DOCSLIB.ORG

Biomap2 Technical Report ­ Building a Better Biomap

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Biomap2 Technical Report ­ Building a Better Biomap BioMap2 Technical Report ­ Building a Better BioMap A supplement to BioMap2: Conserving the Biodiversity of Massachusetts in a Changing World A Project of the Massachusetts Department of Fish & Game and The Nature Conservancy Produced by the Natural Heritage & Endangered Species Program of the Massachusetts Division of Fisheries & Wildlife and the Massachusetts Program of The Nature Conservancy November 2011 The preferred citation for BioMap2 is: Woolsey, H., A. Finton, J. DeNormandie. 2010. BioMap2: Conserving the Biodiversity of Massachusetts in a Changing World. MA Department of Fish and Game/Natural Heritage & Endangered Species Program and The Nature Conservancy/Massachusetts Program. http://www.mass.gov/dfwele/dfw/nhesp/land_protection/biomap/biomap2_summary_report.pdf The preferred citation for this technical report is: Natural Heritage & Endangered Species Program. 2011. BioMap2 Technical Report – Building a Better BioMap: A supplement to BioMap2: Conserving the Biodiversity of Massachusetts in a Changing World. Natural Heritage & Endangered Species Program, Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Wildlife, Westborough, MA. http://www.mass.gov/dfwele/dfw/nhesp/land_protection/biomap/biomap2_technical_report.htm BioMap2 Technical Report ­ Building a Better BioMap � A supplement to BioMap2: Conserving the Biodiversity of Massachusetts in a Changing World A Project of the Massachusetts Department of Fish & Game and The Nature Conservancy Produced by the Natural Heritage & Endangered Species Program of the Massachusetts Division of Fisheries & Wildlife and the Massachusetts Program of The Nature Conservancy Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Deval Patrick, Governor Executive Office of Energy & the Environment, Richard K. Sullivan, Jr., Secretary Department of Fish & Game, Mary B. Griffin, Commissioner November 2011 Table of Contents Chapter One: Introduction .............................................................................................................. 1 Chapter Two: BioMap2 General Methodology .............................................................................. 6 Section A: Study Area and Ecoregions....................................................................................... 6 Section B: Incorporating SWAP into BioMap2........................................................................ 12 Section C: Incorporating Climate Change Adaptation into BioMap2 ...................................... 15 Section D: Index of Ecological Integrity (IEI) ......................................................................... 21 Chapter Three: Components of Core Habitat ............................................................................... 27 Section A: Species of Conservation Concern ........................................................................... 27 Section B: Priority Natural Communities................................................................................. 48 Section C. Vernal Pool Core Habitats....................................................................................... 52 Section D: Forest Core Habitats ............................................................................................... 54 Section E: Wetland Core Habitats ............................................................................................ 64 Section F: Aquatic Core Habitats ............................................................................................. 72 Chapter Four: Components of Critical Natural Landscape........................................................... 84 Section A: Landscape Blocks ................................................................................................... 84 Section B: Upland Buffers of Wetland and Aquatic Cores ...................................................... 91 Section C: Coastal Adaptation Areas........................................................................................ 96 Section D: Tern Foraging Habitat........................................................................................... 101 Bibliography ............................................................................................................................... 102 Appendices.................................................................................................................................. 105 Appendix A. List of Attendees of External Review Session ................................................. 106 Appendix B. SWAP Species and BioMap2 ........................................................................... 107 Appendix C. SWAP Habitats and BioMap2 .......................................................................... 113 Appendix D. Ecological Land Units....................................................................................... 115 Appendix E. Land Cover Classes used for Index of Ecological Integrity. ............................ 125 Appendix F. Input Data Layers used for Index of Ecological Integrity ................................ 127 Appendix G. CAPS Integrity Metrics.................................................................................... 129 Appendix H. Metric Parameterizations.................................................................................. 133 Appendix I. NHESP Rare Species Observation Forms ......................................................... 136 Appendix J. NHESP Mapping Guidelines Outline................................................................ 142 Appendix K. NHESP Data Acceptance Guidelines............................................................... 145 Appendix L. Road Buffer Polygon Layer.............................................................................. 147 Appendix M. NHESP Priority Natural Communities by Ecosystem Type ........................... 148 Appendix N. Aquatic MESA-listed species that were included in Aquatic Core and buffered by 30 meters..................................................................................................... 152 Table of Figures Figure 1. BioMap2 process. ............................................................................................................ 3 Figure 2. BioMap2 study area boundary......................................................................................... 6 Figure 3. Level III and IV Ecoregions of Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Connecticut. ........... 9 Figure 4. The eight ecoregions used to stratify and select ecosystems in BioMap2..................... 11 Figure 5. BioMap2 wetlands on various physical settings............................................................ 19 Figure 6. Building the IEI. ............................................................................................................ 22 Figure 7. IEI scaled by 4 different extents (statewide, ecoregion, watershed, and integrated) .... 24 Figure 8. CAPS IEI for ecological communities. ......................................................................... 25 Figure 9. CAPS IEI for natural cover. .......................................................................................... 25 Figure 10. An example of Core Habitat polygon delineated for New England Cottontail........... 47 Figure 11. Two clusters of vernal pools identified by the model and the upland habitat surrounding and between the pools............................................................................. 53 Figure 12. Forest Cover within Massachusetts............................................................................. 55 Figure 13. Forests scored by the Index of Ecological Integrity (IEI). .......................................... 56 Figure 14. Forests with the top 20% Integrated IEI scores........................................................... 57 Figure 15. Forest Core selection criteria....................................................................................... 60 Figure 16. Final selection of Forest Cores.................................................................................... 61 Figure 17. Elevation zones used to assign ELU type to wetland complexes................................ 66 Figure 18. Distribution of geology types used to assign ELUs to wetland complexes. ............... 67 Figure 19. All anadromous runs selected for inclusion in Aquatic Core...................................... 75 Figure 20. Components of the Aquatic Core for the mouth of the Mattapoisett River. ............... 77 Figure 21. Aquatic Core extent for the Mattapoisset River.......................................................... 77 Figure 22. Example of a Living Waters coarse-filter stream segment that was “enhanced.”....... 82 Figure 23. An example of a high-quality stream segment that bridged the gap between two MESA-listed fish species habitats. ............................................................................. 83 Figure 24. Landscape Blocks showing ecoregional boundaries. .................................................. 87 Figure 25. Regional connectedness............................................................................................... 88 Figure 26. Landscape Blocks that were added.............................................................................. 89 Figure 27. Forest Cores that were added ...................................................................................... 90 Figure 28. Example of the buffer created by the buffer tool surrounding a Wetland Core.......... 92 Figure 29. Example of the buffer created by the
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Olive Clubtail (Stylurus Olivaceus) in Canada, Prepared Under Contract with Environment Canada
    COSEWIC Assessment and Status Report on the Olive Clubtail Stylurus olivaceus in Canada ENDANGERED 2011 COSEWIC status reports are working documents used in assigning the status of wildlife species suspected of being at risk. This report may be cited as follows: COSEWIC. 2011. COSEWIC assessment and status report on the Olive Clubtail Stylurus olivaceus in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. x + 58 pp. (www.sararegistry.gc.ca/status/status_e.cfm). Production note: COSEWIC would like to acknowledge Robert A. Cannings, Sydney G. Cannings, Leah R. Ramsay and Richard J. Cannings for writing the status report on Olive Clubtail (Stylurus olivaceus) in Canada, prepared under contract with Environment Canada. This report was overseen and edited by Paul Catling, Co-chair of the COSEWIC Arthropods Specialist Subcommittee. For additional copies contact: COSEWIC Secretariat c/o Canadian Wildlife Service Environment Canada Ottawa, ON K1A 0H3 Tel.: 819-953-3215 Fax: 819-994-3684 E-mail: COSEWIC/[email protected] http://www.cosewic.gc.ca Également disponible en français sous le titre Ếvaluation et Rapport de situation du COSEPAC sur le gomphe olive (Stylurus olivaceus) au Canada. Cover illustration/photo: Olive Clubtail — Photo by Jim Johnson. Permission granted for reproduction. ©Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, 2011. Catalogue No. CW69-14/637-2011E-PDF ISBN 978-1-100-18707-5 Recycled paper COSEWIC Assessment Summary Assessment Summary – May 2011 Common name Olive Clubtail Scientific name Stylurus olivaceus Status Endangered Reason for designation This highly rare, stream-dwelling dragonfly with striking blue eyes is known from only 5 locations within three separate regions of British Columbia.
    [Show full text]
  • A Study of the Characteristics of the Appearances of Lepidoptera Larvae and Foodplants at Mt
    JOURNAL OF Research Paper ECOLOGY AND ENVIRONMENT http://www.jecoenv.org J. Ecol. Environ. 36(4): 245-254, 2013 A Study of the Characteristics of the Appearances of Lepidoptera Larvae and Foodplants at Mt. Gyeryong National Park in Korea Yong-Gu Han, Sang-Ho Nam, Youngjin Kim, Min-Joo Choi and Youngho Cho* Department of Biology, College of Natural Science, Daejeon University, Daejeon 300-716, Korea Abstract This research was conducted over a time span of three years, from 2009 to 2011. Twenty-one surveys in total, seven times per year, were done between April and June of each year on major trees on trails around Donghaksa and Gapsa in Mt. Gyeryong National Park in order to identify foodplants of the Lepidoptera larvae and their characteristic appearances. During the survey of Lepidoptera larvae in trees along trails around Donghaksa and Gapsa, 377 individuals and 21 spe- cies in 8 families were identified. The 21 species wereAlcis angulifera, Cosmia affinis, Libythea celtis, Adoxophyes orana, Amphipyra monolitha, Acrodontis fumosa, Xylena formosa, Ptycholoma lecheana circumclusana, Choristoneura adum- bratana, Archips capsigeranus, Pandemis cinnamomeana, Rhopobota latipennis, Apochima juglansiaria, Cifuna locuples, Lymantria dispar, Eilema deplana, Rhodinia fugax, Acronicta rumicis, Amphipyra erebina, Favonius saphirinus, and Dra- vira ulupi. Twenty-one Lepidoptera insect species were identified in 21 species of trees, including Zelkova serrata. Among them, A. angulifera, C. affinis, and L. celtis were found to have the widest range of foodplants. Additionally, it was found that many species of Lepidoptera insects can utilize more species as foodplants according to the chemical substances in the plants and environments in addition to the foodplants noted in the literature.
    [Show full text]
  • Botanical Survey of Bussey Brook Meadow Jamaica Plain, Massachusetts
    Botanical Survey of Bussey Brook Meadow Jamaica Plain, Massachusetts Botanical Survey of Bussey Brook Meadow Jamaica Plain, Massachusetts New England Wildflower Society 180 Hemenway Road Framingham, MA 01701 508-877-7630 www.newfs.org Report by Joy VanDervort-Sneed, Atkinson Conservation Fellow and Ailene Kane, Plant Conservation Volunteer Coordinator Prepared for the Arboretum Park Conservancy Funded by the Arnold Arboretum Committee 2 Conducted 2005 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................................4 METHODS....................................................................................................................................6 RESULTS .......................................................................................................................................8 Plant Species ........................................................................................................................8 Natural Communities...........................................................................................................9 DISCUSSION .............................................................................................................................15 Recommendations for Management ..................................................................................15 Recommendations for Education and Interpretation .........................................................17 Acknowledgments..............................................................................................................19
    [Show full text]
  • Manitoba Oakworm Moth
    Manitoba Oakworm Moth because of their limited dispersal ability, and its larval preference for younger Bur Oak. This species may actually be Threatened, but data are currently insufficient to assess whether it meets thresholds for status criteria. Wildlife Species Description and e n n e Significance H n o D © : o Manitoba Oakworm Moth (Anisota manitobensis) t o h P is a medium-sized moth (forewing length 19-30 mm) in the family Saturniidae (silk worm moths). Scientific name There are four life stages and the species grows Anisota manitobensis through complete metamorphosis. Adults are brownish-orange, and females are typically Taxon pinker than darker males. The flattened, ovate Arthropods eggs are smooth and yellow, turning to brownish COSEWIC status with age. Larvae are typically dark brown to black Special Concern with paler stripes (tending to pink in later instars) with spines and thoracic horns. Pupae are brown Canadian range and approximately 3 cm long. Manitoba Reason for designation Distribution This large moth has a small global distribution, The known global and Canadian range of most of which is in Canada, and restricted to a Manitoba Oakworm Moth is restricted to southern small area in southern Manitoba and the adjacent Manitoba and extreme northern North Dakota United States. Localized population irruptions and Minnesota. The majority of the global range occurred irregularly through the 1900s, but their is in Manitoba where it has been recorded from frequency declined and the last one was in 1997; approximately 25 sites as far north as Riding no individuals have been detected since 2000. Mountain National Park.
    [Show full text]
  • Lepidoptera of North America 5
    Lepidoptera of North America 5. Contributions to the Knowledge of Southern West Virginia Lepidoptera Contributions of the C.P. Gillette Museum of Arthropod Diversity Colorado State University Lepidoptera of North America 5. Contributions to the Knowledge of Southern West Virginia Lepidoptera by Valerio Albu, 1411 E. Sweetbriar Drive Fresno, CA 93720 and Eric Metzler, 1241 Kildale Square North Columbus, OH 43229 April 30, 2004 Contributions of the C.P. Gillette Museum of Arthropod Diversity Colorado State University Cover illustration: Blueberry Sphinx (Paonias astylus (Drury)], an eastern endemic. Photo by Valeriu Albu. ISBN 1084-8819 This publication and others in the series may be ordered from the C.P. Gillette Museum of Arthropod Diversity, Department of Bioagricultural Sciences and Pest Management Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80523 Abstract A list of 1531 species ofLepidoptera is presented, collected over 15 years (1988 to 2002), in eleven southern West Virginia counties. A variety of collecting methods was used, including netting, light attracting, light trapping and pheromone trapping. The specimens were identified by the currently available pictorial sources and determination keys. Many were also sent to specialists for confirmation or identification. The majority of the data was from Kanawha County, reflecting the area of more intensive sampling effort by the senior author. This imbalance of data between Kanawha County and other counties should even out with further sampling of the area. Key Words: Appalachian Mountains,
    [Show full text]
  • Insect Survey of Four Longleaf Pine Preserves
    A SURVEY OF THE MOTHS, BUTTERFLIES, AND GRASSHOPPERS OF FOUR NATURE CONSERVANCY PRESERVES IN SOUTHEASTERN NORTH CAROLINA Stephen P. Hall and Dale F. Schweitzer November 15, 1993 ABSTRACT Moths, butterflies, and grasshoppers were surveyed within four longleaf pine preserves owned by the North Carolina Nature Conservancy during the growing season of 1991 and 1992. Over 7,000 specimens (either collected or seen in the field) were identified, representing 512 different species and 28 families. Forty-one of these we consider to be distinctive of the two fire- maintained communities principally under investigation, the longleaf pine savannas and flatwoods. An additional 14 species we consider distinctive of the pocosins that occur in close association with the savannas and flatwoods. Twenty nine species appear to be rare enough to be included on the list of elements monitored by the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (eight others in this category have been reported from one of these sites, the Green Swamp, but were not observed in this study). Two of the moths collected, Spartiniphaga carterae and Agrotis buchholzi, are currently candidates for federal listing as Threatened or Endangered species. Another species, Hemipachnobia s. subporphyrea, appears to be endemic to North Carolina and should also be considered for federal candidate status. With few exceptions, even the species that seem to be most closely associated with savannas and flatwoods show few direct defenses against fire, the primary force responsible for maintaining these communities. Instead, the majority of these insects probably survive within this region due to their ability to rapidly re-colonize recently burned areas from small, well-dispersed refugia.
    [Show full text]
  • Frontiers in Zoology Biomed Central
    Frontiers in Zoology BioMed Central Research Open Access Does the DNA barcoding gap exist? – a case study in blue butterflies (Lepidoptera: Lycaenidae) Martin Wiemers* and Konrad Fiedler Address: Department of Population Ecology, Faculty of Life Sciences, University of Vienna, Althanstrasse 14, 1090 Vienna, Austria Email: Martin Wiemers* - [email protected]; Konrad Fiedler - [email protected] * Corresponding author Published: 7 March 2007 Received: 1 December 2006 Accepted: 7 March 2007 Frontiers in Zoology 2007, 4:8 doi:10.1186/1742-9994-4-8 This article is available from: http://www.frontiersinzoology.com/content/4/1/8 © 2007 Wiemers and Fiedler; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. Abstract Background: DNA barcoding, i.e. the use of a 648 bp section of the mitochondrial gene cytochrome c oxidase I, has recently been promoted as useful for the rapid identification and discovery of species. Its success is dependent either on the strength of the claim that interspecific variation exceeds intraspecific variation by one order of magnitude, thus establishing a "barcoding gap", or on the reciprocal monophyly of species. Results: We present an analysis of intra- and interspecific variation in the butterfly family Lycaenidae which includes a well-sampled clade (genus Agrodiaetus) with a peculiar characteristic: most of its members are karyologically differentiated from each other which facilitates the recognition of species as reproductively isolated units even in allopatric populations.
    [Show full text]
  • Modeling Population Dynamics of Roseate Terns (Sterna Dougallii) In
    Ecological Modelling 368 (2018) 298–311 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Ecological Modelling j ournal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ecolmodel Modeling population dynamics of roseate terns (Sterna dougallii) in the Northwest Atlantic Ocean a,b,c,∗ d e b Manuel García-Quismondo , Ian C.T. Nisbet , Carolyn Mostello , J. Michael Reed a Research Group on Natural Computing, University of Sevilla, ETS Ingeniería Informática, Av. Reina Mercedes, s/n, Sevilla 41012, Spain b Dept. of Biology, Tufts University, Medford, MA 02155, USA c Darrin Fresh Water Institute, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, 110 8th Street, 307 MRC, Troy, NY 12180, USA d I.C.T. Nisbet & Company, 150 Alder Lane, North Falmouth, MA 02556, USA e Massachusetts Division of Fisheries & Wildlife, 1 Rabbit Hill Road, Westborough, MA 01581, USA a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t Article history: The endangered population of roseate terns (Sterna dougallii) in the Northwestern Atlantic Ocean consists Received 12 September 2017 of a network of large and small breeding colonies on islands. This type of fragmented population poses an Received in revised form 5 December 2017 exceptional opportunity to investigate dispersal, a mechanism that is fundamental in population dynam- Accepted 6 December 2017 ics and is crucial to understand the spatio-temporal and genetic structure of animal populations. Dispersal is difficult to study because it requires concurrent data compilation at multiple sites. Models of popula- Keywords: tion dynamics in birds that focus on dispersal and include a large number of breeding sites are rare in Roseate terns literature.
    [Show full text]
  • Commonwealth of Massachusetts Energy Facilities Siting Board
    COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS ENERGY FACILITIES SITING BOARD ) Petition of Vineyard Wind LLC Pursuant to G.L. c. ) 164, § 69J for Approval to Construct, Operate, and ) Maintain Transmission Facilities in Massachusetts ) for the Delivery of Energy from an Offshore Wind ) EFSB 20-01 Energy Facility Located in Federal Waters to an ) NSTAR Electric (d/b/a Eversource Energy) ) Substation Located in the Town of Barnstable, ) Massachusetts. ) ) ) Petition of Vineyard Wind LLC Pursuant to G.L. c. ) 40A, § 3 for Exemptions from the Operation of the ) Zoning Ordinance of the Town of Barnstable for ) the Construction and Operation of New Transmission Facilities for the Delivery of Energy ) D.P.U. 20-56 from an Offshore Wind Energy Facility Located in ) Federal Waters to an NSTAR Electric (d/b/a. ) Eversource Energy) Substation Located in the ) Town of Barnstable, Massachusetts. ) ) ) Petition of Vineyard Wind LLC Pursuant to G.L. c. ) 164, § 72 for Approval to Construct, Operate, and ) Maintain Transmission Lines in Massachusetts for ) the Delivery of Energy from an Offshore Wind ) D.P.U 20-57 Energy Facility Located in Federal Waters to an ) NSTAR Electric (d/b/a Eversource Energy) ) Substation Located in the Town of Barnstable, ) Massachusetts. ) ) AFFIDAVIT OF AARON LANG I, Aaron Lang, Esq., do depose and state as follows: 1. I make this affidavit of my own personal knowledge. 2. I am an attorney at Foley Hoag LLP, counsel for Vineyard Wind LLC (“Vineyard Wind”) in this proceeding before the Energy Facilities Siting Board. 3. On September 16, 2020, the Presiding Officer issued a letter to Vineyard Wind containing translation, publication, posting, and service requirements for the Notice of Adjudication and Public Comment Hearing (“Notice”) and the Notice of Public Comment Hearing Please Read Document (“Please Read Document”) in the above-captioned proceeding.
    [Show full text]
  • Boreal Snaketail
    Species Status Assessment Class: Insecta Family: Gomphidae Scientific Name: Ophiogomphus colubrinus Common Name: Boreal snaketail Species synopsis: As its name implies, the boreal snaketail (Ophiogomphus colubrinus) is a species of northern distribution, and it has the most northern range of any clubtail (Mead 2003). The range extends from the western provinces of British Columbia and Alberta, eastward across Canada, to Ontario, Quebec, and New Brunswick. In the United States, it occurs in Maine, New Hampshire, and New York, as well as in Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota, and Wyoming (Needham et al. 2000). O. colubrinus was first documented in New York in 1995, with a number of subsequent records in 1996. All of these records are from the Ausable River in the central Adirondacks, including both the East and West Branch. Some of the recorded locations were documented only by the collection of exuviae. Although the original New York location, the Ausable River along Riverside Drive near Lake Placid, and nearby stretches of the Ausable were searched on several occasions, presence was not documented during the New York State Dragonfly and Damselfly Survey (NYDDS). There is no evidence that changes have occurred in the Ausable River in the vicinity of the previously documented records, so additional surveys would be desirable to confirm the continued presence of this species in New York (White et al. 2010). Previously recorded locations for O. colubrinus in New York are on rivers, principally nearer to the headwaters where the rivers are rapid and shallow with sand, gravel, rock, and boulder substrate, and are primarily bordered by trees and shrubs (New York Natural Heritage Program 2010).
    [Show full text]
  • List of Insect Species Which May Be Tallgrass Prairie Specialists
    Conservation Biology Research Grants Program Division of Ecological Services © Minnesota Department of Natural Resources List of Insect Species which May Be Tallgrass Prairie Specialists Final Report to the USFWS Cooperating Agencies July 1, 1996 Catherine Reed Entomology Department 219 Hodson Hall University of Minnesota St. Paul MN 55108 phone 612-624-3423 e-mail [email protected] This study was funded in part by a grant from the USFWS and Cooperating Agencies. Table of Contents Summary.................................................................................................. 2 Introduction...............................................................................................2 Methods.....................................................................................................3 Results.....................................................................................................4 Discussion and Evaluation................................................................................................26 Recommendations....................................................................................29 References..............................................................................................33 Summary Approximately 728 insect and allied species and subspecies were considered to be possible prairie specialists based on any of the following criteria: defined as prairie specialists by authorities; required prairie plant species or genera as their adult or larval food; were obligate predators, parasites
    [Show full text]
  • Insects That Feed on Trees and Shrubs
    INSECTS THAT FEED ON COLORADO TREES AND SHRUBS1 Whitney Cranshaw David Leatherman Boris Kondratieff Bulletin 506A TABLE OF CONTENTS DEFOLIATORS .................................................... 8 Leaf Feeding Caterpillars .............................................. 8 Cecropia Moth ................................................ 8 Polyphemus Moth ............................................. 9 Nevada Buck Moth ............................................. 9 Pandora Moth ............................................... 10 Io Moth .................................................... 10 Fall Webworm ............................................... 11 Tiger Moth ................................................. 12 American Dagger Moth ......................................... 13 Redhumped Caterpillar ......................................... 13 Achemon Sphinx ............................................. 14 Table 1. Common sphinx moths of Colorado .......................... 14 Douglas-fir Tussock Moth ....................................... 15 1. Whitney Cranshaw, Colorado State University Cooperative Extension etnomologist and associate professor, entomology; David Leatherman, entomologist, Colorado State Forest Service; Boris Kondratieff, associate professor, entomology. 8/93. ©Colorado State University Cooperative Extension. 1994. For more information, contact your county Cooperative Extension office. Issued in furtherance of Cooperative Extension work, Acts of May 8 and June 30, 1914, in cooperation with the U.S. Department of Agriculture,
    [Show full text]