of conservation concern for the plan area in coordination with the responsible official.” It [36 CFR 219.9(b)(2)(c)] defines a species of conservation concern as “…a species, other than federally recognized threatened, endangered, proposed, or candidate species, that is known to occur in the plan area and for which the regional forester has determined that the best available scientific information indicates substantial concern about the species’ capability to persist over the long-term in the plan area.”
Analysis: The best available scientific information (BASI) does not clearly document this species as established in the plan area.
Conclusion: Based upon the BASI documented herein, it is not recommended that this species be included in the potential list of SCC for the MLNF.
1
Intermountain Region Species of Conservation Concern Review DRAFT Template
Species: __PHAUL____
FOREST REVIEW INFORMATION
Status summary based on other methods (information is on the Regional Office list of species considered; correct as needed):
Entity Status/Rank (include definition if Other) NatureServe G5T5 (Phlox austromontana ssp. austromontana ,NatureServe 2015)
Natural UT – Not listed (UDNR 2015) Heritage CO – Not listed (CNHP 2015) Program State List UT - SNR (Phlox austromontana ssp. austromontana ,NatureServe 2015) Status CO - SNR (Phlox austromontana ssp. austromontana ,NatureServe 2015)
Not included in the CO or UT Wildlife Action Plans (SWAP 2015, WAP 2015) USDA Forest As of May 2016, this species is not listed as a potential SCC or Sensitive Service Species for any adjoining National Forests (USFS 2013).
USDI FWS Not a listed species. Other
Review of species of conservation concern criteria based on definition
1. Native to the plan area
a. Is the species native to the plan area?
Yes___ No_X__
1. If no, provide explanation.
2
Intermountain Region Species of Conservation Concern Review DRAFT Template
Species: __PHAUL_____
2. Known to occur in the plan area
Table 2. Known Occurrence Frequency within the Planning Area (NRIS database) Occurrence: Number Source of Information Known Occurrences in the past 20 N/A Intermountain Region Herbarium years Network (COIH 2016) Year Last Observed N/A Intermountain Region Herbarium Network (COIH 2016)
a. Are all species occurrences only accidental or transient?
Yes___ No_X__
1) If yes, document source for determination.
b. Based on the number of observations and/or year of last observation, can the species be presumed to be established or becoming established in the plan area? Yes___ No_X__
1) If no, provide explanation.
Not known from the plan area.
3. Substantial concern for species persistence in the plan area
a. Describe briefly the distribution, abundance, and population trend of the species in the plan area
Inconsistence taxonomy. Distribution may expand. Under synonymy with P. austromontana ssp. vera, as P. a. ssp. austromontana (USDA 2016). Welsh et al. (2015) have elevated this taxon to species level. (P. lutescens). Not treated by Cronquist et al. 1984. Not treated by NatureServe (accessed 1 Jun 2016). Not reported for the plan area Intermountain Region Herbarium Network>Manti LaSal National Forest (COIH 2016).
Not known from the plan area.
3
Intermountain Region Species of Conservation Concern Review DRAFT Template
b. Describe briefly threats or risk factors to the species or the ecological conditions that support it (i.e. habitat) based on best available scientific information
Not known from the plan area.
c. Considering the trend in populations or habitat and threats or risk factors for those populations or habitats, is there substantial concern for persistence of the species in the plan area?
Yes___ No_X__
1) If no, provide explanation
Not known from the plan area.
4. Range Map
Map 1. Distribution map for Phlox austromontana ssp. austromontana (USDA 2016).
4
Intermountain Region Species of Conservation Concern Review DRAFT Template
5. Literature Cited
Colorado Natural Heritage Program (CNHP). 2015. Tracked Vascular Plant Species. http://www.cnhp.colostate.edu/download/list/vascular.asp. (Accessed May 24, 2016).
Colorado State Wildlife Action Plan (SWAP). 2015. Colorado State Wildlife Action Plan: A plan for conserving wildlife in Colorado. Colorado Parks and Wildlife, Denver, CO. 865 pgs. http://cpw.state.co.us/aboutus/Pages/StateWildlifeActionPlan.aspx
Consortium of Intermountain Herbaria (COIH). 2016. http//:www.intermountainbiota.org/portal/index.php. (Accessed on June 01)
Cronquist, A., A. H. Holmgren, N. H. Holmgren, J. L. Reveal, P. K. Holmgren. 1984. Intermountain Flora. Vol. 4. New York Botanical Garden, Bronx, NY.
NatureServe. 2015. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. Version 7.1. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available http://explorer.natureserve.org. (Accessed: April 27, 2016).
Utah Department of Natural Resources (UDNR). Division of Wildlife Resources. 2015. Utah Sensitive Species List.
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), NRCS. 2016. The PLANTS Database http://plants.usda.gov. National Plant Data Team, Greensboro, NC 27401- 4901 USA. (Accessed: May 24, 2016)
U.S. Forest Service (USFS). 2013. Proposed, Endangered, Threatened and Sensitive Species List, R4. Known / Suspected Distribution by Forest.
Utah Wildlife Action Plan (WAP) Joint Team. 2015. Utah Wildlife Action Plan: A plan for managing native wildlife species and their habitats to prevent listing under the Endangered Species Act. Draft version 2.0. DWR Publication No. 15-14. Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, Salt Lake City, UT. 400 pgs. http://wildlife.utah.gov/wap/wap2015draft2.pdf
Welsh, S. L., N. D. Atwood, S. Goodrich, and L. C. Higgins. 2015. A Utah Flora. Provo Utah. 987p.
5
Intermountain Region Species of Conservation Concern Review DRAFT Template
SPECIES: Scientific [common] Phacelia constancei [Constance’s phacelia] PHCO19 Forest: Manti-La Sal National Forest Forest Reviewer: K. Anderson Date of Review: 19 May 2016 Forest concurrence (or recommendation if new) for No inclusion of species on list of potential SCC: (Enter Yes or No)
Forest review result:
The Forest concurs or recommends the species for inclusion on the list of potential SCC: Yes___ No_X__
Rationale for not concurring is based on (check all that apply): Species is not native to the plan area ______Species is not known to occur in the plan area ______Species persistence in the plan area is not of substantial concern __X____
Issue: Whether the species identified above should be listed as a species of Conservation Concern (SCC) for the Manti-La Sal National Forest (MLNF) as identified in the 2012 Planning Rule (36 CFR 219).
Rule: The 2012 Planning Rule [36 CFR 219.7(c)(3)] states that “The regional forester shall identify the species of conservation concern for the plan area in coordination with the responsible official.” It [36 CFR 219.9(b)(2)(c)] defines a species of conservation concern as “…a species, other than federally recognized threatened, endangered, proposed, or candidate species, that is known to occur in the plan area and for which the regional forester has determined that the best available scientific information indicates substantial concern about the species’ capability to persist over the long-term in the plan area.”
Analysis: The best available scientific information (BASI) does not clearly indicate that the species is present within the plan area, beyond a private inholding.
Conclusion: Based upon the BASI documented herein, it is not recommended that this species be included in the potential list of SCC for the MLNF.
1
Intermountain Region Species of Conservation Concern Review DRAFT Template
Species: ___PHCO19______
FOREST REVIEW INFORMATION
Status summary based on other methods (information is on the Regional Office list of species considered; correct as needed):
Entity Status/Rank (include definition if Other) NatureServe G4 (NatureServe 2015)
Natural UT –Not Listed (UDNR 2015) Heritage CO – “Fully Tracked” (CNHP 2015) Program State List UT – S2S3 (NatureServe 2015) Status CO – S1 (NatureServe 2015)
Not included in the CO or UT Wildlife Action Plans (SWAP 2015, WAP 2015) USDA Forest As of May 2016, this species is not listed as a potential SCC or Sensitive Service Species for any adjoining National Forests (USFS 2013).
USDI FWS Not a listed species. Other
Review of species of conservation concern criteria based on definition
1. Native to the plan area
a. Is the species native to the plan area?
Yes_X__ No___
1. If no, provide explanation.
2
Intermountain Region Species of Conservation Concern Review DRAFT Template
Species: ___ PHCO19______
2. Known to occur in the plan area
Table 2. Known Occurrence Frequency within the Planning Area (NRIS database) Occurrence: Number Source of Information Known Occurrences in the past 20 1 Intermountain Region Herbarium years Network (COIH 2016) Year Last Observed 2000 Intermountain Region Herbarium Network (COIH 2016)
a. Are all species occurrences only accidental or transient?
Yes___ No_X__
1) If yes, document source for determination.
b. Based on the number of observations and/or year of last observation, can the species be presumed to be established or becoming established in the plan area? Yes___ No_X__
1) If no, provide explanation.
Only one collection has been made within the project area but is on a private inholding (COIH 2016).
3. Substantial concern for species persistence in the plan area
a. Describe briefly the distribution, abundance, and population trend of the species in the plan area
Only one collection on a private inholding within in the project area (IRHN 2016). Known to also occur in Arizona, New Mexico (IRHN 2016) and reported from Colorado (USDA 2016)
“…it is endemic regionally but it is not rare and does not seem threatened, there are only 1 record on the Manti La-Sal located near Monticello and another one near the La Sals” (Johnson 2016).
3
Intermountain Region Species of Conservation Concern Review DRAFT Template
b. Describe briefly threats or risk factors to the species or the ecological conditions that support it (i.e. habitat) based on best available scientific information
No known threats or risks.
c. Considering the trend in populations or habitat and threats or risk factors for those populations or habitats, is there substantial concern for persistence of the species in the plan area?
Yes___ No_X__
1) If no, provide explanation
Insufficient surveys cannot preclude there is concern for the species in the plan area.
4. Range Map
Map 1. County distribution map for Phacelia constancei (USDA 2016).
4
Intermountain Region Species of Conservation Concern Review DRAFT Template
Map 2. Distribution map for Phacelia constancei (USDA 2016).
Map 3. UT occurrence map for Phacelia constancei (UNHP 2015).
5
Intermountain Region Species of Conservation Concern Review DRAFT Template
5. Literature Cited Colorado Natural Heritage Program (CNHP). 2015. Tracked Vascular Plant Species. http://www.cnhp.colostate.edu/download/list/vascular.asp. (Accessed May 24, 2016).
Colorado State Wildlife Action Plan (SWAP). 2015. Colorado State Wildlife Action Plan: A plan for conserving wildlife in Colorado. Colorado Parks and Wildlife, Denver, CO. 865 pgs. http://cpw.state.co.us/aboutus/Pages/StateWildlifeActionPlan.aspx
Consortium of Intermountain Herbaria (COIH). 2016. http//:www.intermountainbiota.org/portal/index.php. (Accessed on June 01)
Johnson, Robert. 2016. Curator BRY Herbarium. Notes taken by summer crew while visiting herbarium. Notes deal with only a few select species of concern.
NatureServe. 2015. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. Version 7.1. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available http://explorer.natureserve.org. (Accessed: April 27, 2016).
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), NRCS. 2016. The PLANTS Database http://plants.usda.gov. National Plant Data Team, Greensboro, NC 27401- 4901 USA. (Accessed: May 24, 2016)
U.S. Forest Service (USFS). 2013. Proposed, Endangered, Threatened and Sensitive Species List, R4. Known / Suspected Distribution by Forest.
Utah Department of Natural Resources (UDNR). Division of Wildlife Resources. 2015. Utah Sensitive Species List.
Utah Wildlife Action Plan (WAP) Joint Team. 2015. Utah Wildlife Action Plan: A plan for managing native wildlife species and their habitats to prevent listing under the Endangered Species Act. Draft version 2.0. DWR Publication No. 15-14. Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, Salt Lake City, UT. 400 pgs. http://wildlife.utah.gov/wap/wap2015draft2.pdf
6
Intermountain Region Species of Conservation Concern Review DRAFT Template
SPECIES: Scientific [common] Podistera eastwoodiae [Eastwood’s Podistera] POEA Forest: Manti-La Sal National Forest Forest Reviewer: K. Anderson Date of Review: 19 May 2016 Forest concurrence (or recommendation if new) for No inclusion of species on list of potential SCC: (Enter Yes or No)
Forest review result:
The Forest concurs or recommends the species for inclusion on the list of potential SCC: Yes___ No_X__
Rationale for not concurring is based on (check all that apply): Species is not native to the plan area ______Species is not known to occur in the plan area ______Species persistence in the plan area is not of substantial concern __X____
Issue: Whether the species identified above should be listed as a species of Conservation Concern (SCC) for the Manti-La Sal National Forest (MLNF) as identified in the 2012 Planning Rule (36 CFR 219).
Rule: The 2012 Planning Rule [36 CFR 219.7(c)(3)] states that “The regional forester shall identify the species of conservation concern for the plan area in coordination with the responsible official.” It [36 CFR 219.9(b)(2)(c)] defines a species of conservation concern as “…a species, other than federally recognized threatened, endangered, proposed, or candidate species, that is known to occur in the plan area and for which the regional forester has determined that the best available scientific information indicates substantial concern about the species’ capability to persist over the long-term in the plan area.”
Analysis: The best available scientific information (BASI) indicates a there is not enough current scientific information to indicate a level of uncertainty in the species capability to persist within the plan area.
Conclusion: Based upon the BASI documented herein, it is not recommended that this species be included in the potential list of SCC for the MLNF.
1
Intermountain Region Species of Conservation Concern Review DRAFT Template
Species: ___POEA______
FOREST REVIEW INFORMATION
Status summary based on other methods (information is on the Regional Office list of species considered; correct as needed):
Entity Status/Rank (include definition if Other) NatureServe G3 (NatureServe 2015)
Natural UT - Not Listed (UDNR 2015) Heritage CO – Not Listed (CNHP 2015) Program State List UT – S1 (NatureServe 2015) Status CO – S3 (NatureServe 2015)
Not included in the CO or UT Wildlife Action Plans (SWAP 2015, WAP 2015) USDA Forest As of May 2016, this species is not listed as a potential SCC or Sensitive Service Species for any adjoining National Forests (USFS 2013).
USDI FWS Not a listed species. Other
Review of species of conservation concern criteria based on definition
1. Native to the plan area
a. Is the species native to the plan area?
Yes_X__ No___
1. If no, provide explanation.
2
Intermountain Region Species of Conservation Concern Review DRAFT Template
Species: ___ POEA ___
2. Known to occur in the plan area
Table 2. Known Occurrence Frequency within the Planning Area (NRIS database) Occurrence: Number Source of Information Known Occurrences in the past 20 0 Intermountain Region Herbarium years Network (COIH 2016) Year Last Observed 1986 Intermountain Region Herbarium Network (COIH 2016)
a. Are all species occurrences only accidental or transient?
Yes___ No_X__
1) If yes, document source for determination.
b. Based on the number of observations and/or year of last observation, can the species be presumed to be established or becoming established in the plan area?
Yes_X__ No___
1) If no, provide explanation
3. Substantial concern for species persistence in the plan area
a. Describe briefly the distribution, abundance, and population trend of the species in the plan area
Distribution in the plan area based on two collections from the La Sal mountains (COIH 2016). No abundance or trend data available.
Also found in Colorado and New Mexico (NatureServe 2015).
b. Describe briefly threats or risk factors to the species or the ecological conditions that support it (i.e. habitat) based on best available scientific information
No known threats or risks.
3
Intermountain Region Species of Conservation Concern Review DRAFT Template
c. Considering the trend in populations or habitat and threats or risk factors for those populations or habitats, is there substantial concern for persistence of the species in the plan area?
Yes___ No_X__
1) If no, provide explanation
Two collections (COIH 2016) cannot make the determination for persistence or trend.
4. Range Map
Map 1. UT occurrence map for Podistera eastwoodiae (Franklin and UDNR 2005).
4
Intermountain Region Species of Conservation Concern Review DRAFT Template
Map 2. County distribution map for Podistera eastwoodiae (USDA 2016).
Map 3. Distribution map for Podistera eastwoodiae (USDA 2016).
5
Intermountain Region Species of Conservation Concern Review DRAFT Template
5. Literature Cited
Colorado Natural Heritage Program (CNHP). 2015. Tracked Vascular Plant Species. http://www.cnhp.colostate.edu/download/list/vascular.asp. (Accessed May 24, 2016).
Colorado State Wildlife Action Plan (SWAP). 2015. Colorado State Wildlife Action Plan: A plan for conserving wildlife in Colorado. Colorado Parks and Wildlife, Denver, CO. 865 pgs. http://cpw.state.co.us/aboutus/Pages/StateWildlifeActionPlan.aspx
Consortium of Intermountain Herbaria (COIH). 2016. http//:www.intermountainbiota.org/portal/index.php. (Accessed on June 01)
Franklin, M. A. and State of Utah Department of Natural Resources (UDNR). 2005. "Plant Information Compiled by the Utah Natural Heritage Program: A Progress Report". All U.S. Government Documents (Utah Regional Depository). Paper 474. http://digitalcommons.usu.edu/govdocs/474
NatureServe. 2015. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. Version 7.1. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available http://explorer.natureserve.org. (Accessed: April 27, 2016).
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), NRCS. 2016. The PLANTS Database http://plants.usda.gov. National Plant Data Team, Greensboro, NC 27401- 4901 USA. (Accessed: May 24, 2016)
U.S. Forest Service (USFS). 2013. Proposed, Endangered, Threatened and Sensitive Species List, R4. Known / Suspected Distribution by Forest.
Utah Department of Natural Resources (UDNR). Division of Wildlife Resources. 2015. Utah Sensitive Species List.
Utah Wildlife Action Plan (WAP) Joint Team. 2015. Utah Wildlife Action Plan: A plan for managing native wildlife species and their habitats to prevent listing under the Endangered Species Act. Draft version 2.0. DWR Publication No. 15-14. Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, Salt Lake City, UT. 400 pgs. http://wildlife.utah.gov/wap/wap2015draft2.pdf
6
Intermountain Region Species of Conservation Concern Review DRAFT Template
SPECIES: Scientific [common] Pyrola picta [ White-veined / Pictureleaf wintergreen] PYPI2 Forest: Manti-La Sal National Forest Forest Reviewer: K. Anderson Date of Review: 19 May 2016 Forest concurrence (or recommendation if new) for No inclusion of species on list of potential SCC: (Enter Yes or No)
Forest review result:
The Forest concurs or recommends the species for inclusion on the list of potential SCC: Yes___ No_X__
Rationale for not concurring is based on (check all that apply): Species is not native to the plan area __X_____ Species is not known to occur in the plan area __X_____ Species persistence in the plan area is not of substantial concern __X____
Issue: Whether the species identified above should be listed as a species of Conservation Concern (SCC) for the Manti-La Sal National Forest (MLNF) as identified in the 2012 Planning Rule (36 CFR 219).
Rule: The 2012 Planning Rule [36 CFR 219.7(c)(3)] states that “The regional forester shall identify the species of conservation concern for the plan area in coordination with the responsible official.” It [36 CFR 219.9(b)(2)(c)] defines a species of conservation concern as “…a species, other than federally recognized threatened, endangered, proposed, or candidate species, that is known to occur in the plan area and for which the regional forester has determined that the best available scientific information indicates substantial concern about the species’ capability to persist over the long-term in the plan area.”
Analysis: The best available scientific information (BASI) does not clearly indicate that the species is present within the plan area.
Conclusion: Based upon the BASI documented herein, it is not recommended that this species be included in the potential list of SCC for the MLNF.
1
Intermountain Region Species of Conservation Concern Review DRAFT Template
Species: ___PYPI2______
FOREST REVIEW INFORMATION
Status summary based on other methods (information is on the Regional Office list of species considered; correct as needed):
Entity Status/Rank (include definition if Other) NatureServe G4G5 (NatureServe 2015)
Natural UT – Not Listed (UDNR 2015) Heritage CO – “Watch listed Only” (CNHP 2015) Program State List UT – S1 (NatureServe 2015) Status CO – S3S4 (NatureServe 2015)
Not included in the CO or UT Wildlife Action Plans (SWAP 2015, WAP 2015) USDA Forest As of May 2016, this species is not listed as a potential SCC or Sensitive Service Species for any adjoining National Forests (USFS 2013).
USDI FWS Not a listed species. Other
Review of species of conservation concern criteria based on definition
1. Native to the plan area
a. Is the species native to the plan area?
Yes___ No_X__
1. If no, provide explanation.
No records to substantiate this species occurs in the plan area; a review of 37 herbaria found no collection record in the plan area (COIH 2016). UNHP GIS data (2015) shows a point near La Sal pass, but there are no herbarium records to validate the information of a collection from July 1934.
2
Intermountain Region Species of Conservation Concern Review DRAFT Template
Species: ___ PYPI2___
2. Known to occur in the plan area
Table 2. Known Occurrence Frequency within the Planning Area (NRIS database) Occurrence: Number Source of Information Known Occurrences in the past 20 0 Intermountain Region Herbarium years Network (COIH 2016) Year Last Observed N/A Intermountain Region Herbarium Network (COIH 2016)
a. Are all species occurrences only accidental or transient?
Yes___ No_X__
1) If yes, document source for determination.
b. Based on the number of observations and/or year of last observation, can the species be presumed to be established or becoming established in the plan area? Yes___ No_X__
1) If no, provide explanation.
No records to substantiate this species occurs in the plan area.
3. Substantial concern for species persistence in the plan area
a. Describe briefly the distribution, abundance, and population trend of the species in the plan area
Found from Canada to Mexico. This species has multiple (~10) synonyms (USDA 2016). Proposed presence is based on a 1934 collection (UNHP 2015).
Not included in the MLNF species list (Thompson 2003).
3
Intermountain Region Species of Conservation Concern Review DRAFT Template
b. Describe briefly threats or risk factors to the species or the ecological conditions that support it (i.e. habitat) based on best available scientific information
No known threats/risks.
c. Considering the trend in populations or habitat and threats or risk factors for those populations or habitats, is there substantial concern for persistence of the species in the plan area?
Yes___ No_X__
1) If no, provide explanation
No records to substantiate this species occurs in the plan area.
4. Range Map
Map 1. County distribution map for Podistera eastwoodiae (USDA 2016).
4
Intermountain Region Species of Conservation Concern Review DRAFT Template
Map 2. Distribution map for Podistera eastwoodiae (USDA 2016).
5. Literature Cited
Colorado Natural Heritage Program (CNHP). 2015. Tracked Vascular Plant Species. http://www.cnhp.colostate.edu/download/list/vascular.asp. (Accessed May 24, 2016).
Colorado State Wildlife Action Plan (SWAP). 2015. Colorado State Wildlife Action Plan: A plan for conserving wildlife in Colorado. Colorado Parks and Wildlife, Denver, CO. 865 pgs. http://cpw.state.co.us/aboutus/Pages/StateWildlifeActionPlan.aspx
Consortium of Intermountain Herbaria (COIH). 2016. http//:www.intermountainbiota.org/portal/index.php. (Accessed on June 01)
NatureServe. 2015. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. Version 7.1. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available http://explorer.natureserve.org. (Accessed: April 27, 2016).
Thompson, R. M. 2003. Plant Species. Manti La-Sal National Forest.
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), NRCS. 2016. The PLANTS Database http://plants.usda.gov. National Plant Data Team, Greensboro, NC 27401- 4901 USA. (Accessed: May 24, 2016)
5
Intermountain Region Species of Conservation Concern Review DRAFT Template
U.S. Forest Service (USFS). 2013. Proposed, Endangered, Threatened and Sensitive Species List, R4. Known / Suspected Distribution by Forest.
Utah Department of Natural Resources (UDNR). Division of Wildlife Resources. 2015. Utah Sensitive Species List.
Utah Natural Heritage Program (UNHP). 2015. Utah Division of Wildlife Resources. UNHP Biodiversity Tracking and Conservation System (BIOTICS).
Utah Wildlife Action Plan (WAP) Joint Team. 2015. Utah Wildlife Action Plan: A plan for managing native wildlife species and their habitats to prevent listing under the Endangered Species Act. Draft version 2.0. DWR Publication No. 15-14. Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, Salt Lake City, UT. 400 pgs. http://wildlife.utah.gov/wap/wap2015draft2.pdf
6
Intermountain Region Species of Conservation Concern Review DRAFT Template
SPECIES: Scientific [common] Ramalina sinensis Jatta [Flatragg / Fan Ramalina /Cartilage Lichen] RASI60 Forest: Manti-La Sal National Forest Forest Reviewer: K. Anderson Date of Review: 4/11-4/26 2016 Forest concurrence (or recommendation if new) for No inclusion of species on list of potential SCC: (Enter Yes or No)
Forest review result:
The Forest concurs or recommends the species for inclusion on the list of potential SCC: Yes___ No_X_
Rationale for not concurring is based on (check all that apply): Species is not native to the plan area ______Species is not known to occur in the plan area ______Species persistence in the plan area is not of substantial concern ___X___
Issue: Whether the species identified above should be listed as a species of Conservation Concern (SCC) for the Manti-La Sal National Forest (MLNF) as identified in the 2012 Planning Rule (36 CFR 219).
Rule: The 2012 Planning Rule [36 CFR 219.7(c)(3)] states that “The regional forester shall identify the species of conservation concern for the plan area in coordination with the responsible official.” It [36 CFR 219.9(b)(2)(c)] defines a species of conservation concern as “…a species, other than federally recognized threatened, endangered, proposed, or candidate species, that is known to occur in the plan area and for which the regional forester has determined that the best available scientific information indicates substantial concern about the species’ capability to persist over the long-term in the plan area.”
Analysis: The best available scientific information (BASI) indicates that there are minimal threats/risks to the species and its habitat in the plan area.
Conclusion: Based upon the BASI documented herein, it is not recommended that this species be included in the potential list of SCC for the MLNF.
1
Intermountain Region Species of Conservation Concern Review DRAFT Template
Species: __RASI60______
FOREST REVIEW INFORMATION
Status summary based on other methods (information is on the Regional Office list of species considered; correct as needed):
Entity Status/Rank (include definition if Other) NatureServe G4G5 (NatureServe 2015).
Natural UT – Not Listed (UDNR 2015) Heritage CO – Not Listed (CNHP 2015) Program State List Utah – Status Not Ranked (SNR) (NatureServe 2015) Status Colorado – S2 (NatureServe 2015)
Not included in the CO or UT Wildlife Action Plans (SWAP 2015, WAP 2015) USDA Forest As of May 2016, this species is not listed as a potential SCC or Sensitive Service Species for any adjoining National Forests.
USDI FWS Not a listed species. Other
Review of species of conservation concern criteria based on definition
1. Native to the plan area
a. Is the species native to the plan area?
Yes_X__ No___
The species is also native to other locations worldwide (CLH 2016, Brodo et al. 2001).
i. If no, provide explanation.
2
Intermountain Region Species of Conservation Concern Review DRAFT Template
Species: _____RASI60______
2. Known to occur in the plan area
Table 2. Known Occurrence Frequency within the Planning Area (NRIS database) Occurrence: Number Source of Information Known Occurrences in the past 20 4 Consortium of Lichen Herbaria years (~12 (CLN 2016) since 1914) Year Last Observed 2011 Weber State University Herbarium (COIH 2016)
a. Are all species occurrences only accidental or transient?
Yes___ No_X__
1) If yes, document source for determination.
b. Based on the number of observations and/or year of last observation, can the species be presumed to be established or becoming established in the plan area? Yes__X_ No___
The species was first reportedly collected in the Plan Area in 1914 by E.B. Payson (COIH 2016).
1) If no, provide explanation.
3. Substantial concern for species persistence in the plan area
a. Describe briefly the distribution, abundance, and population trend of the species in the plan area.
The species is known from the La Sal and Abajo Mtns within the Plan Area (UNHP 2015).
This species also occurs on the Dixie National Forest and the Uinta- Wasatch-Cache National Forest. It is reported from 25 states, (e.g. Arizona, Texas, Alabama, Minnesota, and Tennessee) and 18 different
3
Intermountain Region Species of Conservation Concern Review DRAFT Template
countries, (e.g. Australia, Estonia, India, Iran, Japan, Norway, and Sweden) (CLH 2016).
b. Describe briefly threats or risk factors to the species or the ecological conditions that support it (i.e. habitat) based on best available scientific information.
No known risks. Found on live and dead trees (usually conifers).
c. Considering the trend in populations or habitat and threats or risk factors for those populations or habitats, is there substantial concern for persistence of the species in the plan area?
Yes___ No_X__
1) If no, provide explanation Cosmopolitan in temperate regions (Nash 2004).
4. Range Map
No range map available on NatureServe or the USDA’s Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) Plant Database site (USDA 2016)
5. Literature Cited
Brodo, Irwin M., Sylvia Duran Sharnoff, Stephen Sharnoff. 2001. Lichens of North America. Yale University Press. 795p.
Colorado Natural Heritage Program (CNHP). 2015. Tracked Vascular Plant Species. http://www.cnhp.colostate.edu/download/list/vascular.asp. (Accessed May 24, 2016).
Colorado State Wildlife Action Plan (SWAP). 2015. Colorado State Wildlife Action Plan: A plan for conserving wildlife in Colorado. Colorado Parks and Wildlife, Denver, CO. 865 pgs. http://cpw.state.co.us/aboutus/Pages/StateWildlifeActionPlan.aspx
Consortium of Lichen Herbaria (CLH). 2016. Web site accessed April 2016. 884 records for Ramalina sinensis.
Gatherum, Dawn. 2011. Ramalina sinensis. On bark. North of Duck Lake, San Juan County, Utah. Collection No. 14-15.
4
Intermountain Region Species of Conservation Concern Review DRAFT Template
Nash, T. H. III, B.D. Ryan, P. Diederich, C. Gries, F. Bungartz. 2004. Lichen Flora of the Greater Sonoran Desert Region Vol. II. Arizona State University. XXXp.
NatureServe. 2015. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. Version 7.1. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available http://explorer.natureserve.org. (Accessed: May 23, 2016 ).
St. Clair. 1999. Common Rocky Mountain Lichens. Brigham Young University Press. 242p.
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), NRCS. 2016. The PLANTS Database http://plants.usda.gov. National Plant Data Team, Greensboro, NC 27401- 4901 USA. (Accessed: May 24, 2016)
U.S. Forest Service (USFS). 2013. Proposed, Endangered, Threatened and Sensitive Species List, R4. Known / Suspected Distribution by Forest.
Utah Department of Natural Resources (UDNR). Division of Wildlife Resources. 2015. Utah Sensitive Species List.
Utah Natural Heritage Program (UNHP). 2015. Utah Division of Wildlife Resources. UNHP Biodiversity Tracking and Conservation System (BIOTICS).
Utah Wildlife Action Plan (WAP) Joint Team. 2015. Utah Wildlife Action Plan: A plan for managing native wildlife species and their habitats to prevent listing under the Endangered Species Act. Draft version 2.0. DWR Publication No. 15-14. Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, Salt Lake City, UT. 400 pgs. http://wildlife.utah.gov/wap/wap2015draft2.pdf
5
Intermountain Region Species of Conservation Concern Review DRAFT Template
SPECIES: Scientific [common] Salix arizonica [Arizona willow] SAAR 14 Forest: Manti-La Sal National Forest Forest Reviewer: K. Anderson Date of Review: 26 May 2016 Forest concurrence (or recommendation if new) for No inclusion of species on list of potential SCC: (Enter Yes or No)
Forest review result:
The Forest concurs or recommends the species for inclusion on the list of potential SCC: Yes___ No_X__
Rationale for not concurring is based on (check all that apply): Species is not native to the plan area ______Species is not known to occur in the plan area ______Species persistence in the plan area is not of substantial concern __X____
Issue: Whether the species identified above should be listed as a species of Conservation Concern (SCC) for the Manti-La Sal National Forest (MLNF) as identified in the 2012 Planning Rule (36 CFR 219).
Rule: The 2012 Planning Rule [36 CFR 219.7(c)(3)] states that “The regional forester shall identify the species of conservation concern for the plan area in coordination with the responsible official.” It [36 CFR 219.9(b)(2)(c)] defines a species of conservation concern as “…a species, other than federally recognized threatened, endangered, proposed, or candidate species, that is known to occur in the plan area and for which the regional forester has determined that the best available scientific information indicates substantial concern about the species’ capability to persist over the long-term in the plan area.”
Analysis: The best available scientific information (BASI) indicates that the population within the plan area is stable.
Conclusion: Based upon the BASI documented herein, it is not recommended that this species be included in the potential list of SCC for the MLNF.
1
Intermountain Region Species of Conservation Concern Review DRAFT Template
Species: __SAAR14____
FOREST REVIEW INFORMATION
Status summary based on other methods (information is on the Regional Office list of species considered; correct as needed):
Entity Status/Rank (include definition if Other) NatureServe G2G3 (NatureServe 2015)
Natural UT – Not Listed (UDNR 2015) Heritage CO – “Fully Tracked” (CNHP 2015) Program State List UT – S2 (NatureServe 2015) Status CO – S1 (NatureServe 2015)
Not included in the CO or UT Wildlife Action Plans (SWAP 2015, WAP 2015) USDA Forest Salix arizonica is currently a FS Region 4 sensitive species for the Mant La- Service Sal and Fish Lake National Forests (USFS 2013).
As of May 2016, this species is a Sensitive Species for one adjoining National Forest; Fish Lake National Forest. (USFS 2013). USDI FWS Not a listed species. Other
Review of species of conservation concern criteria based on definition
1. Native to the plan area
a. Is the species native to the plan area?
Yes_X__ No___
1. If no, provide explanation.
2
Intermountain Region Species of Conservation Concern Review DRAFT Template
Species: __ SAAR14__
2. Known to occur in the plan area
Table 2. Known Occurrence Frequency within the Planning Area (NRIS database) Occurrence: Number Source of Information Known Occurrences in the past N/A site Intermountain Region 20 years information Herbarium Network (COIH protected 2016) Year Last Observed N/A Intermountain Region Herbarium Network (COIH 2016)
a. Are all species occurrences only accidental or transient?
Yes___ No_X__
1) If yes, document source for determination.
b. Based on the number of observations and/or year of last observation, can the species be presumed to be established or becoming established in the plan area?
Yes_X__ No___
1) If no, provide explanation.
3. Substantial concern for species persistence in the plan area
a. Describe briefly the distribution, abundance, and population trend of the species in the plan area
Welsh et al. (2015) indicate that S. arizonica is found in Garfield, Iron, Sanpete, and Sevier counties. The USDA (2016) only identifies Sanpete and Sevier Counties.
The Manti-La Sal appears to be the northern boundary for the species, as it does not occur north of Sanpete County.
3
Intermountain Region Species of Conservation Concern Review DRAFT Template
b. Describe briefly threats or risk factors to the species or the ecological conditions that support it (i.e. habitat) based on best available scientific information
Browsing, water diversion, timber harvest road construction, recreation are all potential threats to this species (NatureServe accessed 26 May 2016).
c. Considering the trend in populations or habitat and threats or risk factors for those populations or habitats, is there substantial concern for persistence of the species in the plan area?
Yes___ No_X__
1) If no, provide explanation
Populations are fenced, appear stable (Meccariello 2016).
4. Range Map
Map 1. Map 1. UT species occurrence map for Salix arizonica (Franklin and UDNR 2005).
4
Intermountain Region Species of Conservation Concern Review DRAFT Template
Map 2. County distribution map for Salix arizonica (USDA 2016).
5. Supporting Literature
Colorado Natural Heritage Program (CNHP). 2015. Tracked Vascular Plant Species. http://www.cnhp.colostate.edu/download/list/vascular.asp. (Accessed May 24, 2016).
Colorado State Wildlife Action Plan (SWAP). 2015. Colorado State Wildlife Action Plan: A plan for conserving wildlife in Colorado. Colorado Parks and Wildlife, Denver, CO. 865 pgs. http://cpw.state.co.us/aboutus/Pages/StateWildlifeActionPlan.aspx
Consortium of Intermountain Herbaria (COIH). 2016. http//:www.intermountainbiota.org/portal/index.php. (Accessed on June 01)
Franklin, M. A. and State of Utah Department of Natural Resources (UDNR), "Plant Information Compiled by the Utah Natural Heritage Program: A Progress Report" (2005). All U.S. Government Documents (Utah Regional Depository). Paper 474. http://digitalcommons.usu.edu/govdocs/474
Meccariello, Mat. 2016. Ecosystem Staff Officer pers. comm. Kim Anderson May 26, 2016.
5
Intermountain Region Species of Conservation Concern Review DRAFT Template
NatureServe. 2015. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. Version 7.1. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available http://explorer.natureserve.org. (Accessed: April 27, 2016).
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), NRCS. 2016. The PLANTS Database http://plants.usda.gov. National Plant Data Team, Greensboro, NC 27401- 4901 USA. (Accessed: May 24, 2016)
U.S. Forest Service (USFS). 2013. Proposed, Endangered, Threatened and Sensitive Species List, R4. Known / Suspected Distribution by Forest.
Utah Department of Natural Resources (UDNR). Division of Wildlife Resources. 2015. Utah Sensitive Species List.
Utah Wildlife Action Plan (WAP) Joint Team. 2015. Utah Wildlife Action Plan: A plan for managing native wildlife species and their habitats to prevent listing under the Endangered Species Act. Draft version 2.0. DWR Publication No. 15-14. Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, Salt Lake City, UT. 400 pgs. http://wildlife.utah.gov/wap/wap2015draft2.pdf
Welsh, S. L., N. D. Atwood, S. Goodrich, and L. C. Higgins. 2015. A Utah Flora. Provo Utah. 987p.
6
Intermountain Region Species of Conservation Concern Review DRAFT Template
SPECIES: Scientific [common] Sclerocactus wrightiae [Wright’s fishhook cactus] (SCWR) Forest: Manti-La Sal National Forest Forest Reviewer: K. Anderson Date of Review: 19 May 2016 Forest concurrence (or recommendation if new) for No inclusion of species on list of potential SCC: (Enter Yes or No)
Forest review result:
The Forest concurs or recommends the species for inclusion on the list of potential SCC: Yes___ No_X__
Rationale for not concurring is based on (check all that apply): Species is not native to the plan area __X_____ Species is not known to occur in the plan area ___X____ Species persistence in the plan area is not of substantial concern __X____
Issue: Whether the species identified above should be listed as a species of Conservation Concern (SCC) for the Manti-La Sal National Forest (MLNF) as identified in the 2012 Planning Rule (36 CFR 219).
Rule: The 2012 Planning Rule [36 CFR 219.7(c)(3)] states that “The regional forester shall identify the species of conservation concern for the plan area in coordination with the responsible official.” It [36 CFR 219.9(b)(2)(c)] defines a species of conservation concern as “…a species, other than federally recognized threatened, endangered, proposed, or candidate species, that is known to occur in the plan area and for which the regional forester has determined that the best available scientific information indicates substantial concern about the species’ capability to persist over the long-term in the plan area.”
Analysis: This species is a federally recognized endangered species and as such does not qualify as an SCC candidate as defined by the 2012 Planning Rule (36 CFR 2019). Additionally, the best available scientific information (BASI) does not clearly indicate that the species is present within the plan area.
Conclusion: Based upon the BASI documented herein, it is not recommended that this species be included in the potential list of SCC for the MLNF.
1
Intermountain Region Species of Conservation Concern Review DRAFT Template
Species: __SCWR____
FOREST REVIEW INFORMATION
Status summary based on other methods (information is on the Regional Office list of species considered; correct as needed):
Entity Status/Rank (include definition if Other) NatureServe G2 (NatureServe 2015)
Natural UT – Federally Listed Endangered Species (Franklin and UDNR 2005) Heritage CO – Not Listed (CNHP 2015) Program State List UT – S2 (NatureServe 2015) Status CO – Not Listed (NatureServe 2015)
Not included in the CO or UT Wildlife Action Plans (SWAP 2015, WAP 2015) USDA Forest As of May 2016, this species is not listed as a potential SCC or Sensitive Service Species for any adjoining National Forests (USFS 2013).
USDI FWS Federally recognized endangered species (Tilley at al. 2011) – not an SCC Candidate Other As a federal endangered species, it is of concern to US Dept. of Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Price and Richfield Field Offices (Franklin and UDNR 2005).
Review of species of conservation concern criteria based on definition
1. Native to the plan area
a. Is the species native to the plan area?
Yes___ No_X__
1. If no, provide explanation.
The UNHP GIS data (2015) identifies a single SCWR point on the Forest boundary. The point and description (below) do not correlate to the same location. The point is put at the head of
2
Intermountain Region Species of Conservation Concern Review DRAFT Template
Jewkes Hollow. The implied road (100 ft right-of-way) is over two air miles from the data point. Species: __SCWR_____
2. Known to occur in the plan area
Table 2. Known Occurrence Frequency within the Planning Area (NRIS database) Occurrence: Number Source of Information Known Occurrences in the past 20 years Year Last Observed
a. Are all species occurrences only accidental or transient?
Yes___ No_X__
1) If yes, document source for determination.
b. Based on the number of observations and/or year of last observation, can the species be presumed to be established or becoming established in the plan area?
Yes___ No_X__
1) If no, provide explanation. Only a single SCWR point has been recorded on the Forest boundary (UNHP 2015).
3. Substantial concern for species persistence in the plan area
a. Describe briefly the distribution, abundance, and population trend of the species in the plan area
Welsh et al. (2015) state: “The small flowers and short spines are evidently diagnostic. Occasional intermediates with S. whipplei var roseus occur in Emery Co. near the Sevier Co. line – at edaphic ecotones marking the boundary between shale and sandstone members of the Mancos Shale Formation. This entity is almost an identical match both morphologically and ecologically for S. mesa-verdae (Boissevain) L.
3
Intermountain Region Species of Conservation Concern Review DRAFT Template
Benson, and that name being older will have priority should the two be combined.” If these are the same species this would extend range. b. Describe briefly threats or risk factors to the species or the ecological conditions that support it (i.e. habitat) based on best available scientific information
R. Johnson (pers. comm. May 2016) stated; “No real immediate threat, not endemic, it’s the most widespread Sclerocactus, large populations 35,000+ individuals estimated, 3 counties in Utah 55 records, is often a subdominant species, is listed endangered due to collecting, ATV etc., road building and grazing trampling so must be high on the list, delisting failed due to too many threats.”
c. Considering the trend in populations or habitat and threats or risk factors for those populations or habitats, is there substantial concern for persistence of the species in the plan area?
Yes___ No_X__
1) If no, provide explanation
Not clearly documented as occurring within the planning area.
4
Intermountain Region Species of Conservation Concern Review DRAFT Template
4. Range Map
Map 1. UT occurrence map for Sclerocactus wrightiae (Franklin and UDNR 2005).
Map 2. County distribution map for Sclerocactus wrightiae (USDA 2016).
5
Intermountain Region Species of Conservation Concern Review DRAFT Template
Map 2. Distribution map for Sclerocactus wrightiae (USDA 2016).
5. Literature Cited
Colorado Natural Heritage Program (CNHP). 2015. Tracked Vascular Plant Species. http://www.cnhp.colostate.edu/download/list/vascular.asp. (Accessed May 24, 2016)
Colorado State Wildlife Action Plan (SWAP). 2015. Colorado State Wildlife Action Plan: A plan for conserving wildlife in Colorado. Colorado Parks and Wildlife, Denver, CO. 865 pgs. http://cpw.state.co.us/aboutus/Pages/StateWildlifeActionPlan.aspx
Franklin, M. A. and State of Utah Department of Natural Resources (UDNR). 2005. "Plant Information Compiled by the Utah Natural Heritage Program: A Progress Report". All U.S. Government Documents (Utah Regional Depository). Paper 474. http://digitalcommons.usu.edu/govdocs/474
NatureServe. 2015. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. Version 7.1. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available http://explorer.natureserve.org. (Accessed: April 27, 2016).
Johnson, R. 2016. Personal Communication. Collection Manager BRY herbarium.
6
Intermountain Region Species of Conservation Concern Review DRAFT Template
Tilley, D., L. St. John and D. Ogle. 2011. Plant guide for Wright fishhook cactus (Sclerocactus wrightiae). USDA-Natural Resources Conservation Service, Idaho Plant Materials Center. Aberdeen, ID.
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), NRCS. 2016. The PLANTS Database http://plants.usda.gov. National Plant Data Team, Greensboro, NC 27401- 4901 USA. (Accessed: May 24, 2016)
U.S. Forest Service (USFS). 2013. Proposed, Endangered, Threatened and Sensitive Species List, R4. Known / Suspected Distribution by Forest.
Utah Natural Heritage Program (UNHP). 2015. Utah Division of Wildlife Resources. UNHP Biodiversity Tracking and Conservation System (BIOTICS).
Utah Wildlife Action Plan (WAP) Joint Team. 2015. Utah Wildlife Action Plan: A plan for managing native wildlife species and their habitats to prevent listing under the Endangered Species Act. Draft version 2.0. DWR Publication No. 15-14. Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, Salt Lake City, UT. 400 pgs. http://wildlife.utah.gov/wap/wap2015draft2.pdf
Welsh, S. L., N. D. Atwood, S. Goodrich, and L. C. Higgins. 2015. A Utah Flora. Provo Utah. 987p.
7
Intermountain Region Species of Conservation Concern Review DRAFT Template
SPECIES: Scientific [common] Senecio fremontii var. inexpectatus [La Sal Mountain’s Groundsel / Dwarf mountain ragwort] SEFRI Forest: Manti-La Sal National Forest Forest Reviewer: K. Anderson Date of Review: 20 May 2016 Forest concurrence (or recommendation if new) for No inclusion of species on list of potential SCC: (Enter Yes or No)
Forest review result:
The Forest concurs or recommends the species for inclusion on the list of potential SCC: Yes___ No__X_
Rationale for not concurring is based on (check all that apply): Species is not native to the plan area ______Species is not known to occur in the plan area ______Species persistence in the plan area is not of substantial concern _ X___
Issue: Whether the species identified above should be listed as a species of Conservation Concern (SCC) for the Manti-La Sal National Forest (MLNF) as identified in the 2012 Planning Rule (36 CFR 219).
Rule: The 2012 Planning Rule [36 CFR 219.7(c)(3)] states that “The regional forester shall identify the species of conservation concern for the plan area in coordination with the responsible official.” It [36 CFR 219.9(b)(2)(c)] defines a species of conservation concern as “…a species, other than federally recognized threatened, endangered, proposed, or candidate species, that is known to occur in the plan area and for which the regional forester has determined that the best available scientific information indicates substantial concern about the species’ capability to persist over the long-term in the plan area.”
Analysis: The best available scientific information (BASI) indicates a there is not enough current scientific information to indicate a level of certainty whether the species is capable to persist within the plan area.
Conclusion: Based upon the BASI documented herein, it is not recommended that this species be included in the potential list of SCC for the MLNF.
1
Intermountain Region Species of Conservation Concern Review DRAFT Template
Species: _SEFRI_____
FOREST REVIEW INFORMATION
Status summary based on other methods (information is on the Regional Office list of species considered; correct as needed):
Entity Status/Rank (include definition if Other) NatureServe G5T1 (NatureServe 2015)
Natural UT - Not Listed (UDNR 2015) Heritage CO – Not Listed (CNHP 2015) Program State List UT – S1 (NatureServe 2015) Status CO – Not Listed (NatureServe 2015)
Not included in the CO or UT Wildlife Action Plans (SWAP 2015, WAP 2015) USDA Forest As of May 2016, this species is not listed as a potential SCC or Sensitive Service Species for any adjoining National Forests (USFS 2013).
USDI FWS Not a listed species. Other
Review of species of conservation concern criteria based on definition
1. Native to the plan area
a. Is the species native to the plan area?
Yes_X__ No___
1. If no, provide explanation.
2
Intermountain Region Species of Conservation Concern Review DRAFT Template
Species: __SEFRI_____
2. Known to occur in the plan area
Table 2. Known Occurrence Frequency within the Planning Area (NRIS database) Occurrence: Number Source of Information Known Occurrences in the past 20 2 Intermountain Region Herbarium years Network (COIH 2016) Year Last Observed 2013 Intermountain Region Herbarium Network (COIH 2016)
a. Are all species occurrences only accidental or transient?
Yes___ No_X__
1) If yes, document source for determination.
b. Based on the number of observations and/or year of last observation, can the species be presumed to be established or becoming established in the plan area?
Yes_X__ No___
1) If no, provide explanation.
3. Substantial concern for species persistence in the plan area
a. Describe briefly the distribution, abundance, and population trend of the species in the plan area
This species inhabits alpine ridge crests, talus slopes and subalpine meadow and is endemic to the La Sal Mountains (Franklin and UDNR 2005). S. fremontii was reported from the Mt. Peale Wilderness area in 1987 (MLNF 1987) but it is unsure whether the plant was one of the now new varieties (identified by Cronquist et al. in 1994) S. fremontii v blitoides or S. f. v. inexpectus, both of which occur in alpine communities in Grand and San Juan counties (Map 2, NatureServe 2015, USDA 2016) and and Dolores County in Colorado (Map 2, USDA 2016).
3
Intermountain Region Species of Conservation Concern Review DRAFT Template
b. Describe briefly threats or risk factors to the species or the ecological conditions that support it (i.e. habitat) based on best available scientific information
Increased anthropogenic recreation (NatureServe accessed May 2016).
c. Considering the trend in populations or habitat and threats or risk factors for those populations or habitats, is there substantial concern for persistence of the species in the plan area?
Yes___ No_X__
1) If no, provide explanation
Monitoring data (2015?) collected from 71 plots showed a 17% presence rate. This variety was created in 1994, so trend data is insufficient to determine if there is yet a concern for persistence in the plan area. The earliest reported collection made (IRHN 2016) was in 1984 by J. H. Tuhy #1847.
4. Range Map
Map 1. UT occurrence map for Senecio fremontii var. inexpectatus (Franklin and UDNR 2005).
4
Intermountain Region Species of Conservation Concern Review DRAFT Template
Map 2. County distribution map for Senecio fremontii var. inexpectatus (USDA 2016).
Map 3. Distribution map for Senecio fremontii var. inexpectatus (USDA 2016).
5
Intermountain Region Species of Conservation Concern Review DRAFT Template
5. Supporting Literature
Colorado Natural Heritage Program (CNHP). 2015. Tracked Vascular Plant Species. http://www.cnhp.colostate.edu/download/list/vascular.asp. (Accessed May 24, 2016).
Colorado State Wildlife Action Plan (SWAP). 2015. Colorado State Wildlife Action Plan: A plan for conserving wildlife in Colorado. Colorado Parks and Wildlife, Denver, CO. 865 pgs. http://cpw.state.co.us/aboutus/Pages/StateWildlifeActionPlan.aspx
Consortium of Intermountain Herbaria (COIH). 2016. http//:www.intermountainbiota.org/portal/index.php. (Accessed on June 01)
Franklin, M. A. and State of Utah Department of Natural Resources (UDNR). 2005. "Plant Information Compiled by the Utah Natural Heritage Program: A Progress Report". All U.S. Government Documents (Utah Regional Depository). Paper 474. http://digitalcommons.usu.edu/govdocs/474
MLNF. 1987. Plant Species in the Proposed Mount Peale Research Natural Area.
Manti-La Sal National Forest (MLNF). 2009. La Sal Species list 10.10
NatureServe. 2015. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. Version 7.1. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available http://explorer.natureserve.org. (Accessed: April 27, 2016).
USDA, NRCS. 2016. The PLANTS Database (http://plants.usda.gov, 24 May 2016). National Plant Data Team, Greensboro, NC 27401-4901 USA.
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), NRCS. 2016. The PLANTS Database http://plants.usda.gov. National Plant Data Team, Greensboro, NC 27401- 4901 USA. (Accessed: May 24, 2016)
U.S. Forest Service (USFS). 2013. Proposed, Endangered, Threatened and Sensitive Species List, R4. Known / Suspected Distribution by Forest.
Utah Department of Natural Resources (UDNR). Division of Wildlife Resources. 2015. Utah Sensitive Species List.
Utah Wildlife Action Plan (WAP) Joint Team. 2015. Utah Wildlife Action Plan: A plan for managing native wildlife species and their habitats to prevent listing under the Endangered Species Act. Draft version 2.0. DWR Publication No. 15-14. Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, Salt Lake City, UT. 400 pgs. http://wildlife.utah.gov/wap/wap2015draft2.pdf
6
Intermountain Region Species of Conservation Concern Review DRAFT Template
7
Intermountain Region Species of Conservation Concern Review DRAFT Template
SPECIES: Scientific [common] Senecio musiniensis [Musinea ragwort] SEMU0 Forest: Manti-La Sal National Forest Forest Reviewer: K. Anderson Date of Review: 26 May 2016 Forest concurrence (or recommendation if new) for No inclusion of species on list of potential SCC: (Enter Yes or No)
Forest review result:
The Forest concurs or recommends the species for inclusion on the list of potential SCC: Yes___ No_ X__
Rationale for not concurring is based on (check all that apply): Species is not native to the plan area ______Species is not known to occur in the plan area ______Species persistence in the plan area is not of substantial concern X_
Issue: Whether the species identified above should be listed as a species of Conservation Concern (SCC) for the Manti-La Sal National Forest (MLNF) as identified in the 2012 Planning Rule (36 CFR 219).
Rule: The 2012 Planning Rule [36 CFR 219.7(c)(3)] states that “The regional forester shall identify the species of conservation concern for the plan area in coordination with the responsible official.” It [36 CFR 219.9(b)(2)(c)] defines a species of conservation concern as “…a species, other than federally recognized threatened, endangered, proposed, or candidate species, that is known to occur in the plan area and for which the regional forester has determined that the best available scientific information indicates substantial concern about the species’ capability to persist over the long-term in the plan area.”
Analysis: The best available scientific information (BASI) indicates a there is not enough current scientific information to indicate a level of certainty whether the species is capable to persist within the plan area.
Conclusion: Based upon the BASI documented herein, it is not recommended that this species be included in the potential list of SCC for the MLNF.
1
Intermountain Region Species of Conservation Concern Review DRAFT Template
Species: __SEMU0____
FOREST REVIEW INFORMATION
Status summary based on other methods (information is on the Regional Office list of species considered; correct as needed):
Entity Status/Rank (include definition if Other) NatureServe G1 (NatureServe 2015)
Natural UT – Not listed (UDNR 2015) Heritage CO – Not listed (CNHP 2015) Program State List UT-S1 (NatureServe 2015) Status UT – Not listed in the Utah Wildlife Action Plan (WAP 2015).
CO – Not Listed (NatureServe 2015) CO – Not listed in the Colorado Wildlife Action Plan (SWAP 2015) USDA Forest This species is currently listed as a Sensitive Species for the Manti-La Sal Service National Forest (USFS 2013).
As of May 2016, this species is not listed as a potential SCC or Sensitive Species for any adjoining National Forests (USFS 2013). USDI FWS Not a listed species. Petitioned for listing multiple times (WAP 2015). Other
Review of species of conservation concern criteria based on definition
1. Native to the plan area
a. Is the species native to the plan area?
Yes_X__ No___
1. If no, provide explanation.
2
Intermountain Region Species of Conservation Concern Review DRAFT Template
Species: __SEMU0_____
2. Known to occur in the plan area
Table 2. Known Occurrence Frequency within the Planning Area (NRIS database) Occurrence: Number Source of Information Known Occurrences in the past 20 2 Intermountain Region Herbarium years Network (COIH 2015) Year Last Observed 2015 Manti-La Sal NF
a. Are all species occurrences only accidental or transient?
Yes___ No_X__
1) If yes, document source for determination.
b. Based on the number of observations and/or year of last observation, can the species be presumed to be established or becoming established in the plan area?
Yes_X__ No___
1) If no, provide explanation.
3. Substantial concern for species persistence in the plan area
a. Describe briefly the distribution, abundance, and population trend of the species in the plan area
Occurs on limestone substrate.
b. Describe briefly threats or risk factors to the species or the ecological conditions that support it (i.e. habitat) based on best available scientific information
Mining.
3
Intermountain Region Species of Conservation Concern Review DRAFT Template
c. Considering the trend in populations or habitat and threats or risk factors for those populations or habitats, is there substantial concern for persistence of the species in the plan area?
Yes___ No_X__
1) If no, provide explanation
No information to cause a concern for persistence in the plan area.
4. Range Map
Map 1. Utah occurrence map for Senecio musiniensis (Franklin and UDNR 2005).
5. Literature Cited
Colorado Natural Heritage Program (CNHP). 2015. Tracked Vascular Plant Species. http://www.cnhp.colostate.edu/download/list/vascular.asp. (Accessed May 24, 2016).
Colorado State Wildlife Action Plan (SWAP). 2015. Colorado State Wildlife Action Plan: A plan for conserving wildlife in Colorado. Colorado Parks and Wildlife, Denver, CO. 865 pgs. http://cpw.state.co.us/aboutus/Pages/StateWildlifeActionPlan.aspx
4
Intermountain Region Species of Conservation Concern Review DRAFT Template
Consortium of Intermountain Herbaria (COIH). 2016. http//:www.intermountainbiota.org/portal/index.php. (Accessed on June 01)
Franklin, M. A. and State of Utah Department of Natural Resources (UDNR). 2005. "Plant Information Compiled by the Utah Natural Heritage Program: A Progress Report". All U.S. Government Documents (Utah Regional Depository). Paper 474. http://digitalcommons.usu.edu/govdocs/474
Manti-La Sal National Forest (MLNF). 2015. Manti-La Sal National Forest.
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), NRCS. 2016. The PLANTS Database http://plants.usda.gov. National Plant Data Team, Greensboro, NC 27401- 4901 USA. (Accessed: May 24, 2016)
U.S. Forest Service (USFS). 2013. Proposed, Endangered, Threatened and Sensitive Species List, R4. Known / Suspected Distribution by Forest.
Utah Department of Natural Resources (UDNR). Division of Wildlife Resources. 2015. Utah Sensitive Species List.
Utah Wildlife Action Plan (WAP) Joint Team. 2015. Utah Wildlife Action Plan: A plan for managing native wildlife species and their habitats to prevent listing under the Endangered Species Act. Draft version 2.0. DWR Publication No. 15-14. Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, Salt Lake City, UT. 400 pgs. http://wildlife.utah.gov/wap/wap2015draft2.pdf
5
Intermountain Region Species of Conservation Concern Review DRAFT Template
SPECIES: Scientific [common] Silene petersonii [Peterson Catchfly / Plateau Catchfly] SIPE Forest: Manti-La Sal National Forest Forest Reviewer: K. Anderson Date of Review: 26 May 2016 Forest concurrence (or recommendation if new) for No inclusion of species on list of potential SCC: (Enter Yes or No)
Forest review result:
The Forest concurs or recommends the species for inclusion on the list of potential SCC: Yes___ No_X__
Rationale for not concurring is based on (check all that apply): Species is not native to the plan area ______Species is not known to occur in the plan area ______Species persistence in the plan area is not of substantial concern ___X___
Issue: Whether the species identified above should be listed as a species of Conservation Concern (SCC) for the Manti-La Sal National Forest (MLNF) as identified in the 2012 Planning Rule (36 CFR 219).
Rule: The 2012 Planning Rule [36 CFR 219.7(c)(3)] states that “The regional forester shall identify the species of conservation concern for the plan area in coordination with the responsible official.” It [36 CFR 219.9(b)(2)(c)] defines a species of conservation concern as “…a species, other than federally recognized threatened, endangered, proposed, or candidate species, that is known to occur in the plan area and for which the regional forester has determined that the best available scientific information indicates substantial concern about the species’ capability to persist over the long-term in the plan area.”
Analysis: The best available scientific information (BASI) indicates that there is not enough scientific information to indicate a “substantial concern about the species capability to persist” within the plan area.
Conclusion: Based upon the BASI documented herein, it is not recommended that this species be included in the potential list of SCC for the MLNF.
1
Intermountain Region Species of Conservation Concern Review DRAFT Template
Species: _SIPE_____
FOREST REVIEW INFORMATION
Status summary based on other methods (information is on the Regional Office list of species considered; correct as needed):
Entity Status/Rank (include definition if Other) NatureServe G2G3 (NatureServe 2015)
Natural UT - Not Listed (UDNR 2015) Heritage CO – Not Listed (CNHP 2015) Program State List UT – S2S3 (NatureServe 2015) Status CO – Not Listed (NatureServe 2015)
Not included in the CO or UT Wildlife Action Plans (SWAP 2015, WAP 2015) USDA Forest Hedysarum occidentale var canone is currently a FS Region 4 sensitive Service species for the Manti La-Sal and Dixie National Forests (USFS 2013).
As of May 2016, this species is not listed as a potential SCC or Sensitive Species for any adjoining National Forests (USFS 2013). USDI FWS Not a listed species. Other
Review of species of conservation concern criteria based on definition
1. Native to the plan area
a. Is the species native to the plan area?
Yes_X__ No___
1. If no, provide explanation.
2
Intermountain Region Species of Conservation Concern Review DRAFT Template
Species: __SIPE_____
2. Known to occur in the plan area
Table 2. Known Occurrence Frequency within the Planning Area (NRIS database) Occurrence: Number Source of Information Known Occurrences in the past 5 Intermountain Region Herbarium 20 years (since 2012) Network and local knowledge (COIH 2016) Year Last Observed 2015 Intermountain Region Herbarium Network (COIH 2016)
a. Are all species occurrences only accidental or transient?
Yes___ No_X__
1) If yes, document source for determination.
b. Based on the number of observations and/or year of last observation, can the species be presumed to be established or becoming established in the plan area?
Yes_X__ No___
1) If no, provide explanation.
3. Substantial concern for species persistence in the plan area
a. Describe briefly the distribution, abundance, and population trend of the species in the plan area
Endemic to central and southwest Utah (NatureServe 2015).
According to NCRS there are two varieties S. p. minor and S. p. petersonii. Welsh et al. (2015) addresses the two varieties but states that characteristics that separate the two species “fail singly and in combination.” The Integrated Taxonomic Information System (ITIS 2016) place the two varieties under synonymy, as S. petersonii. This species is found in four counties and is common where it is found. Several populations are found in protected sites within Utah National Parks (NatureServe 2015).
3
Intermountain Region Species of Conservation Concern Review DRAFT Template
b. Describe briefly threats or risk factors to the species or the ecological conditions that support it (i.e. habitat) based on best available scientific information
Road Construction and maintenance along Skyline Drive rd. (Thompson 2001).
c. Considering the trend in populations or habitat and threats or risk factors for those populations or habitats, is there substantial concern for persistence of the species in the plan area?
Yes___ No_X__
1) If no, provide explanation
The species is well established in the plan area and has persisted since first identified in 1940.
4. Range Map
Map 1. UT occurrence map for Silene petersonii (Franklin and UDNR 2005).
4
Intermountain Region Species of Conservation Concern Review DRAFT Template
Map 2.County distribution map for Silene petersonii (USDA 2016).
5. Literature Cited
Colorado Natural Heritage Program (CNHP). 2015. Tracked Vascular Plant Species. http://www.cnhp.colostate.edu/download/list/vascular.asp. (Accessed May 24, 2016).
Colorado State Wildlife Action Plan (SWAP). 2015. Colorado State Wildlife Action Plan: A plan for conserving wildlife in Colorado. Colorado Parks and Wildlife, Denver, CO. 865 pgs. http://cpw.state.co.us/aboutus/Pages/StateWildlifeActionPlan.aspx
Consortium of Intermountain Herbaria (COIH). 2016. http//:www.intermountainbiota.org/portal/index.php. (Accessed on June 01)
Franklin, M. A. and State of Utah Department of Natural Resources (UDNR). 2005. "Plant Information Compiled by the Utah Natural Heritage Program: A Progress Report". All U.S. Government Documents (Utah Regional Depository). Paper 474. http://digitalcommons.usu.edu/govdocs/474
Integrated Taxonomic Information System (ITIS). 2016. Online database. http://www.itis.gov/. (Accessed January 27, 2016)
NatureServe. 2015. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. Version 7.1. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available http://explorer.natureserve.org. (Accessed: April 27, 2016).
5
Intermountain Region Species of Conservation Concern Review DRAFT Template
Thompson, R. 2001. Endangered, Threatened, and Sensitive Plant Species: Manti-La Sal National Forest.
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), NRCS. 2016. The PLANTS Database http://plants.usda.gov. National Plant Data Team, Greensboro, NC 27401- 4901 USA. (Accessed: May 24, 2016)
U.S. Forest Service (USFS). 2013. Proposed, Endangered, Threatened and Sensitive Species List, R4. Known / Suspected Distribution by Forest.
Utah Department of Natural Resources (UDNR). Division of Wildlife Resources. 2015. Utah Sensitive Species List.
Utah Wildlife Action Plan (WAP) Joint Team. 2015. Utah Wildlife Action Plan: A plan for managing native wildlife species and their habitats to prevent listing under the Endangered Species Act. Draft version 2.0. DWR Publication No. 15-14. Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, Salt Lake City, UT. 400 pgs. http://wildlife.utah.gov/wap/wap2015draft2.pdf
Welsh, S. L., N. D. Atwood, S. Goodrich, and L. C. Higgins. 2015. A Utah Flora. Provo Utah. 987p
6
Intermountain Region Species of Conservation Concern Review DRAFT Template
SPECIES: Scientific [common] Townsendia montana var caelilinensis Syn: Townsendia alpigena Piper var. caelilinensis (USDA 2016) [Skyline townsendia] TOMOC Forest: Manti-La Sal National Forest Forest Reviewer: K. Anderson Date of Review: 26 May 2016 Forest concurrence (or recommendation if new) for No inclusion of species on list of potential SCC: (Enter Yes or No)
Forest review result:
The Forest concurs or recommends the species for inclusion on the list of potential SCC: Yes___ No_X__
Rationale for not concurring is based on (check all that apply): Species is not native to the plan area ______Species is not known to occur in the plan area ______Species persistence in the plan area is not of substantial concern __X____
Issue: Whether the species identified above should be listed as a species of Conservation Concern (SCC) for the Manti-La Sal National Forest (MLNF) as identified in the 2012 Planning Rule (36 CFR 219).
Rule: The 2012 Planning Rule [36 CFR 219.7(c)(3)] states that “The regional forester shall identify the species of conservation concern for the plan area in coordination with the responsible official.” It [36 CFR 219.9(b)(2)(c)] defines a species of conservation concern as “…a species, other than federally recognized threatened, endangered, proposed, or candidate species, that is known to occur in the plan area and for which the regional forester has determined that the best available scientific information indicates substantial concern about the species’ capability to persist over the long-term in the plan area.”
Analysis: The best available scientific information (BASI) indicates disagreement and inconsistent use of nomenclature, additionally, does not clearly identify threats/risks to species’ capability to persist within the plan area.
Conclusion: Based upon the BASI documented herein, it is not recommended that this species be included in the potential list of SCC for the MLNF.
1
Intermountain Region Species of Conservation Concern Review DRAFT Template
Species: __TOMOC____
FOREST REVIEW INFORMATION
Status summary based on other methods (information is on the Regional Office list of species considered; correct as needed):
Entity Status/Rank (include definition if Other) NatureServe G4T2T3 (NatureServe 2015)
Natural UT - Not Listed (UDNR 2015) Heritage CO – Not Listed (CNHP 2015) Program State List UT – S2S3 (NatureServe 2015) Status CO – Not Listed (NatureServe 2015)
Not included in the CO or UT Wildlife Action Plans (SWAP 2015, WAP 2015) USDA Forest Hedysarum occidentale var canone is currently a FS Region 4 sensitive Service species for the Manti La-Sal and Dixie National Forests (USFS 2013).
As of May 2016, this species is not listed as a potential SCC or Sensitive Species for any adjoining National Forests (USFS 2013). USDI FWS Not a listed species. Other
Review of species of conservation concern criteria based on definition
1. Native to the plan area
a. Is the species native to the plan area?
Yes_X__ No___
1. If no, provide explanation.
2
Intermountain Region Species of Conservation Concern Review DRAFT Template
Species: __ TOMOC _____
2. Known to occur in the plan area
Table 2. Known Occurrence Frequency within the Planning Area (NRIS database) Occurrence: Number Source of Information Known Occurrences in the past 20 1 Intermountain Region Herbarium years Network (COIH 2016) Year Last Observed 2010 Intermountain Region Herbarium Network (COIH 2016)
a. Are all species occurrences only accidental or transient?
Yes___ No_X__
1) If yes, document source for determination.
b. Based on the number of observations and/or year of last observation, can the species be presumed to be established or becoming established in the plan area?
Yes_X__ No___
1) If no, provide explanation
3. Substantial concern for species persistence in the plan area
a. Describe briefly the distribution, abundance, and population trend of the species in the plan area
Welsh et al. (2015) treats T. m. var caelilinensis. The USDA (2016) and NatureServe (2015) use T. alpigena var caelilinensis with T. montana under synonymy with T. a. var alpigena. However, the Flora of North America (2006) puts T. alpigena, T. a. var c., and T. m. var c. under synonymy with Townsendia montana. Cronquist et al. (1994) also place the aforementioned species under T. montana synonymy, along with T. dejecta. Based on nomenclature disagreement, this species is eliminated from the list.
3
Intermountain Region Species of Conservation Concern Review DRAFT Template
b. Describe briefly threats or risk factors to the species or the ecological conditions that support it (i.e. habitat) based on best available scientific information
No known threats/risks.
c. Considering the trend in populations or habitat and threats or risk factors for those populations or habitats, is there substantial concern for persistence of the species in the plan area?
Yes___ No_X__
1) If no, provide explanation
Due to nomenclatural inconsistencies the presence of the species increases.
4. Range Map
Map 1. UT occurrence map for Townsendia montana var caelilinensis (Franklin and UDNR 2005).
4
Intermountain Region Species of Conservation Concern Review DRAFT Template
Map 2.County distribution map for Townsendia alpigena Piper var. caelilinensis (USDA 2016).
5. Literature Cited
Barkley, T.M., L. Brouillet, and J. Strother. 2006. Townsendia montana. In: Flora of North America Editorial Committee, eds. 1993+. Flora of North America North of Mexico. 19+ vols. New York and Oxford. Vol. 20, pp. 201.
Colorado Natural Heritage Program (CNHP). 2015. Tracked Vascular Plant Species. http://www.cnhp.colostate.edu/download/list/vascular.asp. (Accessed May 24, 2016).
Colorado State Wildlife Action Plan (SWAP). 2015. Colorado State Wildlife Action Plan: A plan for conserving wildlife in Colorado. Colorado Parks and Wildlife, Denver, CO. 865 pgs. http://cpw.state.co.us/aboutus/Pages/StateWildlifeActionPlan.aspx
Consortium of Intermountain Herbaria (COIH). 2016. http//:www.intermountainbiota.org/portal/index.php. (Accessed on June 01)
Franklin, M. A. and State of Utah Department of Natural Resources (UDNR). 2005. "Plant Information Compiled by the Utah Natural Heritage Program: A Progress Report". All U.S. Government Documents (Utah Regional Depository). Paper 474. http://digitalcommons.usu.edu/govdocs/474
5
Intermountain Region Species of Conservation Concern Review DRAFT Template
Integrated Taxonomic Information System (ITIS). 2016. Online database. http://www.itis.gov/. (Accessed January 27, 2016)
NatureServe. 2015. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. Version 7.1. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available http://explorer.natureserve.org. (Accessed: April 27, 2016).
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), NRCS. 2016. The PLANTS Database http://plants.usda.gov. National Plant Data Team, Greensboro, NC 27401- 4901 USA. (Accessed: May 24, 2016)
U.S. Forest Service (USFS). 2013. Proposed, Endangered, Threatened and Sensitive Species List, R4. Known / Suspected Distribution by Forest.
Utah Department of Natural Resources (UDNR). Division of Wildlife Resources. 2015. Utah Sensitive Species List.
Utah Wildlife Action Plan (WAP) Joint Team. 2015. Utah Wildlife Action Plan: A plan for managing native wildlife species and their habitats to prevent listing under the Endangered Species Act. Draft version 2.0. DWR Publication No. 15-14. Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, Salt Lake City, UT. 400 pgs. http://wildlife.utah.gov/wap/wap2015draft2.pdf
Welsh, S. L., N. D. Atwood, S. Goodrich, and L. C. Higgins. 2015. A Utah Flora. Provo Utah. 987p.
6
Intermountain Region Species of Conservation Concern Review DRAFT Template
SPECIES: Scientific [common] Trautvetteria caroliniensis var. occidentalis Syn. Trautvetteria caroliniensis [Carolina Tassel-rue / Western bugbane] TRCAO Forest: Manti-La Sal National Forest Forest Reviewer: K. Anderson Date of Review: 20 May 2016 Forest concurrence (or recommendation if new) for No inclusion of species on list of potential SCC: (Enter Yes or No)
Forest review result:
The Forest concurs or recommends the species for inclusion on the list of potential SCC: Yes___ No_X__
Rationale for not concurring is based on (check all that apply): Species is not native to the plan area ______Species is not known to occur in the plan area ______Species persistence in the plan area is not of substantial concern __X____
Issue: Whether the species identified above should be listed as a species of Conservation Concern (SCC) for the Manti-La Sal National Forest (MLNF) as identified in the 2012 Planning Rule (36 CFR 219).
Rule: The 2012 Planning Rule [36 CFR 219.7(c)(3)] states that “The regional forester shall identify the species of conservation concern for the plan area in coordination with the responsible official.” It [36 CFR 219.9(b)(2)(c)] defines a species of conservation concern as “…a species, other than federally recognized threatened, endangered, proposed, or candidate species, that is known to occur in the plan area and for which the regional forester has determined that the best available scientific information indicates substantial concern about the species’ capability to persist over the long-term in the plan area.”
Analysis: The best available scientific information (BASI) indicates disagreement and inconsistent use of nomenclature, additionally, does not clearly identify threats/risks to species’ capability to persist within the plan area.
Conclusion: Based upon the BASI documented herein, it is not recommended that this species be included in the potential list of SCC for the MLNF.
1
Intermountain Region Species of Conservation Concern Review DRAFT Template
Species: __TRCAO____
FOREST REVIEW INFORMATION
Status summary based on other methods (information is on the Regional Office list of species considered; correct as needed):
Entity Status/Rank (include definition if Other) NatureServe G5 (NatureServe 2015)
Natural UT - Not Listed (UDNR 2015) Heritage CO – Not Listed (CNHP 2015) Program State List UT – S1 (NatureServe 2015) Status CO – SNR “Not Ranked” (NatureServe 2015)
Not included in the CO or UT Wildlife Action Plans (SWAP 2015, WAP 2015) USDA Forest As of May 2016, this species is not listed as a potential SCC or Sensitive Service Species for any adjoining National Forests (USFS 2013).
USDI FWS Not a listed species. Other
Review of species of conservation concern criteria based on definition
1. Native to the plan area
a. Is the species native to the plan area?
Yes_X__ No___
1. If no, provide explanation.
2
Intermountain Region Species of Conservation Concern Review DRAFT Template
Species: __ TRCAO _____
2. Known to occur in the plan area
Table 2. Known Occurrence Frequency within the Planning Area (NRIS database) Occurrence: Number Source of Information Known Occurrences in the past 20 0 Intermountain Region Herbarium years Network (COIH 2016) Year Last Observed N/A Intermountain Region Herbarium Network (COIH 2016)
a. Are all species occurrences only accidental or transient?
Yes___ No_X__
1) If yes, document source for determination.
b. Based on the number of observations and/or year of last observation, can the species be presumed to be established or becoming established in the plan area?
Yes_X__ No___
1) If no, provide explanation.
3. Substantial concern for species persistence in the plan area
a. Describe briefly the distribution, abundance, and population trend of the species in the plan area
The plant is not recommended for listing due to its widespread distribution across the western United States, Canada, and into Asia.
There is disagreement of this taxon. It is treated as Trautvetteria caroliniensis var. occidentalis in Natureserve (2015) and USDA NRCS Plant Database (USDA 2016). It is reduced in synonymy under Trautvetteria caroliniensis in A Utah Flora (Welsh et al. 2015), Flora of North America (Whittemore and Parfitt 1997).
3
Intermountain Region Species of Conservation Concern Review DRAFT Template
The taxon Trautvetteria caroliniensis var. occidentalis has a widespread distribution across the western United States with a latitudinal range over 1,000 miles. It is found in all eleven western states except Nevada, mostly in Washington, Oregon, northern Idaho and California, with disjunct populations in Wyoming, Utah, Colorado, Arizona, and New Mexico (USDA 2016).
The Integrated Taxonomic Information System (ITIS) lists T. caroliniensis var. occidentalis as: “not accepted” and T. caroliniensis as “Accepted Name” (ITIS 2016).
Under Trautvetteria caroliniensis, the distribution of the plant expands to numerous eastern states. Plotted distribution of Trautvetteria caroliniensis in Flora of North America includes several southeastern states and British Columbia, Canada. It also lists the species as occurring in East Asia and Mexico (Whittemore and Parfitt 1997).
The plant is not recommended for listing due to the disagreement in taxonomy and because of the plant’s widespread distribution across the western United States, Canada, and into Asia.
b. Describe briefly threats or risk factors to the species or the ecological conditions that support it (i.e. habitat) based on best available scientific information
No known threats or risks.
c. Considering the trend in populations or habitat and threats or risk factors for those populations or habitats, is there substantial concern for persistence of the species in the plan area?
Yes___ No_X__
1) If no, provide explanation
Trend is unknown and intrinsic vulnerability is moderate in the state. The plant is known from San Juan and Duchesne counties, Utah (Ashley National Forest 2016).
4
Intermountain Region Species of Conservation Concern Review DRAFT Template
4. Range Map
Map 1. UT occurrence map for Trautvetteria caroliniensis (Franklin and UDNR 2005).
Map 2. County distribution map for Trautvetteria caroliniensis var. occidentalis (USDA 2016).
5
Intermountain Region Species of Conservation Concern Review DRAFT Template
Map 3. Distribution map for Trautvetteria caroliniensis var. occidentalis (USDA 2016).
Map 4. Distribution map for Trautvetteria caroliniensis var. occidentalis (NatureServe 2015).
6
Intermountain Region Species of Conservation Concern Review DRAFT Template
5. Literature Cited
Ashley National Forest. 2016. Intermountain Region Species of Conservation Concern Review Template: Trautvetteria caroliniensis var. occidentalis.
Colorado Natural Heritage Program (CNHP). 2015. Tracked Vascular Plant Species. http://www.cnhp.colostate.edu/download/list/vascular.asp. (Accessed May 24, 2016).
Colorado State Wildlife Action Plan (SWAP). 2015. Colorado State Wildlife Action Plan: A plan for conserving wildlife in Colorado. Colorado Parks and Wildlife, Denver, CO. 865 pgs. http://cpw.state.co.us/aboutus/Pages/StateWildlifeActionPlan.aspx
Consortium of Intermountain Herbaria (COIH). 2016. http//:www.intermountainbiota.org/portal/index.php. (Accessed on June 01)
Franklin, M. A. and State of Utah Department of Natural Resources (UDNR). 2005. "Plant Information Compiled by the Utah Natural Heritage Program: A Progress Report". All U.S. Government Documents (Utah Regional Depository). Paper 474. http://digitalcommons.usu.edu/govdocs/474
Integrated Taxonomic Information System (ITIS). 2016. Online database. http://www.itis.gov/. (Accessed January 27, 2016)
NatureServe. 2015. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. Version 7.1. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available http://explorer.natureserve.org. (Accessed: April 27, 2016).
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), NRCS. 2016. The PLANTS Database http://plants.usda.gov. National Plant Data Team, Greensboro, NC 27401- 4901 USA. (Accessed: May 24, 2016)
U.S. Forest Service (USFS). 2013. Proposed, Endangered, Threatened and Sensitive Species List, R4. Known / Suspected Distribution by Forest.
Utah Department of Natural Resources (UDNR). Division of Wildlife Resources. 2015. Utah Sensitive Species List.
Utah Wildlife Action Plan (WAP) Joint Team. 2015. Utah Wildlife Action Plan: A plan for managing native wildlife species and their habitats to prevent listing under the Endangered Species Act. Draft version 2.0. DWR Publication No. 15-14. Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, Salt Lake City, UT. 400 pgs. http://wildlife.utah.gov/wap/wap2015draft2.pdf
7
Intermountain Region Species of Conservation Concern Review DRAFT Template
Welsh, S. L., N. D. Atwood, S. Goodrich, and L. C. Higgins. 2015. A Utah Flora. Provo Utah. 987p.
Whittemore, A. T. and B. D. Parfitt. 1997. Trautvetteria caroliniensis. In: Flora of North America Editorial Committee, eds. 1993+. Flora of North America North of Mexico. 19+ vols. New York and Oxford. Vol. 3, pp. 138.
8
Intermountain Region Species of Conservation Concern Review DRAFT Template
SPECIES: Scientific [common] Zigadenus vaginatus [Sheathed deathcamas] ZIVA Forest: Manti-La Sal National Forest Forest Reviewer: K. Anderson Date of Review: 20 May 2016 Forest concurrence (or recommendation if new) for No inclusion of species on list of potential SCC: (Enter Yes or No)
Forest review result:
The Forest concurs or recommends the species for inclusion on the list of potential SCC: Yes___ No_X__
Rationale for not concurring is based on (check all that apply): Species is not native to the plan area __X_____ Species is not known to occur in the plan area __X_____ Species persistence in the plan area is not of substantial concern _X_____
Issue: Whether the species identified above should be listed as a species of Conservation Concern (SCC) for the Manti-La Sal National Forest (MLNF) as identified in the 2012 Planning Rule (36 CFR 219).
Rule: The 2012 Planning Rule [36 CFR 219.7(c)(3)] states that “The regional forester shall identify the species of conservation concern for the plan area in coordination with the responsible official.” It [36 CFR 219.9(b)(2)(c)] defines a species of conservation concern as “…a species, other than federally recognized threatened, endangered, proposed, or candidate species, that is known to occur in the plan area and for which the regional forester has determined that the best available scientific information indicates substantial concern about the species’ capability to persist over the long-term in the plan area.”
Analysis: The best available scientific information (BASI) does not clearly document that the species is present within the plan area.
Conclusion: Based upon the BASI documented herein, it is not recommended that this species be included in the potential list of SCC for the MLNF.
1
Intermountain Region Species of Conservation Concern Review DRAFT Template
Species: __ZIVA____
FOREST REVIEW INFORMATION
Status summary based on other methods (information is on the Regional Office list of species considered; correct as needed):
Entity Status/Rank (include definition if Other) NatureServe G2 (NatureServe 2015)
Natural UT - Not Listed (UDNR 2015) Heritage CO – Not Listed (CNHP 2015) Program State List UT – S2 (NatureServe 2015) Status CO – S2(NatureServe 2015)
Not included in the CO or UT Wildlife Action Plans (SWAP 2015, WAP 2015) USDA Forest As of May 2016, this species is not listed as a potential SCC or Sensitive Service Species for any adjoining National Forests (USFS 2013).
USDI FWS Not a listed species. Other This species is listed on the Navajo Nation’s Threatened and Endangered Species List (NNDFW 20008) as G3 – “A species or subspecies whose prospects of survival or recruitment are likely to be in jeopardy in the foreseeable future.”
Review of species of conservation concern criteria based on definition
1. Native to the plan area
a. Is the species native to the plan area?
Yes___ No_X__
1. If no, provide explanation.
“The one collection found on the forest is an anomaly, more collections need to be made in order to verify that it isn’t just a fluke individual that is actually [Z.]elegans [italics added].” (Johnson 2016)
2
Intermountain Region Species of Conservation Concern Review DRAFT Template
Species: __ZIVA_____
2. Known to occur in the plan area
Table 2. Known Occurrence Frequency within the Planning Area (NRIS database) Occurrence: Number Source of Information Known Occurrences in the past 20 N/A Intermountain Region Herbarium years Network (COIH 2016) Year Last Observed N/A Intermountain Region Herbarium Network (COIH 2016)
a. Are all species occurrences only accidental or transient?
Yes_X__ No___
1) If yes, document source for determination.
“The one collection found on the forest is an anomaly, more collections need to be made in order to verify that it isn’t just a fluke individual that is actually [Z.]elegans [italics added].” (R. Johnson pers. comm. 2016)
b. Based on the number of observations and/or year of last observation, can the species be presumed to be established or becoming established in the plan area?
Yes___ No_X__
1) If no, provide explanation.
Only one species is recorded as having been collected within the planning area (UNHP 2015).
3. Substantial concern for species persistence in the plan area
a. Describe briefly the distribution, abundance, and population trend of the species in the plan area
This species is found in isolated populations restricted to canyon walls with a see component. It is regionally endemic to NE Arizona (6 populations), SE Utah (4-17 populations), and SW Colorado (4 populations) covering 16,500- 250,000km2 (NatureServe 2015). Only one species is recorded as having been collected within the planning area (UNHP 2015).
3
Intermountain Region Species of Conservation Concern Review DRAFT Template
b. Describe briefly threats or risk factors to the species or the ecological conditions that support it (i.e. habitat) based on best available scientific information
Threats to this species include loss of water resulting in drying of the seeps; there is concern that climate change may increase this threat due to possible droughts and increased demands on ground water sources. Additional threats include possible trampling by livestock and recreation activities by humans (NatureServe 2015).
c. Considering the trend in populations or habitat and threats or risk factors for those populations or habitats, is there substantial concern for persistence of the species in the plan area?
Yes___ No_X__
1) If no, provide explanation
Current scientific information does not clearly document this species as occurring within the planning area.
4. Range Map
Map1. UT occurrence map for Zigadenus vaginatus (Franklin and UDNR 2005).
4
Intermountain Region Species of Conservation Concern Review DRAFT Template
Map 2. County distribution map for Zigadenus vaginatus (USDA 2016).
Map 3. Distribution map for Zigadenus vaginatus (USDA 2016).
5
Intermountain Region Species of Conservation Concern Review DRAFT Template
Map 4. Distribution map for Zigadenus vaginatus (NatureServe 2015).
5. Literature Cited
Colorado Natural Heritage Program (CNHP). 2015. Tracked Vascular Plant Species. http://www.cnhp.colostate.edu/download/list/vascular.asp. (Accessed May 24, 2016).
Colorado State Wildlife Action Plan (SWAP). 2015. Colorado State Wildlife Action Plan: A plan for conserving wildlife in Colorado. Colorado Parks and Wildlife, Denver, CO. 865 pgs. http://cpw.state.co.us/aboutus/Pages/StateWildlifeActionPlan.aspx
Consortium of Intermountain Herbaria (COIH). 2016. http//:www.intermountainbiota.org/portal/index.php. (Accessed on June 01)
Johnson, Robert. 2016. Curator BRY Herbarium. Notes taken by summer crew while visiting herbarium. Notes deal with only a few select species of concern.
______.2016. Personal communication. Kim Anderson, MLNF.
6
Intermountain Region Species of Conservation Concern Review DRAFT Template
NatureServe. 2015. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. Version 7.1. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available http://explorer.natureserve.org. (Accessed: April 27, 2016).
Navajo Nations Department of Fish and Wildlife (NNDFW). 2008. Navajo endangered species list; resource committee resolution. http://nndfw.org/nnhp/nnhp_nesl.pdf
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), NRCS. 2016. The PLANTS Database http://plants.usda.gov. National Plant Data Team, Greensboro, NC 27401- 4901 USA. (Accessed: May 24, 2016)
U.S. Forest Service (USFS). 2013. Proposed, Endangered, Threatened and Sensitive Species List, R4. Known / Suspected Distribution by Forest.
Utah Department of Natural Resources (UDNR). Division of Wildlife Resources. 2015. Utah Sensitive Species List.
Utah Wildlife Action Plan (WAP) Joint Team. 2015. Utah Wildlife Action Plan: A plan for managing native wildlife species and their habitats to prevent listing under the Endangered Species Act. Draft version 2.0. DWR Publication No. 15-14. Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, Salt Lake City, UT. 400 pgs. http://wildlife.utah.gov/wap/wap2015draft2.pdf
7