Species at Risk 2005
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
Plant List Bristow Prairie & High Divide Trail
*Non-native Bristow Prairie & High Divide Trail Plant List as of 7/12/2016 compiled by Tanya Harvey T24S.R3E.S33;T25S.R3E.S4 westerncascades.com FERNS & ALLIES Pseudotsuga menziesii Ribes lacustre Athyriaceae Tsuga heterophylla Ribes sanguineum Athyrium filix-femina Tsuga mertensiana Ribes viscosissimum Cystopteridaceae Taxaceae Rhamnaceae Cystopteris fragilis Taxus brevifolia Ceanothus velutinus Dennstaedtiaceae TREES & SHRUBS: DICOTS Rosaceae Pteridium aquilinum Adoxaceae Amelanchier alnifolia Dryopteridaceae Sambucus nigra ssp. caerulea Holodiscus discolor Polystichum imbricans (Sambucus mexicana, S. cerulea) Prunus emarginata (Polystichum munitum var. imbricans) Sambucus racemosa Rosa gymnocarpa Polystichum lonchitis Berberidaceae Rubus lasiococcus Polystichum munitum Berberis aquifolium (Mahonia aquifolium) Rubus leucodermis Equisetaceae Berberis nervosa Rubus nivalis Equisetum arvense (Mahonia nervosa) Rubus parviflorus Ophioglossaceae Betulaceae Botrychium simplex Rubus ursinus Alnus viridis ssp. sinuata Sceptridium multifidum (Alnus sinuata) Sorbus scopulina (Botrychium multifidum) Caprifoliaceae Spiraea douglasii Polypodiaceae Lonicera ciliosa Salicaceae Polypodium hesperium Lonicera conjugialis Populus tremuloides Pteridaceae Symphoricarpos albus Salix geyeriana Aspidotis densa Symphoricarpos mollis Salix scouleriana Cheilanthes gracillima (Symphoricarpos hesperius) Salix sitchensis Cryptogramma acrostichoides Celastraceae Salix sp. (Cryptogramma crispa) Paxistima myrsinites Sapindaceae Selaginellaceae (Pachystima myrsinites) -
Likely to Have Habitat Within Iras That ALLOW Road
Item 3a - Sensitive Species National Master List By Region and Species Group Not likely to have habitat within IRAs Not likely to have Federal Likely to have habitat that DO NOT ALLOW habitat within IRAs Candidate within IRAs that DO Likely to have habitat road (re)construction that ALLOW road Forest Service Species Under NOT ALLOW road within IRAs that ALLOW but could be (re)construction but Species Scientific Name Common Name Species Group Region ESA (re)construction? road (re)construction? affected? could be affected? Bufo boreas boreas Boreal Western Toad Amphibian 1 No Yes Yes No No Plethodon vandykei idahoensis Coeur D'Alene Salamander Amphibian 1 No Yes Yes No No Rana pipiens Northern Leopard Frog Amphibian 1 No Yes Yes No No Accipiter gentilis Northern Goshawk Bird 1 No Yes Yes No No Ammodramus bairdii Baird's Sparrow Bird 1 No No Yes No No Anthus spragueii Sprague's Pipit Bird 1 No No Yes No No Centrocercus urophasianus Sage Grouse Bird 1 No Yes Yes No No Cygnus buccinator Trumpeter Swan Bird 1 No Yes Yes No No Falco peregrinus anatum American Peregrine Falcon Bird 1 No Yes Yes No No Gavia immer Common Loon Bird 1 No Yes Yes No No Histrionicus histrionicus Harlequin Duck Bird 1 No Yes Yes No No Lanius ludovicianus Loggerhead Shrike Bird 1 No Yes Yes No No Oreortyx pictus Mountain Quail Bird 1 No Yes Yes No No Otus flammeolus Flammulated Owl Bird 1 No Yes Yes No No Picoides albolarvatus White-Headed Woodpecker Bird 1 No Yes Yes No No Picoides arcticus Black-Backed Woodpecker Bird 1 No Yes Yes No No Speotyto cunicularia Burrowing -
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 -
GIS Handbook Appendices
Aerial Survey GIS Handbook Appendix D Revised 11/19/2007 Appendix D Cooperating Agency Codes The following table lists the aerial survey cooperating agencies and codes to be used in the agency1, agency2, agency3 fields of the flown/not flown coverages. The contents of this list is available in digital form (.dbf) at the following website: http://www.fs.fed.us/foresthealth/publications/id/id_guidelines.html 28 Aerial Survey GIS Handbook Appendix D Revised 11/19/2007 Code Agency Name AFC Alabama Forestry Commission ADNR Alaska Department of Natural Resources AZFH Arizona Forest Health Program, University of Arizona AZS Arizona State Land Department ARFC Arkansas Forestry Commission CDF California Department of Forestry CSFS Colorado State Forest Service CTAES Connecticut Agricultural Experiment Station DEDA Delaware Department of Agriculture FDOF Florida Division of Forestry FTA Fort Apache Indian Reservation GFC Georgia Forestry Commission HOA Hopi Indian Reservation IDL Idaho Department of Lands INDNR Indiana Department of Natural Resources IADNR Iowa Department of Natural Resources KDF Kentucky Division of Forestry LDAF Louisiana Department of Agriculture and Forestry MEFS Maine Forest Service MDDA Maryland Department of Agriculture MADCR Massachusetts Department of Conservation and Recreation MIDNR Michigan Department of Natural Resources MNDNR Minnesota Department of Natural Resources MFC Mississippi Forestry Commission MODC Missouri Department of Conservation NAO Navajo Area Indian Reservation NDCNR Nevada Department of Conservation -
Papilio Series) @17 2006
(NEW April 28 PAPILIO SERIES) @17 2006 PROPOSALS FOR A NEW INSECT STUDY, COMMERCE, AND CONSERVATION LAW THAT DEREGULATES DEAD INSECTS, AND PROPOSALS FOR FIXING THE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT AS APPLIED TO INSECTS By Dr. James A. Scott, 60 Estes St., Lakewood, Colorado, 80226 (Ph.D. in entomology, University of California, Berkeley) Why Do We Need New Insect Laws? The current laws regulating insects (and plants) in the U.S. are very bad. They were made for deer, and are only incidentally being applied to insects, because no legislators ever thought to make laws specifically targeted at insects that are not agricultural pests. These laws are not serving the conservation of insects well, and the laws are retarding the taxonomic study of insects, and are making criminals out of harmless hobbyist insect collectors. Basically, large animals like deer and Bighorn Sheep can be managed by controlling the numbers hunted using bag limits and exclusion areas etc., and roping and corraling them and transporting them to new sites. Large animals tend to have low population numbers, so might need to be protected from hunting (after all, at the end of the shooting spree in the late 1800s, the U.S. reached a low of population numbers for Bison and deer and nearly every other large animal, and their numbers have gradually recovered since). But insects are tiny by comparison, and their population sizes are huge by comparison. The average insect may be a thousand or a million times more numerous than your average deer'. Insect population sizes cannot be "managed" like deer, because population sizes vary hugely mostly depending on the weather and other uncontrollable factors, and their survival depends on the continued survival of their habitat, rather than useless government intervention. -
List of Animal Species with Ranks October 2017
Washington Natural Heritage Program List of Animal Species with Ranks October 2017 The following list of animals known from Washington is complete for resident and transient vertebrates and several groups of invertebrates, including odonates, branchipods, tiger beetles, butterflies, gastropods, freshwater bivalves and bumble bees. Some species from other groups are included, especially where there are conservation concerns. Among these are the Palouse giant earthworm, a few moths and some of our mayflies and grasshoppers. Currently 857 vertebrate and 1,100 invertebrate taxa are included. Conservation status, in the form of range-wide, national and state ranks are assigned to each taxon. Information on species range and distribution, number of individuals, population trends and threats is collected into a ranking form, analyzed, and used to assign ranks. Ranks are updated periodically, as new information is collected. We welcome new information for any species on our list. Common Name Scientific Name Class Global Rank State Rank State Status Federal Status Northwestern Salamander Ambystoma gracile Amphibia G5 S5 Long-toed Salamander Ambystoma macrodactylum Amphibia G5 S5 Tiger Salamander Ambystoma tigrinum Amphibia G5 S3 Ensatina Ensatina eschscholtzii Amphibia G5 S5 Dunn's Salamander Plethodon dunni Amphibia G4 S3 C Larch Mountain Salamander Plethodon larselli Amphibia G3 S3 S Van Dyke's Salamander Plethodon vandykei Amphibia G3 S3 C Western Red-backed Salamander Plethodon vehiculum Amphibia G5 S5 Rough-skinned Newt Taricha granulosa -
A Reconnaissance of Population Genetic Variation in Arctic and Subarctic Sulfur Butterflies (Colias Spp.; Lepidoptera, Pieridae)
1614 A reconnaissance of population genetic variation in arctic and subarctic sulfur butterflies (Colias spp.; Lepidoptera, Pieridae) Christopher W. Wheat, Ward B. Watt, and Christian L. Boutwell Abstract: Genotype–phenotype–environment interactions in temperate-zone species of Colias Fabricius, 1807 have been well studied in evolutionary terms. Arctic and alpine habitats present a different range of ecological, especially thermal, conditions under which such work could be extended across species and higher clades. To this end, we survey variation in three genes that code for phosphoglucose isomerase (PGI), phosphoglucomutase (PGM), and glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase (G6PD) in seven arctic and alpine Colias taxa (one only for G6PD). These genes are highly polymor- phic in all taxa studied. Patterns of variation for the PGI gene in these northern taxa suggest that the balancing selec- tion seen at this gene in temperate-zone taxa may extend throughout northern North America. Comparative study of these taxa may thus give insight into the mechanisms driving genetic differentiation among subspecies, species, and broader clades, supporting the study of both micro- and macro-evolutionary questions. Résumé : L’étude des interactions génotype–phénotype–environnement chez les papillons Colias Fabricius, 1807 de la région tempérée s’est faite dans une perspective évolutive. Les habitats arctiques et alpins offrent une gamme différente de conditions écologiques et, en particulier, thermiques dans lesquelles un tel travail peut s’étendre au niveau des espè- ces et des clades supérieurs. Dans ce but, nous avons étudié la variation de trois gènes — ceux de la phosphoglucose isomérase (PGI), de la phosphoglucomutase (PGM) et de la glucose-6-phosphate déshydrogénase (G6PD) — chez sept taxons de Colias arctiques et alpins (un seul taxon pour G6PD). -
Mcclinton Unr 0139M 13052.Pdf
University of Nevada, Reno Habitat preferences, intraspecific variation, and restoration of a rare soil specialist in northern Nevada A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science in Natural Resources and Environmental Science by Jamey D. McClinton Dr. Elizabeth A. Leger/Thesis Advisor December, 2019 Copyright by Jamey D. McClinton 2019 All Rights Reserved We recommend that the thesis prepared under our supervision by Jamey D. McClinton Entitled Habitat preferences, intraspecific variation, and restoration of a rare soil specialist in northern Nevada be accepted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE Elizabeth Leger, Ph.D., Advisor Paul Verburg, Ph.D., Committee member Thomas Parchman, Ph.D., Graduate School Representative David W. Zeh, Ph.D., Dean, Graduate School December-2019 i Abstract Edaphic specialization in plants is associated with the development of novel adaptations that frequently lead to speciation, causing unique edaphic environments to be associated with rare and endemic plant species worldwide. These species contribute significantly to global biodiversity, but are especially vulnerable to disturbance and climate change because of their inherently patchy distributions and locally adapted populations. Successful conservation of these species depends upon understanding their habitat requirements and the amounts and distributions of genetic and phenotypic diversity among populations. Little is known about the habitat requirements or -
(Neonympha M. Mitchellii) in Michigan: Final Report — 2000
Surveys for the Recovery of Mitchells Satyr Butterfly (Neonympha m. mitchellii) in Michigan: Final Report - 2000 Prepared by: Daria A. Hyde, Mary L. Rabe, David L. Cuthrell, Michael A. Kost Michigan Natural Features Inventory P.O. Box 30444 Lansing, MI 48909-7944 For: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Region 3 Endangered Species Office Federal Building, Fort Snelling Twin Cities, MN 55111 Report Number 2001-05 Submitted March 31, 2001 Cover Photo Identification and Credits: Prairie fen habitat photo by: Michael A. Kost Mitchells satyr photo by: Daria A. Hyde Table of Contents Introduction .................................................................................................................................................................... 1 Methods ........................................................................................................................................................................... 3 Mitchells Satyr Surveys and Threat Assessment ......................................................................................................... 4 Surveys for Associated Rare Species ........................................................................................................................... 4 Mitchells Satyr Monitoring ......................................................................................................................................... 6 Michells Satyr Oviposition Observations and Larval Searches ................................................................................. -
Papilio 0 0000 ..;)
1 NEW :ft{t 2 Nov. 15,1982 SERIES • $1.50 PAPILIO 0 0000 ..;) THE Lil'E HISTORY AND l!XlOLOGY f!F AN ALPINE RELICT, BOLORIA !MFR.OBA ACROCNEMA (LEPIDOP.rEltA: NYMPHALIDAE), ILLUSTRATING A NE.W MATHEMATICAL POPULATION CENSUS MEl'HOD Dr. James A. Scott, 60 Estes St., Lakewood, Colorado, 80226 Abstract. The egg, larva, and pupa of B. improba acrocnema are described and illustrated. The larval foodplant Is Salix nivalis. There are five instars; overwintering occurs in the fourth instar, and perhaps also in the first instar. Adults fly slowly near the ground, and are very local. Males patrol to find females. Adults often visit flowers, and bask on dark soil by spreading the wings laterally. A binomial method is derived and used to determine daily population size. Daily population size may be as large as 655, and yearly population size may reach two thousand in a few hectares. Introduction Boloria improba (Butl.) is a circumpolar butterfly, occurring from northern Scandinavia eastward to northern Siberia and arctic America. In North America it occurs from Alaska to Baffin r., south to central Alberta, and a relict subspecies acrocnema G. & s. occurs in the alpine San Juan Mts. of Colorado. The life history and ecology of improba were nearly unknown. This paper presents the complete life history and details of the. life cycle, ecology, and behavior, studied from 1979 to 1981. In addition, a new method of computing the population size of one continuous mark recapture sample is presented, which is useful for quick survey work on colonial animals like insects. -
Winter Bird Highlights 2013
FROM PROJECT FEEDERWAtch 2012–13 Focus on citizen science • Volume 9 Winter BirdHighlights Winter npredictability is one constant as each winter Focus on Citizen Science is a publication highlight- ing the contributions of citizen scientists. This is- brings surprises to our feeders. The 2012–13 sue, Winter Bird Highlights 2013, is brought to you by Project FeederWatch, a research and education proj- season broke many regional records with sis- ect of the Cornell Lab of Ornithology and Bird Studies U Canada. Project FeederWatch is made possible by the kins and nuthatches moving south in record numbers efforts and support of thousands of citizen scientists. to tantalize FeederWatchers across much of the con- Project FeederWatch Staff tinent. This remarkable year also brought a record- David Bonter breaking number of FeederWatchers, with more than Project Leader, USA Janis Dickinson 20,000 participants in the US and Canada combined! Director of Citizen Science, USA Kristine Dobney Whether you’ve been FeederWatching for 26 years or Project Assistant, Canada Wesley Hochachka this is your first season counting, the usual suspects— Senior Research Associate, USA chickadees, juncos, and woodpeckers—always bring Anne Marie Johnson Project Assistant, USA familiarity and enjoyment, as well as valuable data, Rosie Kirton Project Support, Canada even if you don’t observe anything unusual. Whichever Denis Lepage birds arrive at your feeder, we hope they will bring a Senior Scientist, Canada Susan E. Newman sense of wonder that captures your attention. Thanks Project Assistant, USA for sharing your observations and insights with us and, Kerrie Wilcox Project Leader, Canada most importantly, Happy FeederWatching. -
Papilio (New Series) #24 2016 Issn 2372-9449
PAPILIO (NEW SERIES) #24 2016 ISSN 2372-9449 MEAD’S BUTTERFLIES IN COLORADO, 1871 by James A. Scott, Ph.D. in entomology, University of California Berkeley, 1972 (e-mail: [email protected]) Table of Contents Introduction………………………………………………………..……….……………….p. 1 Locations of Localities Mentioned Below…………………………………..……..……….p. 7 Summary of Butterflies Collected at Mead’s Major Localities………………….…..……..p. 8 Mead’s Butterflies, Sorted by Butterfly Species…………………………………………..p. 11 Diary of Mead’s Travels and Butterflies Collected……………………………….……….p. 43 Identity of Mead’s Field Names for Butterflies he Collected……………………….…….p. 64 Discussion and Conclusions………………………………………………….……………p. 66 Acknowledgments………………………………………………………….……………...p. 67 Literature Cited……………………………………………………………….………...….p. 67 Table 1………………………………………………………………………….………..….p. 6 Table 2……………………………………………………………………………………..p. 37 Introduction Theodore L. Mead (1852-1936) visited central Colorado from June to September 1871 to collect butterflies. Considerable effort has been spent trying to determine the identities of the butterflies he collected for his future father-in-law William Henry Edwards, and where he collected them. Brown (1956) tried to deduce his itinerary based on the specimens and the few letters etc. available to him then. Brown (1964-1987) designated lectotypes and neotypes for the names of the butterflies that William Henry Edwards described, including 24 based on Mead’s specimens. Brown & Brown (1996) published many later-discovered letters written by Mead describing his travels and collections. Calhoun (2013) purchased Mead’s journal and published Mead’s brief journal descriptions of his collecting efforts and his travels by stage and horseback and walking, and Calhoun commented on some of the butterflies he collected (especially lectotypes). Calhoun (2015a) published an abbreviated summary of Mead’s travels using those improved locations from the journal etc., and detailed the type localities of some of the butterflies named from Mead specimens.