FY2019 Log.Xlsx
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
Idaho Aquarium, Inc., D/B/ a Aquarium of Boise
NCE G. WASDEN Idaho Attorney General Office of the Attorney General P.O. Box 83 720 Boise, ID 83720-0010 (208) 334-2424 .ag.idaho.gov IDAHO AQUARIUM, INC., D/B/A AQUARIUM OF BOISE FACTUAL FINDINGS, LEGAL CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDED CHANGES April 2, 2015 CONSUMER PROTECTION DMSION BREITT. DELANGE DIVISION CHIEF STEPHANIE GUYON DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL PHONE: (208) 334-4135 [email protected] INTRODUCTION In September 2013, the Attorney General's Office ("Attorney General") received a referral from Dr. Jeff Rosenthal, Executive Director for the Idaho Humane Society ("the Society"), concerning the activities of the Idaho Aquarium, Inc. ("Idaho Aquarium"), an I.RC.§ 501(c)(3) nonprofit corporation in Boise, Idaho. Dr. Rosenthal reported to the Attorney General that, during the Society's investigation of animal welfare complaints, he spoke to Idaho Aquarium employees who expressed concerns with how the Idaho Aquarium's Board of Directors ("the Board") was governing the nonprofitcorporation and managing its charitable assets. Telephone calls and emails to the Attorney General fromconcerned Board members coincided with Dr. Rosenthal's referral. Board members reported to the Attorney General that the members had splintered into two factions, which prevented the Board from governing the Idaho Aquarium's affairs. The dominant faction was ruled by the Idaho Aquarium's President and Interim Executive Director who allegedly refused to provide the weaker faction with the Idaho Aquarium's complete financialrecords. Board members also alleged that, with the Board's knowledge and approval, the Idaho Aquarium's founders and former Board members-Ammon Covino ("Covino") and Christopher Conk ("Conk")-had misappropriated the Idaho Aquarium's charitable assets. -
A Global Perspective on Firefly Extinction Threats
See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/339213788 A Global Perspective on Firefly Extinction Threats Article in BioScience · February 2020 DOI: 10.1093/biosci/biz157 CITATION READS 1 231 6 authors, including: Sara M Lewis Avalon Celeste Stevahn Owens Tufts University Tufts University 112 PUBLICATIONS 4,372 CITATIONS 10 PUBLICATIONS 48 CITATIONS SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE Candace E. Fallon Sarina Jepsen The Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation The Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation 7 PUBLICATIONS 20 CITATIONS 36 PUBLICATIONS 283 CITATIONS SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects: Usage of necrophagous beetles (Coleoptera) in forensic entomology: determination and developmental models View project Utilizing beetle larvae of family Silphidae in forensic practice View project All content following this page was uploaded by Sara M Lewis on 12 February 2020. The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file. Forum A Global Perspective on Firefly Extinction Threats SARA M. LEWIS , CHOONG HAY WONG, AVALON C.S. OWENS , CANDACE FALLON, SARINA JEPSEN, ANCHANA THANCHAROEN, CHIAHSIUNG WU, RAPHAEL DE COCK, MARTIN NOVÁK, TANIA LÓPEZ-PALAFOX, VERONICA KHOO, AND J. MICHAEL REED Insect declines and their drivers have attracted considerable recent attention. Fireflies and glowworms are iconic insects whose conspicuous bioluminescent courtship displays carry unique cultural significance, giving them economic value as ecotourist attractions. Despite evidence of declines, a comprehensive review of the conservation status and threats facing the approximately 2000 firefly species worldwide is lacking. We conducted a survey of experts from diverse geographic regions to identify the most prominent perceived threats to firefly population and species persistence. -
DE Wildlife Action Plan
DelawareDelaware WildlifeWildlife ActionAction PlanPlan Keeping Today’s Wildlife from Becoming Tomorrow’s Memory Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control Division of Fish and Wildlife 89 King Highway Dover, Delaware 19901 [email protected] Delaware Wildlife Action Plan 2007 - 2017 Submitted to: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 300 Westgate Center Drive Hadley, MA 01035-9589 September, 2006 Submitted by: Olin Allen, Biologist Brianna Barkus, Outreach Coordinator Karen Bennett, Program Manager Cover Photos by: Chris Bennett, Chuck Fullmer, Mike Trumabauer, DE Div. of Fish & Wildlife Delaware Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program Delaware Division of Fish and Wildlife Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control 89 Kings Highway Dover DE 19901 Delaware Wildlife Action Plan Acknowledgements This project was funded, in part, through grants from the Delaware Division of Fish & Wildlife with funding from the Division of Federal Assistance, United States Fish & Wildlife Service under the State Wildlife Grants Program; and the Delaware Coastal Programs with funding from the Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration under award number NA17OZ2329. We gratefully acknowledge the participation of the following individuals: Jen Adkins Sally Kepfer NV Raman Chris Bennett Gary Kreamer Ken Reynolds Melinda Carl Annie Larson Ellen Roca John Clark Wayne Lehman Bob Rufe Rick Cole Jeff Lerner Tom Saladyga Robert Coxe Rob Line Craig Shirey Janet -
Delaware's Wildlife Species of Greatest Conservation Need
CHAPTER 1 DELAWARE’S WILDLIFE SPECIES OF GREATEST CONSERVATION NEED CHAPTER 1: Delaware’s Wildlife Species of Greatest Conservation Need Contents Introduction ................................................................................................................................................... 7 Regional Context ........................................................................................................................................... 7 Delaware’s Animal Biodiversity .................................................................................................................... 10 State of Knowledge of Delaware’s Species ................................................................................................... 10 Delaware’s Wildlife and SGCN - presented by Taxonomic Group .................................................................. 11 Delaware’s 2015 SGCN Status Rank Tier Definitions................................................................................. 12 TIER 1 .................................................................................................................................................... 13 TIER 2 .................................................................................................................................................... 13 TIER 3 .................................................................................................................................................... 13 Mammals .................................................................................................................................................... -
Validating Species Distribution Models to Illuminate Coastal Fireflies in The
www.nature.com/scientificreports OPEN Validating species distribution models to illuminate coastal frefies in the South Pacifc (Coleoptera: Lampyridae) Laura N. Sutherland1,2*, Gareth S. Powell2 & Seth M. Bybee2,3 The coastal areas of Vanuatu are under a multitude of threats stemming from commercialization, human development, and climate change. Atyphella Ollif is a genus of frefy that includes species endemic to these coastal areas and will need protection. The research that has already been conducted was afected by accessibility due to the remote nature of the islands which left numerous knowledge gaps caused by a lack of distributional data (e.g., Wallacean shortfall). Species distribution models (SDM) are a powerful tool that allow for the modeling of the broader distribution of a taxon, even with limited distributional data available. SDMs assist in flling the knowledge gap by predicting potential areas that could contain the species of interest, making targeted collecting and conservation eforts more feasible when time, resources, and accessibility are major limiting factors. Here a MaxEnt prediction was used to direct feld collecting and we now provide an updated predictive distribution for this endemic frefy genus. The original model was validated with additional feldwork, ultimately expanding the known range with additional locations frst identifed using MaxEnt. A bias analysis was also conducted, providing insight into the efect that developments such as roads and settlements have on collecting and therefore the SDM, ultimately allowing for a more critical assessment of the overall model. After demonstrating the accuracy of the original model, this new updated SDM can be used to identify specifc areas that will need to be the target of future conservation eforts by local government ofcials. -
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service North Atlantic-Appalachian Region Endangered Species Act Update February 4, 2020
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service North Atlantic-Appalachian Region Endangered Species Act Update February 4, 2020 White-Nose Syndrome (WNS) (All States) White-nose syndrome has been confirmed in 33 states and 7 Canadian provinces. Additionally, the disease-causing fungus has been detected or is suspected to be present in Mississippi, Texas, Wyoming, North Dakota and California without confirmation of disease. The disease has been confirmed in at least 12 species of North American hibernating bats. The most recent addition to this list is the fringed myotis, a western species that has been exposed to the fungus since at least 2017. WNS Grants: o The FWS is reviewing ~40 submissions to the WNS Challenge which is seeking creative solutions to permanently disarm or weaken the fungus that causes white-nose syndrome. Total prize money available is $100,000. The WNS Challenge complements other efforts to fight white-nose syndrome. o The FWS is preparing to post notice for the WNS Grants to States and Tribes for 2020 in the coming months on www.Grants.gov. These funds are awarded to support states and tribes in implementing conservation actions for bats, fulfilling information needs of management entities, and implementing the North American Bat Monitoring Program (NABat). FWS is coordinating closely with USGS, Fort Collins Science Center to advance the goals and efforts of NABat. This coordination includes actions of an internal working group comprised of personnel working in Ecological Services, National Wildlife Refuges, and Science Applications, as well as facilitating bat monitoring efforts of non- FWS partners. FWS and NABat will achieve objectives using a combination of acoustic monitoring and counting of bats at summer and winter roosts across their ranges. -
FY 2020 Cooperative Endangered Species Conservation Fund (CESCF) Traditional Conservation Grants Program Notice of Funding Opportunity
FY 2020 Cooperative Endangered Species Conservation Fund (CESCF) Traditional Conservation Grants Program Notice of Funding Opportunity Notice of Funding Opportunity Number: F20AS00070 Federal Program: Department of the Interior, United States (U.S.) Fish and Wildlife Service, Ecological Services & Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) Number: 15.615 Authorizing Legislation Endangered Species Act of 1973, 16 U.S.C. 1535, as amended Paperwork Reduction Act Statement: We are collecting this information in accordance with the authorizing legislation identified above. Your response is required to obtain or retain a benefit. We will use the information you provide to conduct a competitive review and select projects for funding and, if awarded, to evaluate performance. We may not conduct or sponsor and you are not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. We estimate that it will take you on average about 40 hours to complete an initial application, about 3 hours to revise the terms of an award, and about 8 hours per report to prepare and submit financial and performance reports, including time to maintain records and gather information. Actual time for these activities will vary depending on program-specific requirements. You may send comments on the burden estimate or any other aspect of this information collection to the Information Collection Clearance Officer, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, MS BPHC, 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041-3803. OMB Control Number: 1018-0100 (Expiration Date: 7/31/2021) I. Program Description More than half of all species listed as endangered or threatened spend at least part of their life cycle on non-federal lands. -
A Preliminary Assessment of the Ground-Dwelling Arthropod Community Composition in Six Common Dune Cover Types at Cape Cod National Seashore
2013 NORTHEASTERNNortheastern Naturalist NATURALIST 20(3):529–539Vol. 20, No. 3 B.C. Timm and K. McGarigal A Preliminary Assessment of the Ground-Dwelling Arthropod Community Composition in Six Common Dune Cover Types at Cape Cod National Seashore Brad C. Timm1,* and Kevin McGarigal1 Abstract - We provide a preliminary assessment of the ground-dwelling arthropod com- munity composition in six common coastal dune ecosystem land cover-types at Cape Cod National Seashore. We captured 6815 individual arthropods representing 16 arthropod orders from 1008 terrestrial pitfall trap-nights. The most abundant orders were Hyme- noptera, Diptera, Araneae, and Isopoda (76.1%, 8.5%, 5.5%, and 3.3% of total captures, respectively). There were differences in ground-dwelling arthropod community compo- sition among the three early-successional and the three later-successional cover types, with the latter having a greater overall arthropod diversity and higher capture rates for a number of the major arthropod taxa captured. Our report is among the first community- wide analyses of arthropod community composition in coastal dune ecosystems of the northeastern US. The results from this study should be viewed as a preliminary assess- ment given that: 1) we employed a single trapping method (i.e., pitfall traps); 2) traps were only open during the late-afternoon to early morning hours, and only during the summer months; and 3) captured arthropods were classified only to order. We hope our report will inspire additional research of coastal dune arthropod communities. Introduction In many terrestrial ecosystems, arthropods comprise the greatest faunal spe- cies diversity, biomass, and number of individuals (Gaston 1991, Ponder and Lunney 1999, Wilson 1985). -
Fenwick Island State Park Sussex County, Delaware
Historical Analysis and Map of Vegetation Communities, Land Covers, and Habitats of Fenwick Island State Park Sussex County, Delaware Assawoman Bay, Little Assawoman Bay, and Southern Atlantic Strand Watersheds Submitted to: Delaware State Parks Delaware Division of State Parks 89 Kings Highway Dover, DE 19901 Completed by: Robert Coxe, Ecologist Delaware Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program Wildlife Section, Delaware Division of Fish and Wildlife Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control 4876 Hay Point Landing Road Smyrna, DE 19977 July 24, 2012 Table of Contents Chapter 1: Introduction and Methods ............................................................................................. 4 Setting of Fenwick Island State Park .......................................................................................... 4 Soils and Geology of Fenwick Island State Park ........................................................................ 6 Underlying Geology................................................................................................................ 6 Soils......................................................................................................................................... 6 Discussion of vegetation communities in general and why they are important in management ................................................................................................................................................... 10 Discussion of Sea-Level Rise and why it may affect the vegetation -
CHESAPEAKE BAY LOWLANDS ECOREGIONAL PLAN Conservation Science Support—Northeast and Caribbean
CHESAPEAKE BAY LOWLANDS ECOREGIONAL PLAN Conservation Science Support—Northeast and Caribbean The Chesapeake Bay Lowlands Plan is a first iteration. The draft report that was distributed in hardcopy for review on 6/27/2002 is included on the CD. No updates were made to that version. CSS is now developing a standard template for ecoregional plans, which we have applied to the CBY ecoregional plan report. Some of the CBY results have been edited or updated for this version. Click on index in the navigation plane to browse the report sections. Note: The Bibliography (still slightly incomplete) contains the references cited in all report sections except for the Marine references, which have their own bibliography. What is the purpose of the report template? The purpose of creating a standard template for ecoregional plans in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic is twofold: — to compile concise descriptions of methodologies developed and used for ecoregional planning in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic. These descriptions are meant to meet the needs of planning team members who need authoritative text to include in future plan documents, of science staff who need to respond to questions of methodology, and of program and state directors looking for material for general audience publications. — to create a modular resource whose pieces can be selected, incorporated in various formats, linked to in other documents, and updated easily. How does the template work? Methods are separated from results in this format, and the bulk of our work has gone into the standard methods sections. We have tried to make each methods section stand alone. -
Conserving the Jewels of the Night Guidelines for Protecting Fireflies in the United States and Canada
Conserving the Jewels of the Night Guidelines for Protecting Fireflies in the United States and Canada Candace Fallon, Sarah Hoyle, Sara Lewis, Avalon Owens, Eric Lee-Mäder, Scott Hoffman Black, and Sarina Jepsen Conserving the Jewels of the Night Guidelines for Protecting Fireflies in the United States and Canada Candace Fallon Sarah Hoyle Sara Lewis Avalon Owens Eric Lee-Mäder Scott Hoffman Black Sarina Jepsen The Xerces Society is a nonprofit organization that protects the natural world by conserving invertebrates and their habitat. Established in 1971, the Society is a trusted source for science-based information and advice and plays a leading role in promoting the conservation of pollinators and many other invertebrates. We collaborate with people and institutions at all levels and our work to protect bees, butterflies, and other pollinators encompasses all landscapes. Our team draws together experts from the fields of habitat restoration, entomology, plant ecology, education, farming, and conservation biology with a single passion: Protecting the life that sustains us. The Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation 628 NE Broadway, Suite 200, Portland, OR 97232 Tel (855) 232-6639 Fax (503) 233-6794 www.xerces.org Regional offices from coast to coast The Xerces Society is an equal opportunity employer and provider. Xerces® is a trademark registered in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office © 2019 by the Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation Authors The Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation: Candace Fallon, Sarah Hoyle, Eric Lee-Mäder, Scott Hoffman Black, and Sarina Jepsen. Tufts University Department of Biology: Sara Lewis and Avalon Owens. Acknowledgments These guidelines build on the work of many researchers and firefly enthusiasts, past and present. -
2017 Conservation Investments
NATIONAL FISH AND WILDLIFE FOUNDATION 2017 CONSERVATION INVESTMENTS 1 The National Fish and Wildlife Foundation is dedicated to sustaining, restoring and enhancing the nation’s fish, wildlife, plants and habitats for current and future generations. NFWF will advance its mission through innovative public and private partnerships, and by investing financial resources and intellectual capital into science-based programs designed to address conservation priorities and achieve measurable outcomes. In Fiscal Year 2017, NFWF funded more than 730 conservation projects across the nation, generating an on-the-ground conservation impact of more than $693 million. 2 1 CONTENTS United States and U.S. Territories Fiscal Year 2017 Conservation Investments Alabama 07 Montana 29 Alaska 07 Nebraska 31 Arizona 08 Nevada 32 Arkansas 09 New Hampshire 32 California 09 New Jersey 33 Colorado 15 New Mexico 34 Connecticut 15 New York 34 Delaware 16 North Carolina 36 District of Columbia 16 North Dakota 36 Florida 17 Ohio 37 Georgia 18 Oklahoma 38 Hawaii 19 Oregon 38 Idaho 20 Pennsylvania 40 Illinois 21 Rhode Island 43 Indiana 22 South Carolina 44 Iowa 22 South Dakota 44 Kansas 23 Tennessee 45 Kentucky 23 Texas 45 Louisiana 23 Utah 47 Maine 24 Vermont 48 Maryland 24 Virginia 48 Massachusetts 26 Washington 49 Michigan 27 West Virginia 51 Minnesota 28 Wisconsin 51 Mississippi 29 Wyoming 53 Missouri 29 U.S. Territories 53 United States and International Fiscal Year 2017 Conservation Investments 54 Gulf Environmental Benefit Fund Fiscal Year 2017 Project Commitments 58 Impact-Directed Environmental Accounts Fiscal Year 2017 Project Commitments 62 2 5 KEY NFWF CONSERVATION INVESTMENTS Projects supported by NFWF in fiscal year 2017 Projects supported by NFWF since founding in 1984 IN FISCAL YEAR 2017, THE NATIONAL FISH AND WILDLIFE FOUNDATION FUNDED MORE THAN 730 CONSERVATION PROJECTS ACROSS THE NATION.