DOCSLIB.ORG

Table of Contents

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Table of Contents Appendix E – Biological Resources Supporting Data TABLE OF CONTENTS Appendix E – Biological Resources Supporting Data .............................................................................. E-1 E.1 Land Cover Categories in the Project Area .............................................................................. E-1 E.1.1 Agriculture ............................................................................................................... E-3 E.1.2 Alpine ....................................................................................................................... E-4 E.1.3 Aspen ........................................................................................................................ E-5 E.1.4 Barren and Sparsely Vegetated ................................................................................ E-6 E.1.5 Big Sagebrush .......................................................................................................... E-8 E.1.6 Developed/Disturbed .............................................................................................. E-10 E.1.7 Grassland ................................................................................................................ E-11 E.1.8 Invasive .................................................................................................................. E-15 E.1.9 Montane Forest ....................................................................................................... E-15 E.1.10 Mountain Shrub ...................................................................................................... E-19 E.1.11 Pinyon-Juniper ....................................................................................................... E-21 E.1.12 Ponderosa Pine ....................................................................................................... E-24 E.1.13 Riparian .................................................................................................................. E-25 E.1.14 Shrub/Shrub Steppe ................................................................................................ E-27 E.1.15 Water ...................................................................................................................... E-31 E.1.16 Wetlands ................................................................................................................. E-31 E.2 Noxious Weeds in the Project Area ........................................................................................ E-33 E.3 Migratory Birds ...................................................................................................................... E-39 E.4 Special Status Species Lists .................................................................................................... E-39 E.4.1 Federal Threatened, Endangered, and Candidate Species ...................................... E-39 E.4.2 State Protected Species ........................................................................................... E-45 E.4.3 BLM Sensitive Species .......................................................................................... E-45 E.4.4 USFS Sensitive Species.......................................................................................... E-45 E.4.5 USFS Management Indicator Species .................................................................... E-45 E.5 Special Status Species Tables ................................................................................................. E-45 E.6 Special Status Species Accounts .......................................................................................... E-125 E.6.1 Special Status Plants ............................................................................................. E-125 E.6.1.1 Federally Listed Threatened, Endangered, Candidate, and Proposed Plant Species ........................................................................................ E-125 E.6.1.2 Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Forest Service, and State- Sensitive Plant Species ........................................................................ E-147 E.6.2 Special Status Fish and Wildlife .......................................................................... E-155 E.6.2.1 Federally Listed Threatened, Endangered, Candidate, and Proposed Fish and Wildlife Species .................................................................... E-155 E.6.2.2 Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Forest Service, and State- Sensitive Fish and Wildlife Species ..................................................... E-187 E.6.2.3 U.S. Forest Service Management Indicator Species ............................ E-216 E.7 Seasonal Restrictions for Special Status Plants .................................................................... E-219 E.8 Seasonal Restrictions for Wildlife ........................................................................................ E-219 E.9 Surface Use Restrictions for Biological Resources .............................................................. E-250 E.10 References ............................................................................................................................ E-303 Draft EIS and LUPAs Energy Gateway South Transmission Project Page E-i Appendix E – Biological Resources Supporting Data List of Tables Table E-1 Land Cover Categories in the Project Area ........................................................................ E-1 Table E-2 State- and County-listed Noxious Weeds in Wyoming for Lands in the Project Area .... E-33 Table E-3 Designated Noxious Weeds in the State of Colorado ...................................................... E-34 Table E-4 State- and County-listed Noxious Weeds in Utah for Bureau of Land Management Lands in the Project Area ................................................................................................. E-36 Table E-5 State- and County-listed Noxious Weeds in Utah for U.S. Forest Service Lands in the Project Area ................................................................................................................ E-38 Table E-6 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Birds of Conservation Concern and Partners-In- Flight Priority Species in the Project Area ....................................................................... E-40 Table E-7 Special Status Plant Species Carried Forward for Analysis ............................................. E-46 Table E-8 Special Status Plant Species Not Carried Forward for Analysis ...................................... E-55 Table E-9 Special Status Wildlife Species Carried Forward for Analysis........................................ E-65 Table E-10 Special Status Wildlife Species Not Carried Forward for Analysis ............................... E-104 Table E-11 Seasonal Restrictions in Sensitive Habitats ................................................................... E-220 Table E-12 Spatial and Seasonal Buffers for Breeding Raptors in Wyoming .................................. E-244 Table E-13 Recommended Spatial and Seasonal Buffers for Breeding Raptors in Colorado .......... E-245 Table E-14 Nesting Periods and Recommended Buffers for Raptors in Utah .................................. E-247 Table E-15 No Surface Occupancy and No Surface Disturbance Restrictions for Biological Resources from Applicable Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Forest Service, and Other Plans ..................................................................................................................... E-251 Table E-16 Conditional Surface Use Restrictions For Biological Resources from Applicable Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Forest Service, and Other Plans ............................ E-270 Draft EIS and LUPAs Energy Gateway South Transmission Project Page E-ii Appendix E – Biological Resources Supporting Data APPENDIX E – BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES SUPPORTING DATA Information presented in this appendix was compiled to assist in completion of biological resource inventories and impacts analysis included in Chapters 3 and 4. E.1 Land Cover Categories in the Project Area Land cover in the Project area was identified using data from the National Land Cover Gap Analysis Project (GAP) dataset (U.S. Geological Survey [USGS] 2010). The National Land Cover GAP dataset is compiled from both the Northwest GAP (University of Idaho 2010) and the Southwest GAP datasets (Lowry et al. 2005). A total of 86 GAP land cover categories were identified in the Project area (Table E-1). Descriptions of the GAP land cover categories in the Project area were obtained from NatureServe’s Ecological System classification descriptions (NatureServe 2012) or the GAP Level Three Land Cover Category Descriptions (University of Idaho 2012). Descriptions of each land cover category are included below Table E-1. Descriptions of altered and disturbed land cover and land use classes (e.g., agriculture, developed, etc.) were adopted from the National Land Cover Dataset 2001 legend (Homer et al. 2004). National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) data (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service [FWS] 2012a) was used concurrently with GAP data to help identify freshwater wetlands in the wetlands primary vegetation community type. Noxious weed data from Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Field Offices and U.S. Forest Service (USFS) Ranger Districts were also used concurrently with the GAP data to supplement identification of the invasive primary vegetation community type. For the purposes of this Environmental
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Assessing the Future Vulnerability of Wyoming's Terrestrial Wildlife
    Assessing the Future Vulnerability of Wyoming’s Terrestrial Wildlife Species and Habitats The Nature Conservancy, Wyoming Chapter Amy Pocewicz, Holly E. Copeland and Lindsey M. Washkoviak WY Game and Fish Department Martin B. Grenier WY Natural Diversity Database, University of Wyoming Douglas A. Keinath Acknowledgements FUNDING for this assessment was provided to The Nature Conservancy’s Wyoming Chapter and the Wyoming Game and Fish Department through the Wyoming State Legislature General Fund Appropriations and a US Fish and Wildlife Service Grant Agreement. Additional funding was provided by the Kaplan Family Foundation. This assessment would not have been possible without the assistance of wildlife experts who reviewed initial climate change and disease vulnerability ratings for wildlife species of concern, including Greg Anderson, Tom Christiansen, Terry Creekmore, Stan Harter, Daryl Lutz, Andrea Orabona, Susan Patla, Larry Roberts, Charlotte Snoberger, and Zack Walker of the Wyoming Game and Fish Department and Erik Atkinson of Northwest College. We thank Bryson Table of Contents Webber, formerly of Wyoming Game and Fish Department, for his assistance with the Nature Serve CCVI tool and Introduction 5 Jim Platt, of The Nature Conservancy, for assistance with Methods 7 GIS programming. Mike Heiner, Jeff Evans, and Steve Analysis Approach Overview 7 Species Vulnerability 8 Buttrick, of The Nature Conservancy, provided guidance Climate Change 9 related to the topographic diversity analysis. Kim Johnson Energy and Residential Development 10 and Matt Church, of Fremont County Weed and Pest, and Wildlife Disease 11 Brian Mealor, of the University of Wyoming, provided Landscape Vulnerability 12 assistance related to the invasive species analyses. Finally, Development Exposure 13 we thank, Nicole Korfanta, Bob Lanka, Graham McGaffin, Climate Change Exposure 13 Climate Change and Development Resilience 15 Andrea Orabona, Glenn Pauley, Ian Tator, and Zack Landscape Vulnerability Calculations 20 Walker for reviewing a draft of this report.
    [Show full text]
  • US Fish and Wildlife Service
    BARNEBY REED-MUSTARD (S. barnebyi ) CLAY REED-MUSTARD SHRUBBY REED-MUSTARD (S,arguillacea) (S. suffrutescens) .-~ U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service UTAH REED—MUSTARDS: CLAY REED-MUSTARD (SCHOENOCRAMBE ARGILLACEA) BARNEBY REED—MUSTARD (SCHOENOCRAMBE BARNEBYI) SI-IRUBBY REED-MUSTARD (SCHOENOCRAMBE SUFFRUTESCENS) RECOVERY PLAN Prepared by Region 6, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Approved: Date: (~19~- Recovery plans delineate reasonable actions which are believed to be required to recover and/or protect the species. Plans are prepared by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, sometimes with the assistance of recovery teams, contractors, State agencies, and others. Objectives will only be attained and funds expended contingent upon appropriations, priorities, and other budgetary constraints. Recovery plans do not necessarily represent the views or the official positions or approvals of any individuals or agencies, other than the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, involved in the plan formulation. They represent the official position of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service only after they have been signed by the Regional Director or Director as an~roved Approved recovery plans are subject to modification as dictated by new findings, changes in species status, and the completion of recovery tasks. Literature Citation should read as follows: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1994. Utah reed—mustards: clay reed—mustard (Schoenocrambe argillacea), Barneby reed-mustard (Schoenocrambe barnebyl), shrubby reed—mustard (Schoenacranibe suffrutescens) recovery plan. Denver, Colorado. 22 pp. Additional copies may be purchased from: Fish and Wildlife Reference Service 5430 Grosvenor Lane, Suite 110 Bethesda, Maryland 20814 Telephone: 301/492—6403 or 1—800—582—3421 The fee for the plan varies depending on the number of pages of the plan.
    [Show full text]
  • Mammal Species Native to the USA and Canada for Which the MIL Has an Image (296) 31 July 2021
    Mammal species native to the USA and Canada for which the MIL has an image (296) 31 July 2021 ARTIODACTYLA (includes CETACEA) (38) ANTILOCAPRIDAE - pronghorns Antilocapra americana - Pronghorn BALAENIDAE - bowheads and right whales 1. Balaena mysticetus – Bowhead Whale BALAENOPTERIDAE -rorqual whales 1. Balaenoptera acutorostrata – Common Minke Whale 2. Balaenoptera borealis - Sei Whale 3. Balaenoptera brydei - Bryde’s Whale 4. Balaenoptera musculus - Blue Whale 5. Balaenoptera physalus - Fin Whale 6. Eschrichtius robustus - Gray Whale 7. Megaptera novaeangliae - Humpback Whale BOVIDAE - cattle, sheep, goats, and antelopes 1. Bos bison - American Bison 2. Oreamnos americanus - Mountain Goat 3. Ovibos moschatus - Muskox 4. Ovis canadensis - Bighorn Sheep 5. Ovis dalli - Thinhorn Sheep CERVIDAE - deer 1. Alces alces - Moose 2. Cervus canadensis - Wapiti (Elk) 3. Odocoileus hemionus - Mule Deer 4. Odocoileus virginianus - White-tailed Deer 5. Rangifer tarandus -Caribou DELPHINIDAE - ocean dolphins 1. Delphinus delphis - Common Dolphin 2. Globicephala macrorhynchus - Short-finned Pilot Whale 3. Grampus griseus - Risso's Dolphin 4. Lagenorhynchus albirostris - White-beaked Dolphin 5. Lissodelphis borealis - Northern Right-whale Dolphin 6. Orcinus orca - Killer Whale 7. Peponocephala electra - Melon-headed Whale 8. Pseudorca crassidens - False Killer Whale 9. Sagmatias obliquidens - Pacific White-sided Dolphin 10. Stenella coeruleoalba - Striped Dolphin 11. Stenella frontalis – Atlantic Spotted Dolphin 12. Steno bredanensis - Rough-toothed Dolphin 13. Tursiops truncatus - Common Bottlenose Dolphin MONODONTIDAE - narwhals, belugas 1. Delphinapterus leucas - Beluga 2. Monodon monoceros - Narwhal PHOCOENIDAE - porpoises 1. Phocoena phocoena - Harbor Porpoise 2. Phocoenoides dalli - Dall’s Porpoise PHYSETERIDAE - sperm whales Physeter macrocephalus – Sperm Whale TAYASSUIDAE - peccaries Dicotyles tajacu - Collared Peccary CARNIVORA (48) CANIDAE - dogs 1. Canis latrans - Coyote 2.
    [Show full text]
  • Threatened, Endangered, Candidate & Proposed Plant Species of Utah
    TECHNICAL NOTE USDA - Natural Resources Conservation Service Boise, Idaho and Salt Lake City, Utah TN PLANT MATERIALS NO. 52 MARCH 2011 THREATENED, ENDANGERED, CANDIDATE & PROPOSED PLANT SPECIES OF UTAH Derek Tilley, Agronomist, NRCS, Aberdeen, Idaho Loren St. John, PMC Team Leader, NRCS, Aberdeen, Idaho Dan Ogle, Plant Materials Specialist, NRCS, Boise, Idaho Casey Burns, State Biologist, NRCS, Salt Lake City, Utah Last Chance Townsendia (Townsendia aprica). Photo by Megan Robinson. This technical note identifies the current threatened, endangered, candidate and proposed plant species listed by the U.S.D.I. Fish and Wildlife Service (USDI FWS) in Utah. Review your county list of threatened and endangered species and the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources Conservation Data Center (CDC) GIS T&E database to see if any of these species have been identified in your area of work. Additional information on these listed species can be found on the USDI FWS web site under “endangered species”. Consideration of these species during the planning process and determination of potential impacts related to scheduled work will help in the conservation of these rare plants. Contact your Plant Material Specialist, Plant Materials Center, State Biologist and Area Biologist for additional guidance on identification of these plants and NRCS responsibilities related to the Endangered Species Act. 2 Table of Contents Map of Utah Threatened, Endangered and Candidate Plant Species 4 Threatened & Endangered Species Profiles Arctomecon humilis Dwarf Bear-poppy ARHU3 6 Asclepias welshii Welsh’s Milkweed ASWE3 8 Astragalus ampullarioides Shivwits Milkvetch ASAM14 10 Astragalus desereticus Deseret Milkvetch ASDE2 12 Astragalus holmgreniorum Holmgren Milkvetch ASHO5 14 Astragalus limnocharis var.
    [Show full text]
  • Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service
    Tuesday, November 25, 2008 Part III Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service 50 CFR 17 Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 12-Month Finding on a Petition To List the Northern Mexican Gartersnake (Thamnophis eques megalops) as Threatened or Endangered With Critical Habitat; Proposed Rule VerDate Aug<31>2005 18:04 Nov 24, 2008 Jkt 217001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4717 Sfmt 4717 E:\FR\FM\25NOP2.SGM 25NOP2 rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS2 71788 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 228 / Tuesday, November 25, 2008 / Proposed Rules DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR FWS–R2–ES–2008–0065. Supporting March 1, 2004. In that letter, we also documentation we used in preparing advised the petitioners that, due to Fish and Wildlife Service this finding is available for public funding constraints in fiscal year (FY) inspection, by appointment, during 2004, we would not be able to begin 50 CFR Part 17 normal business hours at the U.S. Fish processing the petition at that time. [FWS–R2–ES–2008–0065; MO 9221050083– and Wildlife Service, Arizona Ecological Previous Federal Actions B2] Services Office, 2321 West Royal Palm Road, Suite 103, Phoenix, AZ 85021– The Mexican gartersnake Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 4951. Please submit any new (Thamnophis eques) (which included and Plants; 12-Month Finding on a information, materials, comments, or the subspecies megalops) was placed on Petition To List the Northern Mexican questions concerning this finding to the the list of candidate species as a Gartersnake (Thamnophis eques above address. Category 2 species in 1985 (50 FR 37958). Category 2 species were those megalops) as Threatened or FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: for which existing information indicated Endangered with Critical Habitat Steve Spangle, Field Supervisor, that listing was possibly appropriate, Arizona Ecological Services Office (see AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, but for which substantial supporting ADDRESSES), telephone 602–242–0210.
    [Show full text]
  • Nontraditional Agricultural Exports Regulatory Guide for Latin America and the Caribbean
    ` NONTRADITIONAL AGRICULTURAL EXPORTS REGULATORY GUIDE FOR LATIN AMERICA AND THE CARIBBEAN Bureau for Latin America and the Caribbean U.S. Agency for International Development Office of Pesticide Programs U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Washington, D.C. U.S.A. Nontraditional Agricultural Exports Regulatory Guide for Latin America and the Caribbean Acknowledgements Several branches and many individuals of the U.S. Government contributed to the preparation and review of this guide. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) extends special recognition to the Agriculture and Natural Resources Management Technical Services Project (LACTECH II) of the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), which planned the document, managed its development, and provided overall technical direction. EPA wishes to thank Robert Kahn and Robert Bailey, LACTECH II Project Officers, who designed, promoted, and disseminated the contents of this guide; the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture for special assistance and collaboration; and all the U.S. Government branches cited herein. Initial funding for the preparation of this guide was provided by the Bureau for Latin America NTAE Regulatory Guide for LAC Countries iii and the Caribbean, USAID, to the LACTECH II Project. Additional funding for the editing, Spanish translation, and dissemination was provided by the AID/EPA Central American Project and the AID/EPA Mexico Project, both based at EPA. iv NTAE Regulatory Guide for LAC Countries Contents Page
    [Show full text]
  • United States Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management
    UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT FINDING OF NO SIGNFICANT IMPACT San Rafael Desert Travel Management Plan DOI-BLM-UT-G020-2018-0004-EA August 2020 Price Field Office 125 South 600 West Price, Utah 84501 435-636-3600 San Rafael Desert Travel Management Plan DOI-BLM-UT-G020-2018-0004-EA FINDING OF NO SIGNFICANT IMPACT I have reviewed the San Rafael Desert Travel Management Plan Environmental Assessment (EA) DOI-BLM-UT-G020-2018-0004-EA. After considering the environmental effects as described in the EA, and incorporated herein, I have determined that Alternative D, as identified in the EA and modified in the Decision Record (Modified Alternative D), will not significantly affect the quality of the human environment and that an Environmental Impact Statement is not required to be prepared. I have determined that the proposed action, which is to designate a comprehensive off-highway vehicle (OHV) travel management plan (TMP) for the San Rafael Desert Travel Management Area (TMA), is in conformance with the approved 2008 Price Field Office Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan (2008 RMP) and is consistent with applicable plans and policies of county, state, Tribal and Federal agencies. This finding is based on my consideration of the Council on Environmental Quality’s (CEQ) criteria for significance (40 CFR 1508.27) regarding the context and the intensity of impacts described in the EA. Context The TMA that forms the basis of the San Rafael Desert TMP contains 377,609 acres of Bureau of Land Management (BLM)-managed lands, and an existing road inventory containing 1,180.8 miles of roads.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 3 R645-301-300 Biology
    Chapter 3 R645-301-300 Biology TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER 3 BIOLOGY REGULATION DESCRIPTION PAGE R645-301-300 Biology............................................................................................ 3-1 R645-301-320 Environmental Description ............................................................. 3-1 R645-301-321 Vegetation Information................................................................... 3-1 321.100 Plant Communities............................................................................................ 3-1 321.200 Productivity of Land....................................................................................... 3-16 R645-301-322 Fish and Wildlife Information ...................................................... 3-17 322.210 Endangered or Protected Plants and Animals................................................. 3-28 322.220 Habitats and Areas of High Value .................................................................. 3-32 R645-301-323 Maps and Aerial Photographs....................................................... 3-33 323.200 Monitoring Stations ........................................................................................ 3-33 323.300 Protection Facilities ....................................................................................... 3-33 323.400 Plant Communities and Sample Locations ..................................................... 3-33 R645-301-330 Operation Plan ............................................................................. 3-34 R645-301-331
    [Show full text]
  • Mountain Views/ Mountain Meridian
    Joint Issue Mountain Views/ Mountain Meridian ConsorƟ um for Integrated Climate Research in Western Mountains CIRMOUNT Mountain Research IniƟ aƟ ve MRI Volume 10, Number 2 • December 2016 Kelly Redmond (1952-2016) by Lake Tahoe attending a workshop on “Water in the West” in late August of 2016. Photo: Imtiaz Rangwala, NOAA Front Cover: Les trois dent de la Chourique, west of the Pyrenees and a study area of the P3 project (page 13). The picture was taken enroute from Lake Ansabere to Lake Acherito, both of which have been infected by Bd since 2003, although they still have amphibians. Photo: Dirk Schmeller, Helmholtz-Center for Environmental Research, Leipzig, Germany. Editors: Connie Millar, USDA Forest Service, Pacifi c Southwest Research Station, Albany, California. and Erin Gleeson, Mountain Research Initiative, Institute of Geography, University of Bern , Bern, Switzerland. Layout and Graphic Design: Diane Delany, USDA Forest Service, Pacifi c Southwest Research Station, Albany, California. Back Cover: Harvest Moon + 1 Day, 2016, Krenka Creek and the North Ruby Mountains, NV. Photo: Connie Millar, USDA Forest Service. Read about the contributing artists on page 86. Joint Issue Mountain Views/Mountain Meridian Consortium for Integrated Climate Research in Western Mountains (CIRMOUNT) and Mountain Research Initiative (MRI) Volume 10, No. 2, December 2016 www.fs.fed.us/psw/cirmount/ htt p://mri.scnatweb.ch/en/ Table of Contents Editors' Welcome Connie Millar and Erin Gleeson 1 Mountain Research Initiative Mountain Observatories Projects
    [Show full text]
  • Revised Checklist of North American Mammals North of Mexico, 1986 J
    University of Nebraska - Lincoln DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln Mammalogy Papers: University of Nebraska State Museum, University of Nebraska State Museum 12-12-1986 Revised Checklist of North American Mammals North of Mexico, 1986 J. Knox Jones Jr. Texas Tech University Dilford C. Carter Texas Tech University Hugh H. Genoways University of Nebraska - Lincoln, [email protected] Robert S. Hoffmann University of Nebraska - Lincoln Dale W. Rice National Museum of Natural History See next page for additional authors Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/museummammalogy Part of the Biodiversity Commons, Other Ecology and Evolutionary Biology Commons, Terrestrial and Aquatic Ecology Commons, and the Zoology Commons Jones, J. Knox Jr.; Carter, Dilford C.; Genoways, Hugh H.; Hoffmann, Robert S.; Rice, Dale W.; and Jones, Clyde, "Revised Checklist of North American Mammals North of Mexico, 1986" (1986). Mammalogy Papers: University of Nebraska State Museum. 266. http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/museummammalogy/266 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Museum, University of Nebraska State at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. It has been accepted for inclusion in Mammalogy Papers: University of Nebraska State Museum by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. Authors J. Knox Jones Jr., Dilford C. Carter, Hugh H. Genoways, Robert S. Hoffmann, Dale W. Rice, and Clyde Jones This article is available at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln: http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/museummammalogy/ 266 Jones, Carter, Genoways, Hoffmann, Rice & Jones, Occasional Papers of the Museum of Texas Tech University (December 12, 1986) number 107. U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • FEIS) FEIS Home Page
    Fire Effects Information System (FEIS) FEIS Home Page SPECIES: Atriplex gardneri Table of Contents SUMMARY INTRODUCTORY DISTRIBUTION AND OCCURRENCE BOTANICAL AND ECOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS FIRE EFFECTS AND MANAGEMENT MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS APPENDIX REFERENCES Figure 1—Gardner's saltbush fruits. Image by Matt Lavin from Bozeman, Montana, USA. Used with permission. SUMMARY SPECIES: Atriplex gardneri This Species Review summarizes information on the fire effects and related ecology of Gardner's saltbush that was available in the scientific literature as of 2020. Gardner's saltbush is a member of a complex of taxa that are intermediate between herbaceous and shrub forms (i.e., half-shrubs). Taxa within the complex hybridize readily, confounding species identification and classification. There is disagreement among systematists as to placement of taxa sometimes classified as Gardner's saltbush. https://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/plants/shrub/atrgar/all.html 1/25 Gardner's saltbush is distributed from southeastern British Columbia east to southwestern Manitoba and south to Colorado. It grows in semiarid and temperate climates and is drought and salt tolerant. It is common to dominant on sites with fine-textured, saline soils, especially clay flats and basins. Gardner's saltbush dominates or codominates many salt desert shrublands, and it is a component of some sagebrush and mixed-grass prairie communities. Gardner's saltbush reproduces after fire and other top-killing events primarily by sprouting from the root crown and roots. It also reproduces from seed, from persistent aerial and soil-stored seed banks. Its fruits may remain viable on the plant for 1 to 2 years. The seeds are dormant upon dispersal, with high levels of dormancy and complex, multiple mechanisms of dormancy.
    [Show full text]
  • Inventory of Sensitive Species and Ecosystems in Utah, Endemic And
    ,19(1725<2)6(16,7,9(63(&,(6$1'(&26<67(06 ,187$+ (1'(0,&$1'5$5(3/$1762)87$+ $129(59,(:2)7+(,5',675,%87,21$1'67$786 &HQWUDO8WDK3URMHFW&RPSOHWLRQ$FW 7LWOH,,,6HFWLRQ E 8WDK5HFODPDWLRQ0LWLJDWLRQDQG&RQVHUYDWLRQ&RPPLVVLRQ 0LWLJDWLRQDQG&RQVHUYDWLRQ3ODQ 0D\ &KDSWHU3DJH &RRSHUDWLYH$JUHHPHQW1R8& 6HFWLRQ9$D 3UHSDUHGIRU 87$+5(&/$0$7,210,7,*$7,21$1'&216(59$7,21&200,66,21 DQGWKH 86'(3$570(172)7+(,17(5,25 3UHSDUHGE\ 87$+',9,6,212):,/'/,)(5(6285&(6 -81( 6#$.'1(%106'065 2CIG #%-019.'&)/'065 XKK +0641&7%6+10 9*;&1'576#**#8'51/#0;4#4'2.#065! 4CTKV[D['EQTGIKQP 4CTKV[D[5QKN6[RG 4CTKV[D[*CDKVCV6[RG 'PFGOKEUD[.KHG(QTO 'PFGOKEUD[#IGCPF1TKIKP *+5614;1(4#4'2.#06+08'0614;+076#* 75(KUJCPF9KNFNKHG5GTXKEG 1VJGT(GFGTCN#IGPEKGU 7VCJ0CVKXG2NCPV5QEKGV[ 7VCJ0CVWTCN*GTKVCIG2TQITCO *196175'6*+54'2146 $CUKUHQT+PENWUKQP 0QVGUQP2NCPV0QOGPENCVWTG 5VCVWU%CVGIQTKGUHQT+PENWFGF2NCPVU )GQITCRJKE&KUVTKDWVKQP 2NCPVUD[(COKN[ #TGCUHQT#FFKVKQPCN4GUGCTEJ '0&'/+%#0&4#4'2.#0651(76#* *KUVQTKECN 4CTG 9CVEJ 2GTKRJGTCN +PHTGSWGPV 6CZQPQOKE2TQDNGOU #FFKVKQPCN&CVC0GGFGF KKK .+6'4#674'%+6'& $SSHQGL[$ 3ODQWVZLWK)HGHUDO$JHQF\6WDWXV $SSHQGL[% 3ODQWVE\&RXQW\ $SSHQGL[& 3ODQWVE\)DPLO\ +0&': KX .+561(6#$.'5 2CIG 6CDNG *KUVQT[QH7VCJRNCPVVCZCNKUVGFQTTGXKGYGFCUECPFKFCVGU HQTRQUUKDNGGPFCPIGTGFQTVJTGCVGPGFNKUVKPIWPFGTVJG HGFGTCN'PFCPIGTGF5RGEKGU#EV 6CDNG 0WOGTKECNCPCN[UKUQHRNCPVVCZCD[UVCVWUECVGIQT[ .+561((+)74'5 (KIWTG 'EQTGIKQPUQHVJGYGUVGTP7PKVGF5VCVGU X XK $&.12:/('*0(176 7KLVUHYLHZRIHQGHPLFDQGUDUHSODQWVSHFLHVLVDFRPSRQHQWRIDODUJHULQWHUDJHQF\HIIRUWWR FRPSOHWHDQLQYHQWRU\RIVHQVLWLYHVSHFLHVDQGHFRV\VWHPVLQ8WDK7KH8WDK'LYLVLRQRI:LOGOLIH
    [Show full text]