DOCSLIB.ORG

Environmental Assessment

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Environmental Assessment ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE MICHIGAN KARNER BLUE BUTTERFLY HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN AND INCIDENTAL TAKE PERMIT Prepared by: Michigan Department of Natural Resources Wildlife Division Stevens T. Mason Building P.O. Box 30444 Lansing, MI 48909 for: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service East Lansing Field Office 2651 Coolidge Road, Suite 101 East Lansing, Michigan 48823 January 15, 2009 January 15, 2009 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. PURPOSE AND NEED .................................................................................................... 6 1.1 Purpose................................................................................................................... 6 1.2 Need........................................................................................................................ 6 1.3 Decisions that Need To Be Made ......................................................................... 7 1.4 Background ........................................................................................................... 7 2. ALTERNATIVES AND ASSOCIATED TAKE ACTIONS, INCLUDING THE PROPOSED ACTION .......................................................................................... 10 2.1 Alternatives Not Considered for Detailed Analysis......................................... 10 2.1.1 Mitigation Banking ................................................................................... 10 2.1.2 Provision of Refuges................................................................................. 11 2.1.3 Zoning Restrictions................................................................................... 11 2.2 Alternatives Carried forward for Detailed Analysis ....................................... 11 2.2.1 Alternative A: Comprehensive HCP (Proposed Action) ......................... 12 2.2.2 Alternative B: No Action......................................................................... 25 2.2.3 Alternative C: Reduced-scope HCP......................................................... 32 2.3 Summary of Alternative Actions Table ............................................................ 34 3. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT ..................................................................................... 35 3.1 Physical Characteristics ..................................................................................... 35 3.1.1 Climate...................................................................................................... 35 3.1.2 Topography and Soils ............................................................................... 36 3.1.3 Hydrology ................................................................................................. 36 3.1.4 Water Quality............................................................................................ 37 3.1.5 Air Quality ................................................................................................ 37 3.2 Biological Environment...................................................................................... 37 3.2.1 Habitat and Vegetation ............................................................................. 37 3.2.2 Listed, Proposed and Candidate Species .................................................. 43 3.2.3 Other Wildlife Species.............................................................................. 55 3.3 Land Use .............................................................................................................. 58 3.3.1 Statewide................................................................................................... 58 3.3.2 Oak Savannas............................................................................................ 59 3.4 Cultural/Paleontological Resources .................................................................. 60 3.5 Local Socio-economic Conditions...................................................................... 60 4. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES.................................................................... 61 4.1 Alternative A: Comprehensive HCP (Proposed Action)................................ 61 4.1.1 Physical Impacts ....................................................................................... 61 4.1.2 Biological Impacts .................................................................................... 68 4.1.3 Listed, Proposed and Candidate Species .................................................. 71 4.1.4 Cultural Resources.................................................................................... 77 4.1.5 Environmental Justice............................................................................... 77 4.1.6 Cumulative Impacts .................................................................................. 77 4.2 Alternative B: No Action................................................................................... 80 4.2.1 Physical Impacts ....................................................................................... 81 4.2.2 Biological Impacts .................................................................................... 82 4.2.3 Listed, Proposed and Candidate Species .................................................. 84 January 15, 2009 3 4.2.4 Cultural Resources.................................................................................... 88 4.2.5 Environmental Justice............................................................................... 88 4.2.6 Cumulative Impacts .................................................................................. 88 4.3 Alternative C: Reduced-scope HCP................................................................. 90 4.3.1 Physical Impacts ....................................................................................... 90 4.3.2 Biological Impacts .................................................................................... 92 4.3.3 Listed, Proposed and Candidate Species .................................................. 94 4.3.4 Cultural Resources.................................................................................... 98 4.3.5 Environmental Justice............................................................................... 99 4.3.6 Cumulative Impacts .................................................................................. 99 4.4 Summary of Environmental Consequences by Alternative.......................... 101 5. CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION WITH THE PUBLIC AND OTHERS........................................................................................................................ 106 6. PUBLIC COMMENT ON DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND RESPONSE.......................................................................................................... 108 7. REFERENCES CITED................................................................................................ 110 January 15, 2009 4 LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Acres of occupied Karner blue butterfly habitat currently known to occur on public and non-public land within each Recovery Unit.................................................... 10 Table 2. Summary of the alternative actions carried forward for detailed analysis. ................... 34 Table 3. Physical aspects of the Oak Savanna Ecosystem within each Recovery Unit (adapted from Albert 1995). ............................................................................................. 36 Table 4. Nectar plant species reported to be used by KBB (reproduced from USFWS 2003a). Scientific names follow Ownby and Morley (1991), Gleason and Cronquist (1991) or Swink and Wilhelm (1994). ............................................................. 39 Table 5. Wildlife species classified as threatened or endangered under Michigan law that potentially occur in or near occupied KBB habitat........................................................... 47 Table 6. Plant species classified as threatened or endangered under Michigan law that potentially occur in or near occupied KBB habitat........................................................... 51 Table 7. Species of Greatest Conservation Need associated with savannas in the Lower Peninsula of Michigan (adapted from Eagle et al. 2005).................................................. 55 Table 8. Summary of environmental consequences by alternative............................................ 101 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Townships in Michigan with known occurrences of Karner blue butterfly (adapted from Fettinger 2005). ........................................................................................... 8 Figure 2. Karner blue butterfly Recovery Units, Recovery Unit Annexes, and Potential Recovery Units in Michigan. .............................................................................................. 9 January 15, 2009 5 1. PURPOSE AND NEED 1.1 Purpose The Michigan Department of Natural Resources (DNR) has developed the Michigan Karner Blue Butterfly Habitat Conservation Plan (hereafter, Comprehensive HCP; Michigan DNR 2007) to facilitate the conservation of the Oak Savanna Ecosystem, Karner blue butterfly (Lycaeides melissa samuelis; KBB) and other associated species of concern on non-federal land in Michigan. It outlines activities that will be conducted to maintain the early-successional habitat conditions necessary to support savanna species and communities. It also integrates diverse land uses with conservation objectives by outlining measures to avoid, minimize and mitigate take of KBB and other species that could be
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Natural Communities of Michigan: Classification and Description
    Natural Communities of Michigan: Classification and Description Prepared by: Michael A. Kost, Dennis A. Albert, Joshua G. Cohen, Bradford S. Slaughter, Rebecca K. Schillo, Christopher R. Weber, and Kim A. Chapman Michigan Natural Features Inventory P.O. Box 13036 Lansing, MI 48901-3036 For: Michigan Department of Natural Resources Wildlife Division and Forest, Mineral and Fire Management Division September 30, 2007 Report Number 2007-21 Version 1.2 Last Updated: July 9, 2010 Suggested Citation: Kost, M.A., D.A. Albert, J.G. Cohen, B.S. Slaughter, R.K. Schillo, C.R. Weber, and K.A. Chapman. 2007. Natural Communities of Michigan: Classification and Description. Michigan Natural Features Inventory, Report Number 2007-21, Lansing, MI. 314 pp. Copyright 2007 Michigan State University Board of Trustees. Michigan State University Extension programs and materials are open to all without regard to race, color, national origin, gender, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, marital status or family status. Cover photos: Top left, Dry Sand Prairie at Indian Lake, Newaygo County (M. Kost); top right, Limestone Bedrock Lakeshore, Summer Island, Delta County (J. Cohen); lower left, Muskeg, Luce County (J. Cohen); and lower right, Mesic Northern Forest as a matrix natural community, Porcupine Mountains Wilderness State Park, Ontonagon County (M. Kost). Acknowledgements We thank the Michigan Department of Natural Resources Wildlife Division and Forest, Mineral, and Fire Management Division for funding this effort to classify and describe the natural communities of Michigan. This work relied heavily on data collected by many present and former Michigan Natural Features Inventory (MNFI) field scientists and collaborators, including members of the Michigan Natural Areas Council.
    [Show full text]
  • Insects of Western North America 4. Survey of Selected Insect Taxa of Fort Sill, Comanche County, Oklahoma 2
    Insects of Western North America 4. Survey of Selected Insect Taxa of Fort Sill, Comanche County, Oklahoma 2. Dragonflies (Odonata), Stoneflies (Plecoptera) and selected Moths (Lepidoptera) Contributions of the C.P. Gillette Museum of Arthropod Diversity Colorado State University Survey of Selected Insect Taxa of Fort Sill, Comanche County, Oklahoma 2. Dragonflies (Odonata), Stoneflies (Plecoptera) and selected Moths (Lepidoptera) by Boris C. Kondratieff, Paul A. Opler, Matthew C. Garhart, and Jason P. Schmidt C.P. Gillette Museum of Arthropod Diversity Department of Bioagricultural Sciences and Pest Management Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado 80523 March 15, 2004 Contributions of the C.P. Gillette Museum of Arthropod Diversity Colorado State University Cover illustration (top to bottom): Widow Skimmer (Libellula luctuosa) [photo ©Robert Behrstock], Stonefly (Perlesta species) [photo © David H. Funk, White- lined Sphinx (Hyles lineata) [photo © Matthew C. Garhart] 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, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado 80523 Copyrighted 2004 Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY……………………………………………………………………………….…1 INTRODUCTION…………………………………………..…………………………………………….…3 OBJECTIVE………………………………………………………………………………………….………5 Site Descriptions………………………………………….. METHODS AND MATERIALS…………………………………………………………………………….5 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION………………………………………………………………………..…...11 Dragonflies………………………………………………………………………………….……..11
    [Show full text]
  • Northern Fen Communitynorthern Abstract Fen, Page 1
    Northern Fen CommunityNorthern Abstract Fen, Page 1 Community Range Prevalent or likely prevalent Infrequent or likely infrequent Absent or likely absent Photo by Joshua G. Cohen Overview: Northern fen is a sedge- and rush-dominated 8,000 years. Expansion of peatlands likely occurred wetland occurring on neutral to moderately alkaline following climatic cooling, approximately 5,000 years saturated peat and/or marl influenced by groundwater ago (Heinselman 1970, Boelter and Verry 1977, Riley rich in calcium and magnesium carbonates. The 1989). community occurs north of the climatic tension zone and is found primarily where calcareous bedrock Several other natural peatland communities also underlies a thin mantle of glacial drift on flat areas or occur in Michigan and can be distinguished from shallow depressions of glacial outwash and glacial minerotrophic (nutrient-rich) northern fens, based on lakeplains and also in kettle depressions on pitted comparisons of nutrient levels, flora, canopy closure, outwash and moraines. distribution, landscape context, and groundwater influence (Kost et al. 2007). Northern fen is dominated Global and State Rank: G3G5/S3 by sedges, rushes, and grasses (Mitsch and Gosselink 2000). Additional open wetlands occurring on organic Range: Northern fen is a peatland type of glaciated soils include coastal fen, poor fen, prairie fen, bog, landscapes of the northern Great Lakes region, ranging intermittent wetland, and northern wet meadow. Bogs, from Michigan west to Minnesota and northward peat-covered wetlands raised above the surrounding into central Canada (Ontario, Manitoba, and Quebec) groundwater by an accumulation of peat, receive inputs (Gignac et al. 2000, Faber-Langendoen 2001, Amon of nutrients and water primarily from precipitation et al.
    [Show full text]
  • Working List of Prairie Restricted (Specialist) Insects in Wisconsin (11/26/2015)
    Working List of Prairie Restricted (Specialist) Insects in Wisconsin (11/26/2015) By Richard Henderson Research Ecologist, WI DNR Bureau of Science Services Summary This is a preliminary list of insects that are either well known, or likely, to be closely associated with Wisconsin’s original native prairie. These species are mostly dependent upon remnants of original prairie, or plantings/restorations of prairie where their hosts have been re-established (see discussion below), and thus are rarely found outside of these settings. The list also includes some species tied to native ecosystems that grade into prairie, such as savannas, sand barrens, fens, sedge meadow, and shallow marsh. The list is annotated with known host(s) of each insect, and the likelihood of its presence in the state (see key at end of list for specifics). This working list is a byproduct of a prairie invertebrate study I coordinated from1995-2005 that covered 6 Midwestern states and included 14 cooperators. The project surveyed insects on prairie remnants and investigated the effects of fire on those insects. It was funded in part by a series of grants from the US Fish and Wildlife Service. So far, the list has 475 species. However, this is a partial list at best, representing approximately only ¼ of the prairie-specialist insects likely present in the region (see discussion below). Significant input to this list is needed, as there are major taxa groups missing or greatly under represented. Such absence is not necessarily due to few or no prairie-specialists in those groups, but due more to lack of knowledge about life histories (at least published knowledge), unsettled taxonomy, and lack of taxonomic specialists currently working in those groups.
    [Show full text]
  • HABITAT MANAGEMENT PLAN Green Bay and Gravel Island
    HABITAT MANAGEMENT PLAN Green Bay and Gravel Island National Wildlife Refuges October 2017 Habitat Management Plans provide long-term guidance for management decisions; set forth goals, objectives, and strategies needed to accomplish refuge purposes; and, identify the Fish and Wildlife Service’s best estimate of future needs. These plans detail program planning levels that are sometimes substantially above current budget allocations and as such, are primarily for Service strategic planning and program prioritization purposes. The plans do not constitute a commitment for staffing increases, operational and maintenance increases, or funding for future land acquisition. The National Wildlife Refuge System, managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, is the world's premier system of public lands and waters set aside to conserve America's fish, wildlife, and plants. Since the designation of the first wildlife refuge in 1903, the System has grown to encompass more than 150 million acres, 556 national wildlife refuges and other units of the Refuge System, plus 38 wetland management districts. This page intentionally left blank. Habitat Management Plan for Green Bay and Gravel Island National Wildlife Refuges EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This Habitat Management Plan (HMP) provides vision and specific guidance on enhancing and managing habitat for the resources of concern (ROC) at the refuge. The contributions of the refuge to ecosystem- and landscape-scale wildlife and biodiversity conservation, specifically migratory waterfowl, are incorporated into this HMP. The HMP is intended to provide habitat management direction for the next 15 years. The HMP is also needed to ensure that the refuge continues to conserve habitat for migratory birds in the context of climate change, which affects all units of the National Wildlife Refuge System.
    [Show full text]
  • Species at Risk on Department of Defense Installations
    Species at Risk on Department of Defense Installations Revised Report and Documentation Prepared for: Department of Defense U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Submitted by: January 2004 Species at Risk on Department of Defense Installations: Revised Report and Documentation CONTENTS 1.0 Executive Summary..........................................................................................iii 2.0 Introduction – Project Description................................................................. 1 3.0 Methods ................................................................................................................ 3 3.1 NatureServe Data................................................................................................ 3 3.2 DOD Installations............................................................................................... 5 3.3 Species at Risk .................................................................................................... 6 4.0 Results................................................................................................................... 8 4.1 Nationwide Assessment of Species at Risk on DOD Installations..................... 8 4.2 Assessment of Species at Risk by Military Service.......................................... 13 4.3 Assessment of Species at Risk on Installations ................................................ 15 5.0 Conclusion and Management Recommendations.................................... 22 6.0 Future Directions.............................................................................................
    [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]
  • Amorpha Canescens Pursh Leadplant
    leadplant, Page 1 Amorpha canescens Pursh leadplant State Distribution Best Survey Period Photo by Susan R. Crispin Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Status: State special concern the Mississippi valley through Arkansas to Texas and in the western Great Plains from Montana south Global and state rank: G5/S3 through Wyoming and Colorado to New Mexico. It is considered rare in Arkansas and Wyoming and is known Other common names: lead-plant, downy indigobush only from historical records in Montana and Ontario (NatureServe 2006). Family: Fabaceae (pea family); also known as the Leguminosae. State distribution: Of Michigan’s more than 50 occurrences of this prairie species, the vast majority of Synonym: Amorpha brachycarpa E.J. Palmer sites are concentrated in southwest Lower Michigan, with Kalamazoo, St. Joseph, and Cass counties alone Taxonomy: The Fabaceae is divided into three well accounting for more than 40 of these records. Single known and distinct subfamilies, the Mimosoideae, outlying occurrences have been documented in the Caesalpinioideae, and Papilionoideae, which are last two decades from prairie remnants in Oakland and frequently recognized at the rank of family (the Livingston counties in southeast Michigan. Mimosaceae, Caesalpiniaceae, and Papilionaceae or Fabaceae, respectively). Of the three subfamilies, Recognition: Leadplant is an erect, simple to sparsely Amorpha is placed within the Papilionoideae (Voss branching shrub ranging up to ca. 1 m in height, 1985). Sparsely hairy plants of leadplant with greener characterized by its pale to grayish color derived from leaves have been segregated variously as A. canescens a close pubescence of whitish hairs that cover the plant var.
    [Show full text]
  • Arquivos De Zoologia MUSEU DE ZOOLOGIA DA UNIVERSIDADE DE SÃO PAULO
    Arquivos de Zoologia MUSEU DE ZOOLOGIA DA UNIVERSIDADE DE SÃO PAULO ISSN 0066-7870 ARQ. ZOOL. S. PAULO 37(1):1-139 12.11.2002 A SYNONYMIC CATALOG OF THE NEOTROPICAL CRABRONIDAE AND SPHECIDAE (HYMENOPTERA: APOIDEA) SÉRVIO TÚLIO P. A MARANTE Abstract A synonymyc catalogue for the species of Neotropical Crabronidae and Sphecidae is presented, including all synonyms, geographical distribution and pertinent references. The catalogue includes 152 genera and 1834 species (1640 spp. in Crabronidae, 194 spp. in Sphecidae), plus 190 species recorded from Nearctic Mexico (168 spp. in Crabronidae, 22 spp. in Sphecidae). The former Sphecidae (sensu Menke, 1997 and auct.) is divided in two families: Crabronidae (Astatinae, Bembicinae, Crabroninae, Pemphredoninae and Philanthinae) and Sphecidae (Ampulicinae and Sphecinae). The following subspecies are elevated to species: Podium aureosericeum Kohl, 1902; Podium bugabense Cameron, 1888. New names are proposed for the following junior homonyms: Cerceris modica new name for Cerceris modesta Smith, 1873, non Smith, 1856; Liris formosus new name for Liris bellus Rohwer, 1911, non Lepeletier, 1845; Liris inca new name for Liris peruanus Brèthes, 1926 non Brèthes, 1924; and Trypoxylon guassu new name for Trypoxylon majus Richards, 1934 non Trypoxylon figulus var. majus Kohl, 1883. KEYWORDS: Hymenoptera, Sphecidae, Crabronidae, Catalog, Taxonomy, Systematics, Nomenclature, New Name, Distribution. INTRODUCTION years ago and it is badly outdated now. Bohart and Menke (1976) cleared and updated most of the This catalog arose from the necessity to taxonomy of the spheciform wasps, complemented assess the present taxonomical knowledge of the by a series of errata sheets started by Menke and Neotropical spheciform wasps1, the Crabronidae Bohart (1979) and continued by Menke in the and Sphecidae.
    [Show full text]
  • CHECKLIST of WISCONSIN MOTHS (Superfamilies Mimallonoidea, Drepanoidea, Lasiocampoidea, Bombycoidea, Geometroidea, and Noctuoidea)
    WISCONSIN ENTOMOLOGICAL SOCIETY SPECIAL PUBLICATION No. 6 JUNE 2018 CHECKLIST OF WISCONSIN MOTHS (Superfamilies Mimallonoidea, Drepanoidea, Lasiocampoidea, Bombycoidea, Geometroidea, and Noctuoidea) Leslie A. Ferge,1 George J. Balogh2 and Kyle E. Johnson3 ABSTRACT A total of 1284 species representing the thirteen families comprising the present checklist have been documented in Wisconsin, including 293 species of Geometridae, 252 species of Erebidae and 584 species of Noctuidae. Distributions are summarized using the six major natural divisions of Wisconsin; adult flight periods and statuses within the state are also reported. Examples of Wisconsin’s diverse native habitat types in each of the natural divisions have been systematically inventoried, and species associated with specialized habitats such as peatland, prairie, barrens and dunes are listed. INTRODUCTION This list is an updated version of the Wisconsin moth checklist by Ferge & Balogh (2000). A considerable amount of new information from has been accumulated in the 18 years since that initial publication. Over sixty species have been added, bringing the total to 1284 in the thirteen families comprising this checklist. These families are estimated to comprise approximately one-half of the state’s total moth fauna. Historical records of Wisconsin moths are relatively meager. Checklists including Wisconsin moths were compiled by Hoy (1883), Rauterberg (1900), Fernekes (1906) and Muttkowski (1907). Hoy's list was restricted to Racine County, the others to Milwaukee County. Records from these publications are of historical interest, but unfortunately few verifiable voucher specimens exist. Unverifiable identifications and minimal label data associated with older museum specimens limit the usefulness of this information. Covell (1970) compiled records of 222 Geometridae species, based on his examination of specimens representing at least 30 counties.
    [Show full text]
  • Michigan Karner Blue Butterfly HCP
    DRAFT MICHIGAN KARNER BLUE BUTTERFLY HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN Photograph by Jennifer Kleitch ATU F N RA O L T R Printed by Authority of: P.A. 451 of 1994 N E Michigan Department of Natural Resources E S Total Number of Copies Printed: .........XX M O T U Cost per Copy:.................................$XXX R R Wildlife Division Report No. _____ C A P Total Cost: ......................................$XXX DNR E E S D _____ 2007 Michigan Department of Natural Resources M ICHIG AN ICXXXXX (XXXXXX) DRAFT – November 2, 2007 2 DRAFT MICHIGAN KARNER BLUE BUTTERFLY HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN Prepared by: Michigan Department of Natural Resources Wildlife Division Stevens T. Mason Building P.O. Box 30180 Lansing, MI 48909 Submitted to: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service East Lansing Field Office 2651 Coolidge Road, Suite 101 East Lansing, Michigan 48823 November 2, 2007 DRAFT – November 2, 2007 3 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The Michigan Department of Natural Resources appreciates the valuable contributions made by many agencies, organizations and individuals during the development of this plan. In particular, we thank the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for providing funding and technical support. We also thank the members of the Karner Blue Butterfly Working Group and the Karner Blue Butterfly Management Partners Workgroup, who shared important perspectives and expertise during their meetings and document reviews. Finally, we thank the members of the public who helped shape the content of this plan by offering input during public meetings and public- comment periods. A contribution of the Cooperative Endangered Species Conservation Fund Grants Program, Michigan Project E-3-HP Equal Rights for Natural Resource Users The Michigan Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) provides equal opportunities for employment and access to Michigan’s natural resources.
    [Show full text]
  • Butterflies of North America
    Insects of Western North America 7. Survey of Selected Arthropod Taxa of Fort Sill, Comanche County, Oklahoma. 4. Hexapoda: Selected Coleoptera and Diptera with cumulative list of Arthropoda and additional taxa Contributions of the C.P. Gillette Museum of Arthropod Diversity Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80523-1177 2 Insects of Western North America. 7. Survey of Selected Arthropod Taxa of Fort Sill, Comanche County, Oklahoma. 4. Hexapoda: Selected Coleoptera and Diptera with cumulative list of Arthropoda and additional taxa by Boris C. Kondratieff, Luke Myers, and Whitney S. Cranshaw C.P. Gillette Museum of Arthropod Diversity Department of Bioagricultural Sciences and Pest Management Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado 80523 August 22, 2011 Contributions of the C.P. Gillette Museum of Arthropod Diversity. Department of Bioagricultural Sciences and Pest Management Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80523-1177 3 Cover Photo Credits: Whitney S. Cranshaw. Females of the blow fly Cochliomyia macellaria (Fab.) laying eggs on an animal carcass on Fort Sill, Oklahoma. 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, Colorado, 80523-1177. Copyrighted 2011 4 Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .............................................................................................................7 SUMMARY AND MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS
    [Show full text]