DOCSLIB.ORG

Incidental Take Plan for Maine's Trapping Program

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Incidental Take Plan for Maine’s Trapping Program Submitted to U. S. Department of Interior Fish and Wildlife Service Prepared by Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife1 41 SHS, 284 State Street Augusta, ME 04333-0041 Plan as accepted October 28, 2014 Minor amendments September 24, 2015 1 This document was written by Jennifer Vashon, Walter Jakubas, and John DePue, 650 State Street, Bangor, Maine, 04401; James Connolly, 284 State Street, Augusta, Maine, 04333. Table of Contents Executive Summary .................................................................................................... 10 1.0 Introduction and Background ......................................................................... 13 1.1 Permit Coverage ...................................................................................... 13 1.2 Permit Duration ........................................................................................ 13 1.3 Regulatory/Legal Framework for Plan...................................................... 13 1.4 Plan Area ................................................................................................. 14 1.5 Species to be Covered by Permit ............................................................ 16 2.0 Environmental Setting / Biological Resources .............................................. 17 2.1 Environmental Setting .............................................................................. 17 2.2 Biological Resources ............................................................................... 21 2.2.1 Canada Lynx ............................................................................................ 21 2.2.2 Wolves (Canis lupus, Canus lupus lycaon) .............................................. 28 2.2.3 Migratory Birds ......................................................................................... 29 2.2.4 Plant Species of Concern ........................................................................ 30 3.0 Project Description / Activities Covered by Permit ....................................... 31 3.1 Project Description ................................................................................... 44 3.2 Incidental Take of Lynx from Furbearer Trapping Program ..................... 53 3.3 How legal and illegal trapping action are covered by the Plan ................. 61 4.0 Potential Biological Impacts / Take Assessment ........................................... 63 4.1 Direct and Indirect Impacts ...................................................................... 64 4.2 Anticipated Incidental Take: Canada Lynx .............................................. 76 5.0 Conservation Program / Measures to Minimize and Mitigate for Impacts .............................................................................................................. 82 5.1 Biological Goals and Objectives .............................................................. 82 5.2 Measures to Minimize Impacts ................................................................ 82 5.2.1 Minimization Measures Commitments, Implementation, Monitoring, and Reporting .......................................................................................... 86 5.3 Measure to Mitigate Unavoidable Impacts ............................................. 111 5.4 Changed Circumstances ........................................................................ 126 5.5 Unforeseen Circumstances .................................................................... 136 6.0 Funding ........................................................................................................... 138 6.1 Funding for Plan Measures .................................................................... 138 6.2 Plan Implementation Costs .................................................................... 138 6.2.2 Plan Mitigation Costs ............................................................................. 142 6.3 Plan Monitoring Costs ............................................................................ 142 Incidental Take Plan For Maine’s Trapping Program Amended September 2015 Page 2 7.0 Measures Considered but Not Implemented ................................................ 143 7.1 Alternative I. Discontinue Trapping Statewide ...................................... 143 7.2 Alternative II. Discontinue Trapping Selectively .................................... 143 7.3 Alternative III. Other Minimization and Mitigation Measures ................. 144 8.0 Future Amendments ....................................................................................... 149 8.1 Administrative Changes ......................................................................... 149 8.2 Minor Amendments ................................................................................ 149 8.3 Major Amendments ................................................................................ 150 9.0 Literature Cited ............................................................................................... 154 Incidental Take Plan For Maine’s Trapping Program Amended September 2015 Page 3 List of Figures Figure 1.1 The distribution of Canada lynx in Maine from ecoregional snow track surveys, sightings of lynx (primarily tracks) by IFW biologists, incidental takes, and telemetry data from 2000 until 2011. Points in WMD 17 and 23 are from telemetry over a 26 and 9 day period by two radiocollared lynx that did not remain in the area. Conversely, the single observation in WMD 18 was a lynx caught in a trap that meets the criteria for extending lynx minimization measures. .................. 15 Figure 3.1.1 Maine’s Wildlife Management Districts (WMDs). ..................................... 47 Figure 3.1.2 Diagram of a foothold trap and its various parts (AFWA 2006a). ............. 48 Figure 3.1.3 Diagram of a standard killer-type trap and its various parts (AFWA 2006a). ..................................................................................................... 49 Figure 3.1.4 Diagram of a duffer trap designed for raccoons (AFWA 2006c). ............. 49 Figure 3.1.5 Diagram of a wire box or cage trap (AFWA 2006a). ................................ 49 Figure 3.1.6 Hancock, suitcase type live trap for beaver (AFWA 2007). ...................... 50 Figure 3.1.7 Statewide trapper effort, expressed as the number of traps nights spent to capture the target species. Trap nights are defined as one trap set for a 24-hour period. Data are from the fall trapping season in Maine (mid-October through December 31) in 2010 and 2011. ........... 53 Figure 3.2.1 Locations of 51 radiocollared lynx in northern Maine during the 1999 to 2006 regular trap season when killer-type traps were set for marten and fisher. The area in green was used to estimate exposure of lynx to traps (i.e., number of marten and fisher harvested and number of trappers). ......................................................... 57 Figure 3.2.2 Locations of 23 radiocollared lynx in northern Maine during the 2007 to 2011 regular trap season when killer-type traps were set for marten and fisher. The area in green was used to estimate exposure of lynx to traps (i.e., number of marten and fisher harvested and number of trappers). ......................................................... 58 Figure 5.2.1 An example of a lynx exclusion device for killer-type traps. Note the opening for a fisher or marten to enter the trap is located on the top panel on the far right end. The killer-type trap (shown) is set near the left end of the trap, and the bait would be placed to the left of the trap in the cage. Specifications for a lynx exclusion device are described in Maine's trapping rules. .................................................. 88 Figure 5.3.1 This figure shows how the five groups of radiocollared lynx used the same areas and the appropriateness of IFW estimates of high quality hare habitat (HQHH) as mitigation for lethal take of incidental capture of lynx in Maine’s trapping program. ......................... 115 Incidental Take Plan For Maine’s Trapping Program Amended September 2015 Page 4 Figure 5.3.2 Provisional map of the proposed 22,046 acre HMA (black dashed line; original 10,411 acre HMA solid black line in IFW’s July 29, 2013 Plan) for Canada Lynx in Maine showing the year in which stands were commercially cut. The harvest treatment for each stand is given in Figure 5.3.3. ................................................................ 118 Figure 5.3.3 Provisional map of the proposed 22,046 acre HMA (black dashed line; original 10,411 acre HMA solid black line in IFW’s July 29, 2013 Plan) for Canada Lynx in Maine showing the harvest treatment each forest stand received. The year in which the stand was cut is given in Figure 5.3.2. ............................................................. 119 Figure 5.3.4. Current forest type map of the 22,046 acre proposed habitat management area (HMA) for lynx on the State of Maine Bureau of Parks and Land’s Seboomook Unit in northern Maine. The dark black line marks the boundaries of the 22,046 acre HMA. ..................... 120 Figure 5.4.1 Decision Tree Changed Circumstance #1: Lynx are being caught in traps at a higher rate than expected. ................................................. 130 Figure 5.4.2 Decision Tree Changed Circumstance #2: Lynx are being injured in traps at a higher rate than expected. ................................................. 132 Figure 5.4.3 Decision Tree Change Circumstance #3: Lynx
Recommended publications
  • Dragonflies (Odonata) of the Northwest Territories Status Ranking And

    Dragonflies (Odonata) of the Northwest Territories Status Ranking And

    DRAGONFLIES (ODONATA) OF THE NORTHWEST TERRITORIES STATUS RANKING AND PRELIMINARY ATLAS PAUL M. CATLING University of Ottawa 2003 TABLE OF CONTENTS Abstract ....................................................................3 Acknowledgements ...........................................................3 Methods ....................................................................3 The database .................................................................4 History .....................................................................5 Rejected taxa ................................................................5 Possible additions ............................................................5 Additional field inventory ......................................................7 Collection an Inventory of dragonflies .............................................8 Literature Cited .............................................................10 Appendix Table 1 - checklist ...................................................13 Appendix Table 2 - Atlas and ranking notes .......................................15 2 ABSTRACT: occurrences was provided by Dr. Rex Thirty-five species of Odonata are given Kenner, Dr. Donna Giberson, Dr. Nick status ranks in the Northwest Territories Donnelly and Dr. Robert Cannings (some based on number of occurrences and details provided below). General distributional area within the territory. Nine information on contacts and locations of species are ranked as S2, may be at risk, collections provided by Dr. Cannings
  • Boreal Snaketail

    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).
  • Ecography ECOG-02578 Pinkert, S., Brandl, R

    Ecography ECOG-02578 Pinkert, S., Brandl, R

    Ecography ECOG-02578 Pinkert, S., Brandl, R. and Zeuss, D. 2016. Colour lightness of dragonfly assemblages across North America and Europe. – Ecography doi: 10.1111/ecog.02578 Supplementary material Appendix 1 Figures A1–A12, Table A1 and A2 1 Figure A1. Scatterplots between female and male colour lightness of 44 North American (Needham et al. 2000) and 19 European (Askew 1988) dragonfly species. Note that colour lightness of females and males is highly correlated. 2 Figure A2. Correlation of the average colour lightness of European dragonfly species illustrated in both Askew (1988) and Dijkstra and Lewington (2006). Average colour lightness ranges from 0 (absolute black) to 255 (pure white). Note that the extracted colour values of dorsal dragonfly drawings from both sources are highly correlated. 3 Figure A3. Frequency distribution of the average colour lightness of 152 North American and 74 European dragonfly species. Average colour lightness ranges from 0 (absolute black) to 255 (pure white). Rugs at the abscissa indicate the value of each species. Note that colour values are from different sources (North America: Needham et al. 2000, Europe: Askew 1988), and hence absolute values are not directly comparable. 4 Figure A4. Scatterplots of single ordinary least-squares regressions between average colour lightness of 8,127 North American dragonfly assemblages and mean temperature of the warmest quarter. Red dots represent assemblages that were excluded from the analysis because they contained less than five species. Note that those assemblages that were excluded scatter more than those with more than five species (c.f. the coefficients of determination) due to the inherent effect of very low sampling sizes.
  • A Checklist of North American Odonata

    A Checklist of North American Odonata

    A Checklist of North American Odonata Including English Name, Etymology, Type Locality, and Distribution Dennis R. Paulson and Sidney W. Dunkle 2009 Edition (updated 14 April 2009) A Checklist of North American Odonata Including English Name, Etymology, Type Locality, and Distribution 2009 Edition (updated 14 April 2009) Dennis R. Paulson1 and Sidney W. Dunkle2 Originally published as Occasional Paper No. 56, Slater Museum of Natural History, University of Puget Sound, June 1999; completely revised March 2009. Copyright © 2009 Dennis R. Paulson and Sidney W. Dunkle 2009 edition published by Jim Johnson Cover photo: Tramea carolina (Carolina Saddlebags), Cabin Lake, Aiken Co., South Carolina, 13 May 2008, Dennis Paulson. 1 1724 NE 98 Street, Seattle, WA 98115 2 8030 Lakeside Parkway, Apt. 8208, Tucson, AZ 85730 ABSTRACT The checklist includes all 457 species of North American Odonata considered valid at this time. For each species the original citation, English name, type locality, etymology of both scientific and English names, and approxi- mate distribution are given. Literature citations for original descriptions of all species are given in the appended list of references. INTRODUCTION Before the first edition of this checklist there was no re- Table 1. The families of North American Odonata, cent checklist of North American Odonata. Muttkows- with number of species. ki (1910) and Needham and Heywood (1929) are long out of date. The Zygoptera and Anisoptera were cov- Family Genera Species ered by Westfall and May (2006) and Needham, West- fall, and May (2000), respectively, but some changes Calopterygidae 2 8 in nomenclature have been made subsequently. Davies Lestidae 2 19 and Tobin (1984, 1985) listed the world odonate fauna Coenagrionidae 15 103 but did not include type localities or details of distri- Platystictidae 1 1 bution.
  • The Proventriculus of Immature Anisoptera (Odonata) with Reference to Its Use in Taxonomy

    The Proventriculus of Immature Anisoptera (Odonata) with Reference to Its Use in Taxonomy

    Louisiana State University LSU Digital Commons LSU Historical Dissertations and Theses Graduate School 1955 The rP oventriculus of Immature Anisoptera (Odonata) With Reference to Itsuse in Taxonomy. Alice Howard Ferguson Louisiana State University and Agricultural & Mechanical College Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.lsu.edu/gradschool_disstheses Recommended Citation Ferguson, Alice Howard, "The rP oventriculus of Immature Anisoptera (Odonata) With Reference to Itsuse in Taxonomy." (1955). LSU Historical Dissertations and Theses. 103. https://digitalcommons.lsu.edu/gradschool_disstheses/103 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at LSU Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in LSU Historical Dissertations and Theses by an authorized administrator of LSU Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. THE PROTENTRICULUS OF IMMATURE ANISOPTERA (ODONATA) WITH REFERENCE TO ITS USE IN TAXONOMY A Dissertation Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of the Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in The Department of Zoology, Physiology, and Entomology Alice Howard Ferguson B. S., Southern Methodist University, 193& M. S., Southern Methodist University, I9U0 June, 1955 EXAMINATION AND THESIS REPORT Candidate: Miss Alice Ferguson Major Field: Entomology Title of Thesis: The Proventriculus of Immature Anisoptera (Odonata) with Reference to its Use in Taxonomy Approved: Major Professor and Chairman Deanpf-tfio Graduate School EXAMINING COMMITTEE: m 1.1 ^ ----------------------------- jJ------- --- 7 ------ Date of Examination: May6 , 195$ PiKC t U R D C N ACKNOWLEDGEMENT I want to express ny appreciation to the members of ny committee, especially to J.
  • Upper Saco River Focus Areas of Statewide Ecological Significance Upper Saco River

    Upper Saco River Focus Areas of Statewide Ecological Significance Upper Saco River

    Focus Areas of Statewide Ecological Significance: Upper Saco River Focus Areas of Statewide Ecological Significance Upper Saco River Biophysical Region • Sebago - Ossipee Hills and Plain WHY IS THIS AREA SIGNIFICANT? Rare Animals The Upper Saco River Focus Area is one of the most Comet Darner Extra-striped Snaketail Lilypad Clubtail Spatterdock Darner biodiverse areas in Maine. It is home to numerous Buckmoth Southern Pygmy Clubtail rare species and natural communities, including Sedge Wren Huckleberry Sphinx one of the largest concentrations of the globally Wood Turtle Common Sanddragon rare Long’s bulrush (Scirpus longii), three globally Rapids Clubtail Edwards’ Hairstreak Cobra Clubtail Common Musk Turtle rare dragonfly species, the globally rare river- Barrens Itame Eastern Ribbon Snake wash barrens community, outstanding examples Twilight Moth Ebony Boghaunter of floodplain forests, and at least ten other plant Boreal Snaketail Ringed Boghaunter species that are rare in Maine. Rare animals in the Pygmy Snaketail Similar Underwing New England Bluet Acadian Swordgrass Moth Focus Area represent diverse taxonomic groups, Pine Barrens Zanclognatha such as birds, reptiles, odonates, and lepidopterans. Rare Plants Secund Rush Adder’s Tongue Fern OPPORTUNITIES FOR CONSERVATION Mountain-laurel Smooth Sandwort Dwarf Bulrush Douglas’ Knotweed » Work with willing landowners to permanently Silverling Blunt-lobed Woodsia protect remaining undeveloped areas. Fall Fimbry Fern-leaved False Foxglove » Educate recreational users about ecological and
  • Conserving Odonate Biodiversity

    Conserving Odonate Biodiversity

    Conservation of dragonflies and damselflies: threats, needs, and strategies C. Mazzacano Odonates at Risk About as many species of odonates as birds, but receive much less research and conservation attention Arrowhead Spiketail (Cordulegaster dorsalis); Hugo Cobos) Arrowhead Spiketail (Cordulegaster dorsalis); Hugo Cobos Striped Meadowhawk (Sympetrum pallipes); C. Mazzacano) Sierra Madre Dancer (Argia lacrimans); C. Mazzacano) Odonates at Risk Many species have disappeared from water bodies worldwide American Rubyspot (Hetaerina cruentata), C. Mazzacano Odonates at Risk Still discovering new species, county records, and distributions Kalkman et al., Global diversity of dragonflies (Odonata) in freshwater Sarracenia Spiketail (Cordulegaster sarracenia), Troy Hibbetts Odonate Conservation Status Fr eshwat er M ussel s 69% Cr ayf i shes 51% St onef l i es 43% Fr eshwat er Fi shes 37% Amphibians 36% Flowering Plants 33% Gymnosperms 24% Fer ns/ Fer n A l l i es 22% T i ger Beet l es 19% Presumed/Possibly Extinct (GX/GH) Butterflies/Skippers 19% Critically Imperiled (G1) Rept i l es 18% I mper i l ed (G2) Vul ner abl e (G3) D r agonf l i es/ D amsel f l i es 18% M ammal s 16% Birds 14% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% Per cent of Speci es Precious Heritage (2000), TNC, NatureServe Odonate Conservation Status Dragonflies/Damselflies 18% 5952 odonate species globally (Schorr & Paulson, 2013) 463 odonate species in North America (Schorr & Paulson, 2013) 89 “threatened” odonate species in U.S. and Canada (Nature Serve 2013) Hine’s Emerald (Somatochlora
  • Recovery Strategy for the Pygmy Snaketail in Ontario

    Recovery Strategy for the Pygmy Snaketail in Ontario

    Photo: Denis Doucet Pygmy Snaketail (Ophiogomphus howei) in Ontario Ontario Recovery Strategy Series Recovery strategy prepared under the Endangered Species Act, 2007 Ministry of Natural Resources About the Ontario Recovery Strategy Series This series presents the collection of recovery strategies that are prepared or adopted as advice to the Province of Ontario on the recommended approach to recover species at risk. The Province ensures the preparation of recovery strategies to meet its commitments to recover species at risk under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and the Accord for the Protection of Species at Risk in Canada. What is recovery? What’s next? Recovery of species at risk is the process by which the Nine months after the completion of a recovery strategy decline of an endangered, threatened, or extirpated a government response statement will be published species is arrested or reversed, and threats are which summarizes the actions that the Government of removed or reduced to improve the likelihood of a Ontario intends to take in response to the strategy. species’ persistence in the wild. The implementation of recovery strategies depends on the continued cooperation and actions of government agencies, individuals, communities, land users, and What is a recovery strategy? conservationists. Under the ESA a recovery strategy provides the best available scientific knowledge on what is required to For more information achieve recovery of a species. A recovery strategy outlines the habitat needs and the threats to the To learn more about species at risk recovery in Ontario, survival and recovery of the species. It also makes please visit the Ministry of Natural Resources Species at recommendations on the objectives for protection and Risk webpage at: www.ontario.ca/speciesatrisk recovery, the approaches to achieve those objectives, and the area that should be considered in the development of a habitat regulation.
  • Williamsonia

    Williamsonia

    Issue #1, No.Williamsonia 1 Published by the Michigan Odonata Survey Winter, 1997 Welcome to the MOS! Michigan Odonata Survey - by Mark O’Brien This newsletter marks the beginning of 1997, and 1st Meeting Highlights the second six months of the Michigan Odonata Survey. I decided to name the newsletter Williamsonia due to the fact that E.B. Williamson’s collection is the nucleus of On Sept. 28, the MOS held its first meeting, and 14 our Odonata collection at the UMMZ, and also because Odonata enthusaists attended. Tim Vogt gets the the genus bearing his name is a most desirable one, award for "farthest travelled" as he drove from especially in Michigan. The Michigan Odonata Survey is Springfield IL. His knowledge and enthusaism were barely six months old as I write this, and I feel that we greatly appreciated by all of us. With the exception of have accomplished some goals in a short time. Tim Vogt and Bob Glotzhober, the attendees were from The past summer was an exciting one for me, SE lower Michigan. really getting my feet wet (and other body parts) with Bob Glotzhober of the Ohio Dragonfly Survey Odonata in the field. Mike Kielb and I and shared some shared some of his experience from the ODS's real good collecting days. We were lucky this past activities. He made some very pertinent suggestions summer to have found some significant records, and the and observations that we'll try to follow. He also number of new county and state records will likely brought along some copies to sell of the very beautiful increase next season.
  • Status Survey for Special Concern and Endangered Dragonflies in Minnesota

    Status Survey for Special Concern and Endangered Dragonflies in Minnesota

    Conservation Biology Research Grants Program Division of Ecological Services © Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Status Survey for Special Concern and Endangered Dragonflies of Minnesota: Population Status, Inventory and Monitoring Recommendations Submitted to: Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Natural Heritage and Nongame Research Program by Wayne P. Steffens and William A. Smith 1 May 4, 1999 Table of Contents Abstract and Introduction……………………………..2 Methods and Materials………………………………..4 Results and Discussion………………………………..5 • Non-river surveys, alphabetical by county ……….5 • Larval deformities……………………….……….13 • River surveys, alphabetical by river…….………..16 • Population status recommendations for rare dragonflies……………………………….35 Conclusions…………………………………………..47 Literature cited……………………………………….48 Appendix A. New county records for Minnesota dragonflies……………………………50 Appendix B. The damselflies of Minnesota…………53 2 Abstract Status determination surveys for Hine's emerald dragonfly (Somatochlora hineana), Saint Croix snaketail (Ophiogomphus susbehcha), and extra-striped snaketail (O. anomalus) were conducted throughout eastern, central, and northern Minnesota. Threats to these rare species were evaluated, and conservation and population status recommendations for Minnesota dragonflies are presented. Baseline data on other dragonflies in under- surveyed habitats are reported, including several state records and numerous county records. Several collections of damselflies are also reported along with county distribution information,
  • Compendium of Recommended Keys for British Columbia Freshwater Organisms: Part 1 Freshwater Keys Freshwater Keys

    Compendium of Recommended Keys for British Columbia Freshwater Organisms: Part 1 Freshwater Keys Freshwater Keys

    Compendium of Recommended Keys for British Columbia Freshwater Organisms: Part 1 Freshwater Keys Freshwater Keys Executive Summary This document identifies taxonomic keys which are useful for the identification of British Columbian freshwater organisms. This information was gathered from existing publications and from contacting experts on individual groups. All the keys should be readily available from scientific publishing houses and major university or research libraries. There are a few keys listed which are less readily available, but which are very useful if copies can be obtained. Due to the time constraints on this project, experts were not contacted for every group. This document should be reviewed by experts on each of the major taxonomic groups and revised as necessary Findings: The following table outlines the major works available for each group. North American keys which are suitable for Canada are listed only as keys for Canada: Taxonomic Key for B.C. Checklist for Key for Canada Checklist for Group B.C. (P=partial) (N.A.)= North Canada American Key (P=partial) Kingdom Monera Bacteria not applicable not applicable not applicable not applicable Cyanobacteria (“Blue-green algae”) Kingdom Protista Protozoa Kingdom Fungi Fungi Kingdom Plantae Algae Stein & Borden 1979 Aquatic Plants Warrington 1995 Warrington 1995 See Bibliography See Bibliography Kingdom Animalia Sponges Frost 1991 (P) Ricciardi & Reiswig 1993 2 Freshwater Keys Taxonomic Key for B.C. Checklist for Key for Canada Checklist for Group B.C. (P=partial) (N.A.)=
  • New Hampshire Dragonfly Survey Final Report

    New Hampshire Dragonfly Survey Final Report

    The New Hampshire Dragonfly Survey: A Final Report Pamela D. Hunt, Ph.D. New Hampshire Audubon March 2012 Executive Summary The New Hampshire Dragonfly Survey (NHDS) was a five year effort (2007-2011) to document the distributions of all species of dragonflies and damselflies (insect order Odonata) in the state. The NHDS was a partnership among the New Hampshire Department of Fish and Game (Nongame and Endangered Wildlife Program), New Hampshire Audubon, and the University of New Hampshire Cooperative Extension. In addition to documenting distribution, the NHDS had a specific focus on collecting data on species of potential conservation concern and their habitats. Core funding was provided through State Wildlife Grants to the New Hampshire Fish and Game Department. The project relied extensively on the volunteer efforts of citizen scientists, who were trained at one of 12 workshops held during the first four years of the project. Of approximately 240 such trainees, 60 went on to contribute data to the project, with significant data submitted by another 35 observers with prior experience. Roughly 50 people, including both trained and experienced observers, collected smaller amounts of incidental data. Over the five years, volunteers contributed a minimum of 6400 hours and 27,000 miles. Separate funding facilitated targeted surveys along the Merrimack and Lamprey rivers and at eight of New Hampshire Audubon’s wildlife sanctuaries. A total of 18,248 vouchered records were submitted to the NHDS. These represent 157 of the 164 species ever reported for the state, and included records of four species not previously known to occur in New Hampshire.