DOCSLIB.ORG

Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre, and Gunnison National Forests, Draft Assessments

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre, and Gunnison National Forests, Draft Assessments United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre, and Gunnison National Forests DRAFT Forest Assessments: Identifying and Assessing At-Risk Species December 2017 American marten observed resting in a northern goshawk nest, in a lodgepole pine-Engelmann spruce forest on the Gunnison Ranger District. Biologists were visiting the goshawk nest site to check for occupancy and found this marten instead. In accordance with Federal civil rights law and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) civil rights regulations and policies, the USDA, its Agencies, offices, and employees, and institutions participating in or administering USDA programs are prohibited from discriminating based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity (including gender expression), sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, political beliefs, or reprisal or retaliation for prior civil rights activity, in any program or activity conducted or funded by USDA (not all bases apply to all programs). Remedies and complaint filing deadlines vary by program or incident. Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication for program information (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, American Sign Language, etc.) should contact the responsible Agency or USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TTY) or contact USDA through the Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339. Additionally, program information may be made available in languages other than English. To file a program discrimination complaint, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, AD-3027, found online at http://www.ascr.usda.gov/complaint_filing_cust.html and at any USDA office or write a letter addressed to USDA and provide in the letter all of the information requested in the form. To request a copy of the complaint form, call (866) 632-9992. Submit your completed form or letter to USDA by: (1) mail: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, D.C. 20250-9410; (2) fax: (202) 690-7442; or (3) email: [email protected] (link sends e-mail). USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender. Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre, and Gunnison National Forests DRAFT Forest Plan Assessments: Identifying and Assessing At-Risk Species Contents Contents ........................................................................................................................................................ i Chapter 1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 1 Assessment 5 Development Process ........................................................................................................ 1 Summary Public Input ............................................................................................................................ 3 Use of Best Available Science ............................................................................................................... 5 Information Gaps ................................................................................................................................... 5 Scale of Analysis Area ........................................................................................................................... 6 Federally Recognized Species .............................................................................................................. 6 Chapter 2. Conditions and Trends: Key Ecosystems and Characteristics ........................................... 8 Terrestrial Ecosystems .............................................................................................................................. 8 Alpine Uplands – Grasslands and Forblands; Rocky Slopes, Screes, Cliffs ......................................... 9 Montane-Subalpine Grasslands .......................................................................................................... 11 Montane Shrubland, Oak-Serviceberry-Mountain Mahogany ............................................................. 12 Sagebrush Shrubland .......................................................................................................................... 13 Desert Alluvial Saltshrub ...................................................................................................................... 14 Spruce-Fir ............................................................................................................................................ 15 Spruce-Fir-Aspen ................................................................................................................................. 16 Aspen ................................................................................................................................................... 17 Bristlecone-Limber Pine ....................................................................................................................... 18 Cool-Moist Mixed Conifer .................................................................................................................... 19 Warm-Dry Mixed Conifer ..................................................................................................................... 20 Lodgepole Pine .................................................................................................................................... 21 Ponderosa Pine ................................................................................................................................... 22 Pinyon-Juniper ..................................................................................................................................... 23 Riparian and Wetland Ecosystems ......................................................................................................... 24 Fens ..................................................................................................................................................... 25 Montane-Alpine Wet Meadows and Marshes ...................................................................................... 26 Montane-Subalpine Riparian Shrublands ............................................................................................ 27 Montane-Subalpine Riparian Woodlands ............................................................................................ 27 Cottonwood Riparian Woodlands ........................................................................................................ 28 Aquatic Ecosystems ................................................................................................................................ 28 Rivers and Streams ............................................................................................................................. 29 Lakes and Reservoirs .......................................................................................................................... 30 Special Habitat Features ......................................................................................................................... 31 Caves and Mines ................................................................................................................................. 31 Non-Alpine Rock Outcrops and Cliffs .................................................................................................. 31 Snags and Down Woody Material ....................................................................................................... 32 Substrates ............................................................................................................................................ 33 Prey ...................................................................................................................................................... 34 Risk Factors ............................................................................................................................................. 34 Small and Isolated Populations ........................................................................................................... 35 Climate Change ................................................................................................................................... 36 i USDA Forest Service Disease ................................................................................................................................................ 37 Hunting or Other Intentional Mortality (Legal or Illegal) ....................................................................... 38 Habitat Fragmentation ......................................................................................................................... 39 Invasive or Non-Native Terrestrial Species ......................................................................................... 40 Livestock and Wildlife Grazing, Browsing, and Trampling .................................................................. 40 Hard Rock Mining ................................................................................................................................ 41 Non-Native Fish ................................................................................................................................... 41 Vegetation Management and Alteration
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Colorado Wildlife Action Plan: Proposed Rare Plant Addendum
    Colorado Wildlife Action Plan: Proposed Rare Plant Addendum By Colorado Natural Heritage Program For The Colorado Rare Plant Conservation Initiative June 2011 Colorado Wildlife Action Plan: Proposed Rare Plant Addendum Colorado Rare Plant Conservation Initiative Members David Anderson, Colorado Natural Heritage Program (CNHP) Rob Billerbeck, Colorado Natural Areas Program (CNAP) Leo P. Bruederle, University of Colorado Denver (UCD) Lynn Cleveland, Colorado Federation of Garden Clubs (CFGC) Carol Dawson, Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Michelle DePrenger-Levin, Denver Botanic Gardens (DBG) Brian Elliott, Environmental Consulting Mo Ewing, Colorado Open Lands (COL) Tom Grant, Colorado State University (CSU) Jill Handwerk, Colorado Natural Heritage Program (CNHP) Tim Hogan, University of Colorado Herbarium (COLO) Steve Kettler, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Andrew Kratz, U.S. Forest Service (USFS) Sarada Krishnan, Colorado Native Plant Society (CoNPS), Denver Botanic Gardens Brian Kurzel, Colorado Natural Areas Program Eric Lane, Colorado Department of Agriculture (CDA) Paige Lewis, The Nature Conservancy (TNC) Ellen Mayo, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Mitchell McGlaughlin, University of Northern Colorado (UNC) Jennifer Neale, Denver Botanic Gardens Betsy Neely, The Nature Conservancy Ann Oliver, The Nature Conservancy Steve Olson, U.S. Forest Service Susan Spackman Panjabi, Colorado Natural Heritage Program Jeff Peterson, Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) Josh Pollock, Center for Native Ecosystems (CNE) Nicola Ripley,
    [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]
  • 12-Month Finding on a Petition to List Sclerocactus Brevispinus
    Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 180 / Tuesday, September 18, 2007 / Proposed Rules 53211 provide Congress, through OMB, pollution, Reporting and recordkeeping with the best available scientific explanations when the Agency decides requirements, Research, Vessels, information, we propose to recognize not to use available and applicable Warranties. the three distinct species: S. voluntary consensus standards. brevispinus, S. glaucus, and S. 40 CFR Part 1039 This proposed rulemaking does not wetlandicus. Because each of these three involve technical standards. Therefore, Environmental protection, species constitute the S. glaucus EPA is not considering the use of any Administrative practice and procedure, complex, we consider all three species voluntary consensus standards. Air pollution control, Confidential to be threatened under the Act. In business information, Imports, Labeling, J. Executive Order 12898: Federal addition, we propose common names Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping Actions To Address Environmental for S. glaucus and S. wetlandicus. requirements, Warranties. Justice in Minority Populations and DATES: The finding announced in this Low-Income Populations Dated: September 6, 2007. document was made on September 18, 2007. We will accept comments on the Executive Order (EO) 12898 (59 FR Stephen L. Johnson, proposed taxonomic change from all 7629 (Feb. 16, 1994)) establishes federal Administrator. interested parties until November 19, executive policy on environmental [FR Doc. E7–18163 Filed 9–17–07; 8:45 am] 2007. justice. Its main provision directs BILLING CODE 6560–50–P federal agencies, to the greatest extent ADDRESSES: Comments on Proposed practicable and permitted by law, to Taxonomic Change: If you wish to make environmental justice part of their DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR comment on the proposed rule to revise mission by identifying and addressing, the taxonomy of S.
    [Show full text]
  • Rare Plant Survey of San Juan Public Lands, Colorado
    Rare Plant Survey of San Juan Public Lands, Colorado 2005 Prepared by Colorado Natural Heritage Program 254 General Services Building Colorado State University Fort Collins CO 80523 Rare Plant Survey of San Juan Public Lands, Colorado 2005 Prepared by Peggy Lyon and Julia Hanson Colorado Natural Heritage Program 254 General Services Building Colorado State University Fort Collins CO 80523 December 2005 Cover: Imperiled (G1 and G2) plants of the San Juan Public Lands, top left to bottom right: Lesquerella pruinosa, Draba graminea, Cryptantha gypsophila, Machaeranthera coloradoensis, Astragalus naturitensis, Physaria pulvinata, Ipomopsis polyantha, Townsendia glabella, Townsendia rothrockii. Executive Summary This survey was a continuation of several years of rare plant survey on San Juan Public Lands. Funding for the project was provided by San Juan National Forest and the San Juan Resource Area of the Bureau of Land Management. Previous rare plant surveys on San Juan Public Lands by CNHP were conducted in conjunction with county wide surveys of La Plata, Archuleta, San Juan and San Miguel counties, with partial funding from Great Outdoors Colorado (GOCO); and in 2004, public lands only in Dolores and Montezuma counties, funded entirely by the San Juan Public Lands. Funding for 2005 was again provided by San Juan Public Lands. The primary emphases for field work in 2005 were: 1. revisit and update information on rare plant occurrences of agency sensitive species in the Colorado Natural Heritage Program (CNHP) database that were last observed prior to 2000, in order to have the most current information available for informing the revision of the Resource Management Plan for the San Juan Public Lands (BLM and San Juan National Forest); 2.
    [Show full text]
  • Draba Weberi Price & Rollins
    Draba weberi Price & Rollins (Weber’s draba): A Technical Conservation Assessment Prepared for the USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region, Species Conservation Project July 31, 2006 Karin Decker Colorado Natural Heritage Program Colorado State University Fort Collins, CO Peer Review Administered by Society for Conservation Biology Decker, K. (2006, July 31). Draba weberi Price & Rollins (Weber’s draba): a technical conservation assessment. [Online]. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/ assessments/drabaweberi.pdf [date of access]. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to thank the employees of Colorado Springs Utilities (Mike Herrin, Bruce Newell, and Kirsta Scherff-Norris) and Colorado Division of Water Resources (Mark Haynes) who responded quickly and openly to my inquiries about the upper Blue Lake Reservoir. USDA Forest Service personnel, including Steve Olson, Paul Semmer, Terry Edelmon, and Greg Laurie, were also extremely helpful in determining the status of Draba weberi and its environs. Dr. Michael Windham of the Utah Museum of Natural History provided helpful clarification of the status of the genus Draba. Bill Jennings provided photographs and records of his observations. Georgia Doyle and Ellen Mayo provided information from the most recent observations of D. weberi. Thanks also to David Anderson and Jill Handwerk of the Colorado Natural Heritage Program for assisting with the preparation of this assessment. AUTHOR’S BIOGRAPHY Karin Decker is an ecologist with the Colorado Natural Heritage Program (CNHP). She works with CNHP’s Ecology and Botany teams, providing ecological, statistical, GIS, and computing expertise for a variety of projects. She has worked with CNHP since 2000.
    [Show full text]
  • Proposal for Amendment of Appendix I Or II for CITES Cop16
    Original language: English CoP17 Prop. XXX CONVENTION ON INTERNATIONAL TRADE IN ENDANGERED SPECIES OF WILD FAUNA AND FLORA ____________________ Seventeenth meeting of the Conference of the Parties Johannesburg (South Africa), 24 September – 5 October 2016 CONSIDERATION OF PROPOSALS FOR AMENDMENT OF APPENDICES I AND II A. Proposal Transfer of fishhook cacti Sclerocactus spinosior ssp. blainei (= Sclerocactus blainei), Sclerocactus cloverae (CITES-listed synonym of Sclerocactus parviflorus), and Sclerocactus sileri from Appendix II to Appendix I, as per the outcome of the CITES Periodic Review of the Appendices, in accordance with Resolution Conf. 9.24 (Rev. CoP16), Annex 1, paragraph B) iii): Populations are restricted and are characterized by a high vulnerability to intrinsic and extrinsic factors and an observed, inferred, or projected decrease in the number of subpopulations and the number of individuals. Nomenclature amendment to the Appendix-I listing of Sclerocactus glaucus, formerly treated as a complex, to three distinct species: Sclerocactus glaucus, Sclerocactus brevispinus, and Sclerocactus wetlandicus (the last two are CITES-listed synonyms of S. glaucus), as per the outcome of a Periodic Review of the Appendices. The three species continue to meet the criteria for Appendix I in accordance with Resolution Conf. 9.24 (Rev. CoP16), Annex 1, paragraph B) iii): Populations are restricted and are characterized by a high vulnerability to intrinsic and extrinsic factors and an observed, inferred, or projected decrease in the number of subpopulations and the number of individuals. B. Proponent United States of America* C. Supporting statement 1. Taxonomy 1.1 Class: Magnoliopsida 1.2 Order: Caryophyllales 1.3 Family: Cactaceae 1.4 Genus, species or subspecies, including author and year: The scientific names Sclerocactus blainei (CITES-listed Sclerocactus spinosior ssp.
    [Show full text]
  • Univerzita Palackého V Olomouci PÍrodov Decká Fakulta Katedra Zoologie a Ornitologická Laborato 
    UNIVERZITA PALACKÉHO V OLOMOUCI PÍRODOV DECKÁ FAKULTA KATEDRA ZOOLOGIE A ORNITOLOGICKÁ LABORATO Význam a ochrana bezlesí Hrubého Jeseníku z hlediska biodiverzity brouk (Coleoptera) DOKTORSKÁ DISERTA NÍ PRÁCE Josef Kašák Vedoucí práce: doc. RNDr. Jaroslav Starý, Ph.D. Konzultant: RNDr. Tomáš Kuras, Ph.D. Olomouc 2015 Bibliografická identifikace: Jméno a p íjmení autora: Josef Kašák Název práce: Význam a ochrana bezlesí Hrubého Jeseníku z hlediska biodiverzity brouk (Coleoptera) Typ práce: doktorská diserta ní práce Pracovišt : Katedra zoologie a ornitologická laborato , P írodov decká fakulta, Univerzita Palackého v Olomouci Vedoucí práce: doc. RNDr. Jaroslav Starý, Ph.D. Konzultant: RNDr. Tomáš Kuras, Ph.D. Studijní program: P1527 Biologie Studijní obor: Zoologie Rok obhajoby práce: 2015 Abstrakt: Biodiverzita jako variabilita života poskytuje lidské spole nosti adu nezbytných zdroj , ekosystémových služeb a p edstavuje také významnou kulturní hodnotu. Na druhé stran však dochází sou asn k jejímu ochuzování v souvislosti s rozvojem lidské spole nosti. Z pohledu ochrany p írody se proto horské ekosystémy adí mezi jedno z nejcenn jších a nejohrožen jších prost edí v globálním m ítku. V rámci p edložené doktorské práce byly studovány vybrané potenciáln významné antropické vlivy na biodiverzitu horských bezlesí Hrubého Jeseníku prost ednictvím modelové bioindika ní skupiny brouk (Coleoptera). V prostoru primárního bezlesí arkto- alpinní tundry byl studován vliv sjezdových tratí a invazivní d eviny borovice kle e ( Pinus mugo ) na spole enstva brouk . Na území sekundárních bezlesí podhorských luk a pastvin byl hodnocen vliv zem dlského hospoda ení na brouky a další bezobratlé. Studium vlivu lyža ského areálu prokázalo, že p estože jsou sjezdové trat v alpínské zón zájmového území provozovány zp sobem šetrným k vegetaci, tak pr kazn m ní pvodní spole enstva epigeických brouk .
    [Show full text]
  • Tobusch Fishhook Cactus Species Status Assessment - Final
    Tobusch Fishhook Cactus Species Status Assessment - Final SPECIES STATUS ASSESSMENT REPORT FOR TOBUSCH FISHHOOK CACTUS (SCLEROCACTUS BREVIHAMATUS SSP. TOBUSCHII (W.T. MARSHALL) N.P. TAYLOR) February, 2017 Southwest Region U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Albuquerque, NM Tobusch Fishhook Cactus Species Status Assessment - Final Prepared by Chris Best, Austin Ecological Services Field Office, Suggested citation: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2017. Species status assessment of Tobusch Fishhook Cactus (Sclerocactus brevihamatus ssp. tobuschii (W.T. Marshall) N.P. Taylor). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Southwest Region, Albuquerque, New Mexico. 65 pp. + 2 appendices. i Tobusch Fishhook Cactus Species Status Assessment - Final EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Tobusch fishhook cactus is a small cactus, with curved “fishhook” spines, that is endemic to the Edwards Plateau of Texas. It was federally listed as endangered on November 7, 1979 (44 FR 64736) as Ancistrocactus tobuschii. At that time, fewer than 200 individuals had been documented from 4 sites. Tobusch fishhook cactus is now confirmed in 8 central Texas counties: Bandera, Edwards, Kerr, Kimble, Kinney, Real, Uvalde, and Val Verde. In recent years, over 4,000 individuals have been documented in surveys and monitoring plots. Recent phylogenetic evidence supports classifying Tobusch fishhook cactus as Sclerocactus brevihamatus ssp. tobuschii. It is distinguished morphologically from its closest relative, S. brevihamatus ssp. brevihamatus, on the basis of yellow versus pink- or brown-tinged flowers, fewer radial spines, and fewer ribs. Additionally, subspecies tobuschii is endemic to limestone outcrops of the Edwards Plateau, while subspecies brevihamatus occurs in alluvial soils in the Tamaulipan Shrublands and Chihuahuan Desert. A recent investigation found genetic divergence between the two subspecies, although they may interact genetically in a narrow area where their ranges overlap.
    [Show full text]
  • Shrubland Ecosystem Genetics and Biodiversity: Proceedings; 2000 June 13–15; Provo, Suite of Locations
    Plant Diversity at Box-Death Hollow Wilderness Area, Garfield County, Utah Wendy Rosler Janet G. Cooper Renee Van Buren Kimball T. Harper Abstract—“The Box” is a canyon located in the western portion of Under the direction of Janet Cooper, the Provo High Box-Death Hollow Wilderness Area, Garfield County, southern School Botany Club initiated this study in the fall of 1993. Utah. The objectives of this study included: (1) collect, identify and During the following 2 years (1994 and 1995) five collection make a checklist of the species of vascular plants found in “The trips were taken at different times of the year to provide a Box,” (2) search for threatened and endangered species within the reliable sample of the canyon’s flora. Each collection trip area, (3) provide an opportunity for high school students to develop emphasized a different section of the canyon, but on each research skills that contribute to the reservoir of scientific informa- trip, specimens of species previously unknown in the area tion. During a period of 2 years, students of the Provo High School were collected throughout the canyon. Plants collected were Botany Club, the club advisor, and others collected and identified either immediately identified and pressed or collected in 304 species in 63 families. Twenty plant taxa collected during this plastic bags and pressed as soon as the group arrived back study had not previously been reported for Garfield County, UT. at camp. Identification and classification followed “A Utah Species-area relationships at this area are compared to selected Flora” (Welsh and others 1993).
    [Show full text]
  • Sensitive Species That Are Not Listed Or Proposed Under the ESA Sorted By: Major Group, Subgroup, NS Sci
    Forest Service Sensitive Species that are not listed or proposed under the ESA Sorted by: Major Group, Subgroup, NS Sci. Name; Legend: Page 94 REGION 10 REGION 1 REGION 2 REGION 3 REGION 4 REGION 5 REGION 6 REGION 8 REGION 9 ALTERNATE NATURESERVE PRIMARY MAJOR SUB- U.S. N U.S. 2005 NATURESERVE SCIENTIFIC NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME(S) COMMON NAME GROUP GROUP G RANK RANK ESA C 9 Anahita punctulata Southeastern Wandering Spider Invertebrate Arachnid G4 NNR 9 Apochthonius indianensis A Pseudoscorpion Invertebrate Arachnid G1G2 N1N2 9 Apochthonius paucispinosus Dry Fork Valley Cave Invertebrate Arachnid G1 N1 Pseudoscorpion 9 Erebomaster flavescens A Cave Obligate Harvestman Invertebrate Arachnid G3G4 N3N4 9 Hesperochernes mirabilis Cave Psuedoscorpion Invertebrate Arachnid G5 N5 8 Hypochilus coylei A Cave Spider Invertebrate Arachnid G3? NNR 8 Hypochilus sheari A Lampshade Spider Invertebrate Arachnid G2G3 NNR 9 Kleptochthonius griseomanus An Indiana Cave Pseudoscorpion Invertebrate Arachnid G1 N1 8 Kleptochthonius orpheus Orpheus Cave Pseudoscorpion Invertebrate Arachnid G1 N1 9 Kleptochthonius packardi A Cave Obligate Pseudoscorpion Invertebrate Arachnid G2G3 N2N3 9 Nesticus carteri A Cave Spider Invertebrate Arachnid GNR NNR 8 Nesticus cooperi Lost Nantahala Cave Spider Invertebrate Arachnid G1 N1 8 Nesticus crosbyi A Cave Spider Invertebrate Arachnid G1? NNR 8 Nesticus mimus A Cave Spider Invertebrate Arachnid G2 NNR 8 Nesticus sheari A Cave Spider Invertebrate Arachnid G2? NNR 8 Nesticus silvanus A Cave Spider Invertebrate Arachnid G2? NNR
    [Show full text]
  • A SKELETON CHECKLIST of the BUTTERFLIES of the UNITED STATES and CANADA Preparatory to Publication of the Catalogue Jonathan P
    A SKELETON CHECKLIST OF THE BUTTERFLIES OF THE UNITED STATES AND CANADA Preparatory to publication of the Catalogue © Jonathan P. Pelham August 2006 Superfamily HESPERIOIDEA Latreille, 1809 Family Hesperiidae Latreille, 1809 Subfamily Eudaminae Mabille, 1877 PHOCIDES Hübner, [1819] = Erycides Hübner, [1819] = Dysenius Scudder, 1872 *1. Phocides pigmalion (Cramer, 1779) = tenuistriga Mabille & Boullet, 1912 a. Phocides pigmalion okeechobee (Worthington, 1881) 2. Phocides belus (Godman and Salvin, 1890) *3. Phocides polybius (Fabricius, 1793) =‡palemon (Cramer, 1777) Homonym = cruentus Hübner, [1819] = palaemonides Röber, 1925 = ab. ‡"gunderi" R. C. Williams & Bell, 1931 a. Phocides polybius lilea (Reakirt, [1867]) = albicilla (Herrich-Schäffer, 1869) = socius (Butler & Druce, 1872) =‡cruentus (Scudder, 1872) Homonym = sanguinea (Scudder, 1872) = imbreus (Plötz, 1879) = spurius (Mabille, 1880) = decolor (Mabille, 1880) = albiciliata Röber, 1925 PROTEIDES Hübner, [1819] = Dicranaspis Mabille, [1879] 4. Proteides mercurius (Fabricius, 1787) a. Proteides mercurius mercurius (Fabricius, 1787) =‡idas (Cramer, 1779) Homonym b. Proteides mercurius sanantonio (Lucas, 1857) EPARGYREUS Hübner, [1819] = Eridamus Burmeister, 1875 5. Epargyreus zestos (Geyer, 1832) a. Epargyreus zestos zestos (Geyer, 1832) = oberon (Worthington, 1881) = arsaces Mabille, 1903 6. Epargyreus clarus (Cramer, 1775) a. Epargyreus clarus clarus (Cramer, 1775) =‡tityrus (Fabricius, 1775) Homonym = argentosus Hayward, 1933 = argenteola (Matsumura, 1940) = ab. ‡"obliteratus"
    [Show full text]
  • Docketed 08-Afc-13C
    November 2, 2010 California Energy Commission Chris Otahal DOCKETED Wildlife Biologist 08-AFC-13C Bureau of Land Management TN # Barstow Field Office 66131 2601 Barstow Road JUL 06 2012 Barstow, CA 92311 Subject: Late Season 2010 Botanical Survey of the Calico Solar Project Site URS Project No. 27658189.70013 Dear Mr. Otahal: INTRODUCTION This letter report presents the results of the late season floristic surveys for the Calico Solar Project (Project), a proposed renewable solar energy facility located approximately 37 miles east of Barstow, California. The purpose of this study was to identify late season plant species that only respond to late summer/early fall monsoonal rains and to satisfy the California Energy Commission (CEC) Supplemental Staff Assessment BIO-12 Special-status Plant Impact Avoidance and Minimization, requirements B and C (CEC 2010). Botanical surveys were conducted for the Project site in 2007 and 2008. In response to above average rainfall events that have occurred during 2010, including a late season rainfall event on August 17, 2010 totaling 0.49 inch1, additional botanical surveys were conducted by URS Corporation (URS) for the Project site. These surveys incorporated survey protocols published by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) (BLM 1996a, BLM 1996b, BLM 2001, and BLM 2009). BLM and CEC staff were given the opportunity to comment on the survey protocol prior to the commencement of botanical surveys on the site. The 2010 late season survey was conducted from September 20 through September 24, 2010. The surveys encompassed the 1,876-acre Phase 1 portion of the Project site; select areas in the main, western area of Phase 2; a 250-foot buffer area outside the site perimeter; and a proposed transmission line, which begins at the Pisgah substation, heads northeast following the aerial transmission line, follows the Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) railroad on the north side, and ends in survey cell 24 (ID#24, Figure 1).
    [Show full text]