DOCSLIB.ORG

12-Month Finding on a Petition to List the Rattlesnake

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

49422 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 14, 2013 / Proposed Rules also request that commenters address Federal Communications Commission. or questions concerning this finding to how such alternatives would be Elizabeth McIntyre, the above street address. sufficient to verify expenditures that are Deputy Division Chief, Pricing Policy FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: supported under the universal service Division, Wireline Competition Bureau. Richard C. Nelson, Field Supervisor, high-cost program rules. We also [FR Doc. 2013–19762 Filed 8–13–13; 8:45 am] Rock Island Field Office (see generally ask parties to demonstrate BILLING CODE 6712–01–P ADDRESSES); by telephone at 309–757– how their alternative approach would 5800; or by facsimile at 309–757–5807. satisfy basic requirements of property If you use a telecommunications device records. for the deaf (TDD), please call the DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 6. The USTelecom Forbearance Long Federal Information Relay Service Order sought comments and reply Fish and Wildlife Service (FIRS) at 800–877–8339. comments refreshing the record 30 days SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: and 45 days, respectively, after the 50 CFR Part 17 accompanying Report and Order Background eliminating CEI/ONA narrowband [Docket No. FWS–R3–ES–2013–0089; Section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Act (16 reporting requirements was published 4500030113] U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) requires that, for in the Federal Register, 78 FR 39617, any petition to revise the Federal Lists July 2, 2013. Thus the comment Endangered and Threatened Wildlife of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife deadline would have been Aug. 1, 2013 and Plants; 12-Month Finding on a and Plants that contains substantial and the reply comment deadline would Petition to List the Rattlesnake-Master scientific or commercial information have been Aug. 16, 2013. To ensure all Borer Moth (Papaipema eryngii) as an that listing a species may be warranted, interested parties have a sufficient Endangered or Threatened Species we make a finding within 12 months of opportunity to consider and respond to the date of receipt of the petition. In this the issues identified above, comment AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior. finding, we will determine that the and reply comments dates were petitioned action is: (1) Not warranted; ACTION: extended in the Public Notice to 30 days Notice of 12-month petition (2) warranted; or (3) warranted, but the and 45 days after this Federal Register finding. immediate proposal of a regulation document is published. The new SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and implementing the petitioned action is comment due dates are set forth under precluded by other pending proposals to the DATES section above. Wildlife Service (Service), announce a 12-month finding on a petition to list determine whether species are II. Procedural Matters the rattlesnake-master borer moth endangered or threatened, and expeditious progress is being made to A. Paperwork Reduction Act Analysis (Papaipema eryngii) as an endangered or a threatened species under the add or remove qualified species from 7. Document DA 13–1617 does not Endangered Species Act of 1973, as the Federal Lists of Endangered and contain proposed information collection amended (Act). After review of the best Threatened Wildlife and Plants. Section requirements subject to the Paperwork available scientific and commercial 4(b)(3)(C) of the Act requires that we Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104– information, we find that listing the treat a petition for which the requested 13. In addition, therefore, it does not rattlesnake-master borer moth is action is found to be warranted but contain any proposed information warranted. Currently, however, listing precluded as though resubmitted on the collection burden ‘‘for small business the rattlesnake-master borer moth is date of such finding, that is, requiring a concerns with fewer than 25 precluded by higher priority actions to subsequent finding to be made within employees,’’ pursuant to the Small amend the Lists of Endangered and 12 months. We must publish these 12- Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Threatened Wildlife and Plants. Upon month findings in the Federal Register. Public Law 107–198. See 44 U.S.C. publication of this 12-month petition Previous Federal Actions 3506(c)(4). However, the original notice finding, we will add the rattlesnake- in this proceeding contained master borer moth to our candidate On June 25, 2007, we received a information collections subject to the species list. We will develop a proposed formal petition dated June 18, 2007, PRA. We invite updated comments on rule to list the rattlesnake-master borer from Forest Guardians (now WildEarth the information collections proposed in moth as our priorities allow. In any Guardians), requesting that the this docket. interim period, we will address the rattlesnake-master borer moth be listed as either endangered or threatened B. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis status of the candidate taxon through our annual Candidate Notice of Review under the Act with critical habitat. 8. As discussed above, this Public (CNOR). The petitioner incorporated into the Notice asks parties to refresh the record petition all analyses, references, and DATES: in the Property Records FNPRM The finding announced in this documentation provided by proceeding with respect to the property document was made on August 14, NatureServe in its online database at records rules for rate-of-return carriers. 2013. http://www.natureserve.org/. The The Initial Regulatory Flexibility ADDRESSES: This finding is available on petition clearly identified itself as a Analysis for that proceeding is found at the Internet at http:// petition and included the appropriate Appendix H of the Property Records www.regulations.gov at Docket Number identification information, as required FNPRM. We invite comment on the FWS–R3–ES–2013–0089. Supporting in 50 CFR 424.14(a). We sent a letter to IRFA in light of developments since the documentation we used in preparing the petitioner dated July 11, 2007, issuance of the original IRFA. this finding is available for public acknowledging receipt of the petition 9. For further information, please inspection, by appointment, during and stating that the petition was under contact Marvin F. Sacks, Wireline normal business hours at the U.S. Fish review by staff in our Southwest Competition Bureau, Pricing Policy and Wildlife Service, 1511 47th Ave, Regional Office. On March 19, 2008, Division, at (202) 418–1520 or via email Moline, IL 61265. Please submit any WildEarth Guardians filed a complaint at [email protected]. new information, materials, comments, indicating that the Service failed to VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:04 Aug 13, 2013 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00049 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14AUP1.SGM 14AUP1 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 14, 2013 / Proposed Rules 49423 comply with its mandatory duty to moths of similar appearance (Forbes et al. 2009, p. 4; Bird 1917, p. 127). The make a preliminary 90-day finding on 1954, p. 193; Bird 1917, p. 126). boring activities of the rattlesnake- the June 18, 2007, petition to list 475 Rattlesnake-master borer moth larvae master borer moth generally result in southwest species. We subsequently develop in five instars, all of which the plant not producing a flower and published an initial 90-day finding for have a yellowish head and are deep can be fatal to the host plant (Wiker 270 of the 475 petitioned species on purplish brown with longitudinal white 2013, pers. comm.; LaGesse et al. 2009, January 6, 2009, concluding that the lines that are broken over the first four p. 4). petition did not present substantial abdominal segments (Hessel 1954, p. 62; Although there are no specific data on Bird 1917, p. 127). information that listing of those species their home range, rattlesnake-master may be warranted (74 FR 419). On Life History borer moths are not thought to disperse March 13, 2009, the Service and widely and have been described as WildEarth Guardians filed a stipulated Rattlesnake-master borer moths are univoltine (having a single flight per ‘‘relatively sedentary’’ (LaGesse et al. settlement agreement, agreeing that the 2009, p. 4; Panzer 2003, p. 18). Panzer Service would submit to the Federal year) with adults emerging from mid- September to mid-October, and flying (2003, p. 19) found that female Register a finding as to whether rattlesnake-master borer moths WildEarth Guardians’ petition presents through mid- to late October or when dispersed up to 120 meters (m) (394 feet substantial information indicating that the weather becomes too cold (Derkovitz (ft)) from where they were released and the petitioned action may be warranted 2013, pers. comm.; Hessel 1954, p. 59; some traversed a 25-m (82-ft) gap that for the remaining southwestern species Forbes 1954, p. 198; Bird 1917, p. 128). was devoid of host plants. LaGesse et al. by December 9, 2009. On December 16, Their nocturnal habits make them hard (2009, p. 4) indicate that rattlesnake- 2009, we published a 90-day finding to observe, thus adults feeding habits master borer moths will disperse up to that the petition presented substantial are unknown. Based on their short adult 2 miles (3–6 kilometers (km)) if the scientific or commercial information flight span, their underdeveloped mouth number of host plants is limiting. indicating that listing may be warranted parts, and the large amount of stored fat, researchers postulate that they likely do for 67 species, including the rattlesnake- Habitat master borer moth (74 FR 66866). not need much for nectar sources and This notice constitutes the 12-month likely use dew or oozing sap for Rattlesnake-master borer moths are finding on the WildEarth Guardians’ imbibing moisture (Wiker 2013, pers. obligate residents of undisturbed prairie petition to list the rattlesnake-master comm.).
Recommended publications
  • Natural History and Conservation Genetics of the Federally Endangered Mitchell’S Satyr Butterfly, Neonympha Mitchellii Mitchellii

    Natural History and Conservation Genetics of the Federally Endangered Mitchell’S Satyr Butterfly, Neonympha Mitchellii Mitchellii

    NATURAL HISTORY AND CONSERVATION GENETICS OF THE FEDERALLY ENDANGERED MITCHELL’S SATYR BUTTERFLY, NEONYMPHA MITCHELLII MITCHELLII By Christopher Alan Hamm A DISSRETATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Entomology Ecology, Evolutionary Biology and Behavior – Dual Major 2012 ABSTRACT NATURAL HISTORY AND CONSERVATION GENETICS OF THE FEDERALLY ENDANGERED MITCHELL’S SATYR BUTTERFLY, NEONYMPHA MITCHELLII MITCHELLII By Christopher Alan Hamm The Mitchell’s satyr butterfly, Neonympha mitchellii mitchellii, is a federally endangered species with protected populations found in Michigan, Indiana, and wherever else populations may be discovered. The conservation status of the Mitchell’s satyr began to be called into question when populations of a phenotypically similar butterfly were discovered in the eastern United States. It is unclear if these recently discovered populations are N. m. mitchellii and thus warrant protection. In order to clarify the conservation status of the Mitchell’s satyr I first acquired sample sizes large enough for population genetic analysis I developed a method of non- lethal sampling that has no detectable effect on the survival of the butterfly. I then traveled to all regions in which N. mitchellii is known to be extant and collected genetic samples. Using a variety of population genetic techniques I demonstrated that the federally protected populations in Michigan and Indiana are genetically distinct from the recently discovered populations in the southern US. I also detected the presence of the reproductive endosymbiotic bacterium Wolbachia, and surveyed addition Lepidoptera of conservation concern. This survey revealed that Wolbachia is a real concern for conservation managers and should be addressed in management plans.
  • Lepidoptera of North America 5

    Lepidoptera of North America 5

    Lepidoptera of North America 5. Contributions to the Knowledge of Southern West Virginia Lepidoptera Contributions of the C.P. Gillette Museum of Arthropod Diversity Colorado State University Lepidoptera of North America 5. Contributions to the Knowledge of Southern West Virginia Lepidoptera by Valerio Albu, 1411 E. Sweetbriar Drive Fresno, CA 93720 and Eric Metzler, 1241 Kildale Square North Columbus, OH 43229 April 30, 2004 Contributions of the C.P. Gillette Museum of Arthropod Diversity Colorado State University Cover illustration: Blueberry Sphinx (Paonias astylus (Drury)], an eastern endemic. Photo by Valeriu Albu. ISBN 1084-8819 This publication and others in the series may be ordered from the C.P. Gillette Museum of Arthropod Diversity, Department of Bioagricultural Sciences and Pest Management Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80523 Abstract A list of 1531 species ofLepidoptera is presented, collected over 15 years (1988 to 2002), in eleven southern West Virginia counties. A variety of collecting methods was used, including netting, light attracting, light trapping and pheromone trapping. The specimens were identified by the currently available pictorial sources and determination keys. Many were also sent to specialists for confirmation or identification. The majority of the data was from Kanawha County, reflecting the area of more intensive sampling effort by the senior author. This imbalance of data between Kanawha County and other counties should even out with further sampling of the area. Key Words: Appalachian Mountains,
  • Working List of Prairie Restricted (Specialist) Insects in Wisconsin (11/26/2015)

    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.
  • Prairie Fen and Associated Savanna Restoration Submittal Package

    Prairie Fen and Associated Savanna Restoration Submittal Package

    Region 3 Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration Transmittal Form U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service WSFR Bishop Henry Whipple Federal Building One Federal Drive Fort Snelling, MN 55111-4056 Date Received: Date Approval Requested by: Friday, September 25, 2009 (Region 3 FA Date Stamp) Date Submitted: Thursday, August 27, 2009 Project No.: To Be Determined Project Title: Prairie Fen and Associated Savanna Restoration in Michigan and Indiana for Species of Greatest Conservation Need State Contact: Eric Sink FWS Biologist: Mike Sweet, (612) 713-5129 Telephone Number: (517) 335-1064 e-mail address: [email protected] Track (check one): Routine = 15 day Non-Routine = 30 day Non-Routine = 45 day Type(s): Grant Proposal (GP): GP Renewal: Grant Segment: GP Amend: Segment Amend: USFWS will complete USFWS will complete Obligation Intent: Sub-Account Federal Share Circle or Check if Applicable: WR Regular 5220 $ In-Kind Value Program Income WR Sect 4 Hunter Ed 5210 $ SHPO WR Sect 10 Hunter Ed 523 $ NEPA (EA Letter or EA) Section 7 WL Cons. & Rest. 5511 $ Lobby Certification SFR Regular 9514 $ Other (describe in Note/Special Instructions section below) SFR Aquatic Ed. 9511 $ Needs funding condition (describe in Note/Special Instructions section below) SFR Boat Access 9521 $ COMPETITIVE ( ) or NON-COMPETITIVE ( ) Other : $ 864,020 Competitive SWG Notes/Special Instructions (check): Biologist Fiscal Land Secretary Mike, until we can get the Section 7 consultation and biological opinion documents, can you approve with the caveate that no work is to be done
  • Volume 42, Number 2 June 2015

    Volume 42, Number 2 June 2015

    Wisconsin Entomological Society N e w s I e t t e r Volume 42, Number 2 June 2015 Monitoring and Management - A That is, until volunteer moth surveyor, Steve Sensible Pairing Bransky, came onto the scene. Steve had By Beth Goeppinger, Wisconsin Department done a few moth and butterfly surveys here ofN atural Resources and there on the property. But that changed in 2013. Armed with mercury vapor lights, Richard Bong State Recreation Area is a bait and a Wisconsin scientific collector's heavily used 4,515 acre property in the permit, along with our permission, he began Wisconsin State Park system. It is located in surveying in earnest. western Kenosha County. The area is oak woodland, savanna, wetland, sedge meadow, He chose five sites in woodland, prairie and old field and restored and remnant prairie. savanna habitats. He came out many nights Surveys of many kinds and for many species in the months moths might be flying. After are done on the property-frog and toad, finding that moth populations seemed to drift fence, phenology, plants, ephemeral cycle every 3-5 days, he came out more ponds, upland sandpiper, black tern, frequently. His enthusiasm, dedication and grassland and marsh birds, butterfly, small never-ending energy have wielded some mammal, waterfowl, muskrat and wood surprising results. Those results, in turn, ducks to name a few. Moths, except for the have guided us in our habitat management showy and easy-to-identify species, have practices. been ignored. Of the 4,500 moth species found in the state, Steve has confirmed close to 1,200 on the property, and he isn't done yet! He found one of the biggest populations of the endangered Papaipema silphii moths (Silphium borer) in the state as well as 36 species of Catocola moths (underwings), them.
  • List of Insect Species Which May Be Tallgrass Prairie Specialists

    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
  • CHECKLIST of WISCONSIN MOTHS (Superfamilies Mimallonoidea, Drepanoidea, Lasiocampoidea, Bombycoidea, Geometroidea, and Noctuoidea)

    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.
  • Papaipema Silphii Bird Silphium Borer

    Papaipema Silphii Bird Silphium Borer

    Papaipema silphii Bird silphium borer State Distribution Photo by David L Cuthrell Best Survey Period Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Status: State threatened of white scales on the dorsal forewings. When fresh, this species has a distinctive purplish cast and a Global and state rank: G5/S2S3 large tuft of hair-like scales on the thorax. Many species of Papaipema are difficult to identify but most Family: Noctuidae (owlet moths) can be sorted into species groups (Rings et al. 1992). These species groups can then be sent to experts for Range: The silphium borer is restricted to the positive identification. Series (5 to 10 individuals from northeastern fringe of the tallgrass prairie region of the same location) of specimens are easier to work with North America. It has been reported from Michigan, because of the large amount of individual variation. In Missouri, Ohio, Illinois, and Wisconsin. addition, many field-collected specimens can be quite worn (many of the scales missing) giving the specimen State distribution: Known historically from nine sites a lighter appearance than normal, or eliminating many in seven counties (Berrien, Cass, St. Joseph, Jackson, of the scale characteristics important for identification. Washtenaw, Monroe, Tuscola) of southern Michigan, a Larvae of P. silphii are pinkish in color with a large, recent survey (1989) for the moth found it to be extant brown head and may reach a length of 50 mm or at only seven locations in Michigan. The populations more at maturity (Bird 1915). They bore in the root are very localized in distribution, though prior to of their food plant, prairie dock (Silphium European settlement and agricultural development, this terebinthenaceum) and perhaps other Silphium species.
  • Natural Heritage Program List of Rare Animal Species of North Carolina 2020

    Natural Heritage Program List of Rare Animal Species of North Carolina 2020

    Natural Heritage Program List of Rare Animal Species of North Carolina 2020 Hickory Nut Gorge Green Salamander (Aneides caryaensis) Photo by Austin Patton 2014 Compiled by Judith Ratcliffe, Zoologist North Carolina Natural Heritage Program N.C. Department of Natural and Cultural Resources www.ncnhp.org C ur Alleghany rit Ashe Northampton Gates C uc Surry am k Stokes P d Rockingham Caswell Person Vance Warren a e P s n Hertford e qu Chowan r Granville q ot ui a Mountains Watauga Halifax m nk an Wilkes Yadkin s Mitchell Avery Forsyth Orange Guilford Franklin Bertie Alamance Durham Nash Yancey Alexander Madison Caldwell Davie Edgecombe Washington Tyrrell Iredell Martin Dare Burke Davidson Wake McDowell Randolph Chatham Wilson Buncombe Catawba Rowan Beaufort Haywood Pitt Swain Hyde Lee Lincoln Greene Rutherford Johnston Graham Henderson Jackson Cabarrus Montgomery Harnett Cleveland Wayne Polk Gaston Stanly Cherokee Macon Transylvania Lenoir Mecklenburg Moore Clay Pamlico Hoke Union d Cumberland Jones Anson on Sampson hm Duplin ic Craven Piedmont R nd tla Onslow Carteret co S Robeson Bladen Pender Sandhills Columbus New Hanover Tidewater Coastal Plain Brunswick THE COUNTIES AND PHYSIOGRAPHIC PROVINCES OF NORTH CAROLINA Natural Heritage Program List of Rare Animal Species of North Carolina 2020 Compiled by Judith Ratcliffe, Zoologist North Carolina Natural Heritage Program N.C. Department of Natural and Cultural Resources Raleigh, NC 27699-1651 www.ncnhp.org This list is dynamic and is revised frequently as new data become available. New species are added to the list, and others are dropped from the list as appropriate. The list is published periodically, generally every two years.
  • NATURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION Information Bulletin #2

    NATURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION Information Bulletin #2

    Indiana Register NATURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION Information Bulletin #2 (Eighth Amendment) December 1, 2017 SUBJECT: Roster of Indiana Animals, Insects, and Plants that are Extirpated, Endangered, Threatened, or Rare (also described as Special Concern). I. HISTORY The initial roster was published February 1, 1992 (15 IR 848), republished April 1, 1991 (15 IR 1312); and subsequently amended to include additional species and published on February 1, 2005 (28 IR 1581). Since 2005, revisions have been made to several of the endangered species lists. The term "special concern" replaced the references to "rare" as it relates to wild animals and is expanded to include species in a legal status transition. Federal funding is available for species that are endangered or of special concern. In the fourth amendment, posted at 20070815-IR-312070469NRA on August 15, 2007, "rare", "threatened", and "extirpated" classifications for insect species were retained. Classification definitions were added for vascular plant species. In this document, species are reclassified and scientific names were modified. In the fifth amendment, posted at 20120125-IR-312120047NRA on January 25, 2012, the listing for endangered reptiles and amphibians was modified. Notable was removal of the American bald eagle from the endangered species list. Some species removed from the endangered list were redesignated as "special concern". Amendments were made to use scientific names that are consistent with those for species of animals listed in 312 IAC 9. In the sixth amendment, posted at 20140129-IR-312140023NRA on January 29, 2014, the listing for endangered birds, mollusks, insects, and vascular plants was modified. Notable was the removal of the peregrine falcon from the endangered species list.
  • ACKNOWLEDGMENTS the Michigan Department of Natural Resources

    ACKNOWLEDGMENTS the Michigan Department of Natural Resources

    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 Michigan Natural Features Inventory, who helped draft this Habitat Conservation Plan. 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. lll A contribution of the Cooperative Endangered Species Conservation Fund Grants Program, Michigan Project E-17-HCP and State Wildlife Grant F12AF01114. 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. Both State and Federal laws prohibit discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin, religion, disability, age, sex, height, weight or marital status under the Civil Rights Acts of 1964, as amended (MI PA 453 and MI PA 220, Title V of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 as amended, and the Americans with Disabilities Act). If you believe that you have been discriminated against in any program, activity, or facility, or if you desire additional information, please write the MDNR, HUMAN RESOURCES, PO BOX 30028, LANSING MI 48909-7528, or the MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL RIGHTS, STATE OF MICHIGAN PLAZA BUILDING, 1200 6TH STREET, DETROIT MI 48226, or the OFFICE FOR DIVERSITY AND CIVIL RIGHTS, US FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE, 4040 NORTH FAIRFAX DRIVE, ARLINGTON VA 22203. For information or assistance on this publication, contact: MDNR, WILDLIFE DIVISION, P.O.
  • Recovery Outline with Status Review Triggers for Eryngium Stem Borer

    Recovery Outline with Status Review Triggers for Eryngium Stem Borer

    Final Recovery Planning Outline with Listing Status Review Triggers for the Illinois Endangered Eryngium Stem Borer (Papaipema eryngii) Anne Mankowski, Illinois Endangered Species Protection Board Terry Esker, Illinois Department of Natural Resources Dr. Jeff Walk, The Nature Conservancy in Illinois June 2014 November 2013 final draft reviewed and approved as agreement with feasibility as outlined, by Joe Kath and Jody Shimp (IDNR), Kelly Neal (INPC), and Anne Mankowski (ESPB) in November and December, 2013. November 2013 final draft approved by the ESPB at the February 20, 2014 Special Meeting, pending approval by agency representatives who had approved the November 2013 final draft of additional text as included in the June 2014 final draft. The June 2014 draft with additional text in Recovery Strategy 5a of “Possible translocation sites will be assessed for potential impacts upon other listed species from Rattlesnake Master plantings.” and in Recovery Strategy 6a of “Possible translocation sites will be assessed for potential impacts upon other listed species from Eryngium Stem Borer releases.” was circulated for a 12 business-day review. It was approved by Randy Heidorn (INPC) and Anne Mankowski (ESPB) and no replies with specific objection were received from Jody Shimp, Ann Holtrop, or Jim Herkert (IDNR), so as explained in the email sent with the distribution, the two sentences are also considered approved by those individuals in the June 2014 final outline. Contents: Introduction ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….