DOCSLIB.ORG

Victoria Expansion GHG Biological Assessment

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Victoria Expansion GHG Biological Assessment Biological Assessment Victoria Power Station Expansion Victoria County, Texas Prepared for Victoria WLE, LP Prepared by Whitenton Group, Inc. September 2013 Revised June 2014 3413 Hunter Road • San Marcos, Texas 78666 • office 512-353-3344 • fax 512-392-3450 www.whitentongroup.com Biological Assessment Victoria Power Station Expansion Victoria County, Texas Prepared for Victoria WLE, LP Victoria, Texas Prepared by Whitenton Group, Inc. 3413 Hunter Road San Marcos, Texas 78666 WGI Project No. 1243 September 2013 Revised June 2014 TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................................................. i ACRONYMS ..............................................................................................................................................iii 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................................... 1 2.0 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................ 3 3.0 ACTION AREA .................................................................................................................................... 4 4.0 AGENCY REGULATIONS ................................................................................................................. 5 4.1 ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT .......................................................................................................... 5 4.2 CLEAN AIR ACT REGULATIONS AND STANDARDS .............................................................. 7 5.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ................................................................................................................... 8 5.1 PROJECT PURPOSE AND LOCATION ........................................................................................... 8 5.2 CONSTRUCTION INFORMATION ................................................................................................. 9 5.2.1 CONSTRUCTION Description ............................................................................................... 9 5.2.2 CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES AND SCHEDULE .......................................................... 10 5.2.3 CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT REQUIRED ................................................................... 11 5.2.4 STORMWATER ...................................................................................................................... 12 5.2.5 CONSTRUCTION NOISE LEVELS ..................................................................................... 12 5.3 OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE INFORMATION ............................................................. 12 5.3.1 OPERATION DESCRIPTION ............................................................................................... 12 5.3.2 WATER USE............................................................................................................................ 13 5.3.3 WASTEWATER ...................................................................................................................... 13 5.3.4 STORM WATER ..................................................................................................................... 14 5.3.5 OPERATION NOISE LEVELS .............................................................................................. 14 5.3.6 EMISSION CONTROLS ........................................................................................................ 14 6.0 BACKGROUND INFORMATION .................................................................................................. 15 6.1 GENERAL ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION ....................................................................... 15 6.1.1 GENERAL REGION INFORMATION ................................................................................ 16 6.1.2 LAND USE .............................................................................................................................. 16 6.1.3 CLIMATE ................................................................................................................................ 17 6.1.4 TOPOGRAPHY ...................................................................................................................... 17 6.1.5 GEOLOGY ............................................................................................................................... 17 6.1.6 SOILS ........................................................................................................................................ 18 6.1.7 WATER RESOURCES ............................................................................................................ 18 6.1.8 VEGETATION ........................................................................................................................ 18 6.2 FEDERALLY-LISTED SPECIES ....................................................................................................... 19 6.2.1 THREATENED OR ENDANGERED SPECIES LIST ........................................................ 19 6.2.2 THREATENED OR ENDANGERED SPECIES DESCRIPTIONS .................................... 19 6.2.3 CANDIDATE SPECIES DESCRIPTIONS ........................................................................... 24 6.2.4 TEXAS NATURAL DIVERSITY DATABASE RESULTS .................................................. 25 7.0 FEDERALLY-LISTED SPECIES HABITAT EVALUATION ........................................................ 26 7.1 PLANT COMMUNITIES OBSERVED ............................................................................................ 26 Victoria Power Station Expansion Project – Biological Assessment i 7.2 FEDERALLY-LISTED SPECIES HABITAT ANALYSIS ............................................................... 27 8.0 AIR QUALITY ANALYSIS ............................................................................................................... 28 8.1 AIR DISPERSION MODELING RESULTS ..................................................................................... 29 8.1.1 CRITERIA POLLUTANT DISPERSION MODELING RESULTS AND EVALUATION ............................................................................................................................................................ 29 8.1.2 NON-CRITERIA POLLUTANTS MODELING RESULTS AND EVALUATION ........ 31 9.0 EFFECTS OF THE PROPOSED ACTION ....................................................................................... 32 9.1 AIR EMISSIONS EFFECTS BACKGROUND RESEARCH .......................................................... 32 9.2 AIR QUALITY EFFECTS .................................................................................................................. 35 9.2.1 EMISSIONS ............................................................................................................................. 35 9.2.2 FUGITIVE DUST .................................................................................................................... 36 9.2.3 IMPACTS OF AIR POLLUTION SOURCES ON FLORA AND FAUNA ...................... 36 9.3 WATER QUALITY EFFECTS ........................................................................................................... 38 9.3.1 WASTEWATER AND STORMWATER .............................................................................. 38 9.4 NOISE EFFECTS ................................................................................................................................ 39 9.5 INFRASTRUCTURE-RELATED EFFECTS .................................................................................... 39 9.6 HUMAN ACTIVITY EFFECTS ........................................................................................................ 40 9.7 FEDERALLY-LISTED SPECIES EFFECTS...................................................................................... 40 9.7.1 FEDERALLY-LISTED THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES ...................... 40 9.7.2 FEDERALLY-LISTED CANDIDATE SPECIES .................................................................. 47 10.0 CONCLUSIONS ............................................................................................................................... 50 10.1 DETERMINATION OF EFFECT .................................................................................................... 51 10.2 INTERDEPENDENT AND INTERRELATED ACTIONS .......................................................... 51 10.3 CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ............................................................................................................... 51 10.4 CONSERVATION MEASURES ..................................................................................................... 52 11.0 REFERENCE ..................................................................................................................................... 53 12.0 LIST OF PREPARERS ...................................................................................................................... 59 APPENDIX A FIGURES APPENDIX B FIGURE 1-6 (RPS) APPENDIX C FLOW DIAGRAMS APPENDIX D TABLE 2 APPENDIX E PHOTOGRAPHIC LOG APPENDIX F FIELD SURVEY DATA SUMMARY APPENDIX G EMISSIONS TABLES Victoria Power Station Expansion Project – Biological Assessment ii ACRONYMS AOI Area of Impact BACT Best Available Control Technology BA Biological Assessment CO Carbon Monoxide ESL Effects Screening Levels ESA Endangered Species Act EPA Environmental
Load more

Recommended publications
  • GREATER PRAIRIE-CHICKENS Larkin A
    U N I V E R S I T Y OF N E B R A S K A – L I N C O L N EC305 MANAGEMENT OF SANDHILLS RANGELANDS FOR GREATER PRAIRIE-CHICKENS Larkin A. Powell, Conservation Biologist and Animal Ecologist, School of Natural Resources, University of Nebraska–Lincoln Walter H. Schacht, Range Scientist, Department of Agronomy and Horticulture, University of Nebraska–Lincoln Lars C. Anderson, Range Ecologist, Department of Agronomy and Horticulture, University of Nebraska–Lincoln William L. Vodehnal, Certified Wildlife Biologist, Nebraska Game and Parks Commission reater prairie-chickens fascinate landowners, hunters, and birders Galike. They are a symbol of the natural heritage of the Great Plains. Their colorful mating rituals decorate pastures, and their booming calls add charm to meadows. Many landowners want to learn more about managing pastures to increase the number of greater prairie-chickens. Some have a personal desire to conserve the species. Others recognize that these native grouse offer income opportunities in the form of fee hunting and ecotourism. The more information landowners have, the easier it will be to find these birds and make sure they flourish year after year. Whatever your interest in greater prairie-chickens, learning more about this interesting species will help you maintain their habitat while you maintain your land. Stuhr Museum of the Prairie Pioneer Millions of greater prairie-chickens once inhabited the vast prairies in the Midwest. Their numbers were so great that in the late 1800s and early 1900s, a so- called “chicken hunting culture” was created. The loss of habitat was, by far, the biggest reason for the dramatic decline in prairie-chicken numbers, but hunting was another factor.
    [Show full text]
  • GUIDE to PRAIRIE GROUSE VIEWING Glacial Ridge National Wildlife Refuge, Near Crookston, Minnesota
    Fish, Wildlife and Conservation Education GUIDE TO PRAIRIE GROUSE VIEWING Glacial Ridge National Wildlife Refuge, near Crookston, Minnesota Reserve your chance today for an experience of a lifetime. In April, small 3-person blinds are placed on the dancing grounds or leks of Greater Prairie-Chickens and Sharp-tailed Grouse near Crookston, Minnesota. Blinds are placed adjacent to the lek so they do not disturb the birds, yet are close to the action. Past blinds have been close enough so that birds occasionally perched or danced on top of them to the delight of the human visitors. Greater Prairie- Greater Prairie‐Chicken by Ross Hier, Chickens and Sharp-tailed Grouse are shy birds. Every precaution Area Wildlife Manager, MnDNR should be taken to minimize disturbance during their courtship display. GUIDELINES FOR USE OF PRAIRIE GROUSE BLINDS 1. Arrive and settle in the blind no later than 60 minutes before sunrise (while it is still very dark), or 5:30 p.m. for evening viewing. Keep in mind that blinds are typically at least a ½ mile walk from the parking area. Usually you want to be leaving the parking area at least 80 minutes before sunrise. The prairie chickens usually come to the booming grounds in the dark and begin booming before daylight. You will hear them before you can see them. The best displays are at sunrise if the birds are not disturbed earlier in the morning. If you arrive late, the birds will flush from the lek or dancing ground and will probably return, but the display will not be as spectacular.
    [Show full text]
  • Diets of Greater Prairie Chickens on the Sheyenne National Grasslands1,2 3 4 Mark A
    Diets of Greater Prairie Chickens on the Sheyenne National Grasslands1,2 3 4 Mark A. Rumble, Jay A. Newell, and John E. Toepfer Abstract.-- Diets of greater prairie chickens on the Sheyenne National Grassland of North Dakota were examined. During the winter months agricultural crops (primarily corn) were the predominant food items. Green vegetation was consumed in greater quantities as spring progressed. Dandelion flowers and alfalfa/sweetclover were the major vegetative food items through the summer. Both juvenile and adults selected diets high in digestible protein obtained through consumption of arthropods and some plants. INTRODUCTION The Sheyenne National Grassland is an island of suitable prairie chicken habitat in eastern North Initially, the development of agriculture on Dakota. Because the population of prairie the prairies was credited with increasing the chickens on the Sheyenne National Grassland population and range of the greater prairie increased during the period 1974-1980 (Manske and chicken (Tympanuchus cupido (Hamerstrom et al. Barker 1981), the possibility of an annual 1957). Further development however, of harvest arose. Yet, the reasons for this agriculture, primarily "clean farming", population increase were not clear. As a result, contributed to their decline (Yeatter 1963, this study was initiated by the Rocky Mountain Westemier 1980). Prairie chicken populations are Forest and Range Experiment Station, in highest in areas where agriculture is cooperation with Montana State University to interspersed with grasslands in approximately a determine food habits of greater prairie chickens 1:2 ratio (Evans 1968). The quality of the on the Sheyenne National Grassland. grassland habitats is also important, however (Christisen and Krohn 1980).
    [Show full text]
  • MANAGEMENT of SANDHILLS RANGELANDS for GREATER PRAIRIE-CHICKENS Larkin A
    U N I V E R S I T Y OF N E B R A S K A – L I N C O L N EC305 MANAGEMENT OF SANDHILLS RANGELANDS FOR GREATER PRAIRIE-CHICKENS Larkin A. Powell, Conservation Biologist and Animal Ecologist, School of Natural Resources, University of Nebraska–Lincoln Walter H. Schacht, Range Scientist, Department of Agronomy and Horticulture, University of Nebraska–Lincoln Lars C. Anderson, Range Ecologist, Department of Agronomy and Horticulture, University of Nebraska–Lincoln William L. Vodehnal, Certified Wildlife Biologist, Nebraska Game and Parks Commission reater prairie-chickens fascinate landowners, hunters, and birders Galike. They are a symbol of the natural heritage of the Great Plains. Their colorful mating rituals decorate pastures, and their booming calls add charm to meadows. Many landowners want to learn more about managing pastures to increase the number of greater prairie-chickens. Some have a personal desire to conserve the species. Others recognize that these native grouse offer income opportunities in the form of fee hunting and ecotourism. The more information landowners have, the easier it will be to find these birds and make sure they flourish year after year. Whatever your interest in greater prairie-chickens, learning more about this interesting species will help you maintain their habitat while you maintain your land. Stuhr Museum of the Prairie Pioneer Millions of greater prairie-chickens once inhabited the vast prairies in the Midwest. Their numbers were so great that in the late 1800s and early 1900s, a so- called “chicken hunting culture” was created. The loss of habitat was, by far, the biggest reason for the dramatic decline in prairie-chicken numbers, but hunting was another factor.
    [Show full text]
  • Alpha Codes for 2168 Bird Species (And 113 Non-Species Taxa) in Accordance with the 62Nd AOU Supplement (2021), Sorted Taxonomically
    Four-letter (English Name) and Six-letter (Scientific Name) Alpha Codes for 2168 Bird Species (and 113 Non-Species Taxa) in accordance with the 62nd AOU Supplement (2021), sorted taxonomically Prepared by Peter Pyle and David F. DeSante The Institute for Bird Populations www.birdpop.org ENGLISH NAME 4-LETTER CODE SCIENTIFIC NAME 6-LETTER CODE Highland Tinamou HITI Nothocercus bonapartei NOTBON Great Tinamou GRTI Tinamus major TINMAJ Little Tinamou LITI Crypturellus soui CRYSOU Thicket Tinamou THTI Crypturellus cinnamomeus CRYCIN Slaty-breasted Tinamou SBTI Crypturellus boucardi CRYBOU Choco Tinamou CHTI Crypturellus kerriae CRYKER White-faced Whistling-Duck WFWD Dendrocygna viduata DENVID Black-bellied Whistling-Duck BBWD Dendrocygna autumnalis DENAUT West Indian Whistling-Duck WIWD Dendrocygna arborea DENARB Fulvous Whistling-Duck FUWD Dendrocygna bicolor DENBIC Emperor Goose EMGO Anser canagicus ANSCAN Snow Goose SNGO Anser caerulescens ANSCAE + Lesser Snow Goose White-morph LSGW Anser caerulescens caerulescens ANSCCA + Lesser Snow Goose Intermediate-morph LSGI Anser caerulescens caerulescens ANSCCA + Lesser Snow Goose Blue-morph LSGB Anser caerulescens caerulescens ANSCCA + Greater Snow Goose White-morph GSGW Anser caerulescens atlantica ANSCAT + Greater Snow Goose Intermediate-morph GSGI Anser caerulescens atlantica ANSCAT + Greater Snow Goose Blue-morph GSGB Anser caerulescens atlantica ANSCAT + Snow X Ross's Goose Hybrid SRGH Anser caerulescens x rossii ANSCAR + Snow/Ross's Goose SRGO Anser caerulescens/rossii ANSCRO Ross's Goose
    [Show full text]
  • Valentine National Wildlife Refuge: Wildlife List
    U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Valentine National Wildlife Refuge Wildlife List Wildlife Abounds Valentine National Wildlife Refuge Hackberry and Look for ducks and geese, especially in the Native (NWR), located 25 miles south of Pelican Lakes during the spring and fall. Watch for Prairie the town of Valentine, Nebraska, is pintail, mallard, ruddy, canvasback, 71,774 acres in size and was established and many more ducks. Take a walk in 1935 as a Refuge and breeding on the nature trail up to the old fire grounds for migratory birds and tower on the west end of Hackberry other wildlife. In fact, most of the Lake for a view of the Sandhills and wildlife present in historical times a look at grassland sparrows. This goose, are still present on the Refuge designed by J.N. today. Numerous wetlands, lakes, Duck Lake Look in the trees around the boat “Ding” Darling, wet meadows, and large expanses of ramp for they are an oasis for has become the native prairie attract a wide variety songbirds. Watch for warblers, blue symbol of the of wildlife. This brochure lists and black-headed grosbeaks, Lazuli National Wildlife 289 species of birds, 41 species of buntings, eastern bluebirds, and Refuge System. mammals, 16 species of reptiles, and many more. six species of amphibians that have been recorded on the Refuge. Check-list Key Sp Spring March – May S Summer June – August May, September, and October offer F Fall September – November good opportunities for observing a W Winter December – February variety of migratory birds. Spring migrants, including waterfowl and c common – present in large warblers, are most numerous in May.
    [Show full text]
  • How Weather Variables Affect Gamebirds in the Southern Great Plains
    Oklahoma Cooperative Extension Service NREM-9022 How Weather Variables Affect Gamebirds in the Southern Great Plains Rachel Beyke Oklahoma Cooperative Extension Fact Sheets Graduate Research Assistant Natural Resource Ecology and Management are also available on our website at: http://osufacts.okstate.edu Dwayne Elmore Extension Wildlife Specialist Natural Resource Ecology and Management that are up to 18 F cooler than exposed areas (13). Without seeking cover from sunlight, an adult bobwhite can die in Climate of the Southern Great Plains less than two hours of exposure to temperatures greater than The Southern Great Plains (SGP) experiences highly 111 F (14). However, a bobwhite chick can die within about variable weather ranging from extreme cold and heat to two minutes of exposure to direct sunlight during high sum- periodic flooding and long-lasting droughts. Portions of mer temperatures (8). Not surprisingly, during peak summer Oklahoma can experience more than 100 days per year temperatures, when temperatures may reach more than 100 with temperatures at or above 90 F (1). Additionally, rainfall F, adult and chick activity is limited and restricted to refuge is highly variable throughout the SGP. For example, annual sites containing tall, woody cover, which provides shade from rainfall in the Oklahoma Panhandle averages only 17 inches, direct sunlight (5, 8, 13). while eastern regions of Oklahoma may average more than Knowledge on weather and winter behavior of bobwhites 59 inches per year (1). These extreme weather conditions is limited. However, it appears that roost sites are at least can place stressful conditions on gamebirds, potentially af- partially selected based on temperature (15).
    [Show full text]
  • Nest and Brood Site Selection and Survival of Greater Prairie-Chickens in the Eastern Sandhills of Nebraska" (2012)
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by UNL | Libraries University of Nebraska - Lincoln DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln Theses, Dissertations, and Student Research in Agronomy and Horticulture Agronomy and Horticulture Department 5-2012 Nest and Brood Site Selection and Survival of Greater Prairie- Chickens in the Eastern Sandhills of Nebraska Lars Anderson University of Nebraska-Lincoln Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/agronhortdiss Part of the Agriculture Commons, Ornithology Commons, and the Other Plant Sciences Commons Anderson, Lars, "Nest and Brood Site Selection and Survival of Greater Prairie-Chickens in the Eastern Sandhills of Nebraska" (2012). Theses, Dissertations, and Student Research in Agronomy and Horticulture. 50. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/agronhortdiss/50 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Agronomy and Horticulture Department at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. It has been accepted for inclusion in Theses, Dissertations, and Student Research in Agronomy and Horticulture by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. Nest and Brood Site Selection and Survival of Greater Prairie-Chickens in the Eastern Sandhills of Nebraska By Lars C. Anderson A THESIS Presented to the Faculty of The Graduate College at the University of Nebraska In Partial Fulfillment of Requirements For the Degree of Master of Science Major: Agronomy Under the Supervision of Professors Walter H. Schacht and Larkin A. Powell Lincoln, Nebraska May, 2012 Nest and Brood Site Selection and Survival of Greater Prairie-Chickens in the Eastern Sandhills of Nebraska Lars C.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 Feasibility of Reintroduction of the Greater Prairie-Chicken to Neal
    Feasibility of Reintroduction of the Greater Prairie-Chicken to Neal Smith National Wildlife Refuge Note: All text bounded by quotations and ended by a reference to Walk 2004, is directly taken from “A Plan for the Recovery of the Greater Prairie-chicken in Illinois”. I. Introduction The Greater Prairie-Chicken (Tympanuchus cupido pinnatus), is referred to as “the signature bird of the tallgrass prairie” by Dr. Jeffrey Walk, who notes that prior to European settlement, the distributions of this species and extent of the ecosystem were “essentially identical” (Figure 1). Figure 1. Range of the Greater Prairie-Chicken in 1800. Adapted from various sources – see text. Prairie-chickens were extirpated from Iowa in the 1950’s, but have been successfully introduced in a few areas in southern Iowa (Dinsmore 1994, Moe 2002). Prairie- chickens rank as a high conservation priority throughout their range particularly because their populations continue to decline (Walk 2004). “The charismatic breeding displays of prairie-chickens help to garner broad-based public support for conservation efforts. Further, Greater Prairie-Chickens have large home ranges and require a variety of grassland habitats throughout the year. For these reasons, the Greater Prairie-Chicken is an excellent “umbrella species” for prairie conservation; regimes that sustain prairie- chickens are likely to encompass the needs of numerous other species that require smaller areas or fewer habitat resources” (Walk 2004). 1 The ecological goal of Neal Smith National Wildlife Refuge (NSM) is to emulate the historic natural landscape as nearly as possible on 8,654 acres, including vascular plants, vertebrates, invertebrates, micro-organisms, as well as soil and water characteristics.
    [Show full text]
  • Conservation
    CONSERVATION UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE FARM SERVICE AGENCY FACT SHEET January 2017 State Acres for Wildlife Enhancement (SAFE) Approved Projects - Conservation Reserve Program OVERVIEW approved in 2008. To date, about 1.45 million acres are enrolled nationwide in 106 CRP SAFE projects The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) available in 36 states and Puerto Rico. Farm Service Agency (FSA) State Acres for Wildlife Enhancement (SAFE) initiative, part of PROPOSING A CRP SAFE PROJECT the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP), is an initiative to improve wildlife habitat. This fact Wildlife needs and conservation priorities sheet provides background on the initiative and a vary across geographic and ecological regions. brief summary of each SAFE project. Conservation groups, nonprofit organizations, government agencies, biologists, farmers, CONSERVATION RESERVE PROGRAM ranchers and others have first-hand knowledge and experience to help address the needs of CRP is a voluntary program that contracts with particular species in an area. These organizations agricultural producers so that environmentally may develop CRP SAFE project area proposals sensitive agricultural land is not farmed or that identify ‘high-priority’ wildlife species that ranched, but instead used for conservation benefits. may be threatened or endangered, suffering CRP participants establish long-term, resource- population declines or that provide value to the conserving plant species, such as approved grasses local community. CRP SAFE encourages proposals or trees (known as “covers”), to control soil erosion that provide multiple environmental benefits in and improve water quality. In return, FSA provides a targeted region and address habitat resource participants with rental payments and cost-share concern for a variety of ‘high-priority’ wildlife assistance.
    [Show full text]
  • Factors Affecting Female Space Use in Ten Populations of Prairie Chickens
    Factors affecting female space use in ten populations of prairie chickens Winder, V. L., Carrlson, K. M., Gregory, A. J., Hagen, C. A., Haukos, D. A., Kesler, D. C., ... & Sandercock, B. K. (2015). Factors affecting female space use in ten populations of prairie chickens. Ecosphere, 6(9), 166. doi:10.1890/ES14-00536.1 10.1890/ES14-00536.1 Ecological Society of America Version of Record http://cdss.library.oregonstate.edu/sa-termsofuse Factors affecting female space use in ten populations of prairie chickens 1, 2,13 3 4 VIRGINIA L. WINDER, KAYLAN M. CARRLSON, ANDREW J. GREGORY, CHRISTIAN A. HAGEN, 5 2 6 7,14 8 DAVID A. HAUKOS, DYLAN C. KESLER, LENA C. LARSSON, TY W. MATTHEWS, LANCE B. MCNEW, 9 10 7 7,15 11 MICHAEL A. PATTEN, JIM C. PITMAN, LARKIN A. POWELL, JENNIFER A. SMITH, TOM THOMPSON, 6 12 DONALD H. WOLFE, AND BRETT K. SANDERCOCK 1Department of Biology, Benedictine College, Atchison, Kansas 66002 USA 2Fisheries and Wildlife Sciences Department, University of Missouri–Columbia, Columbia, Missouri 65211 USA 3School of Environment and Society, Bowling Green State University, Bowling Green, Ohio 43403 USA 4Department of Fisheries and Wildlife, Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon 97331 USA 5U.S. Geological Survey, Kansas Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, Kansas State University, Manhattan, Kansas 66506 USA 6Sutton Avian Research Center, Bartlesville, Oklahoma 74003 USA 7School of Natural Resources, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Lincoln, Nebraska 68583 USA 8Department of Animal and Range Sciences, Montana State University, Bozeman, Montana 59717 USA 9Oklahoma Biological Survey, Sutton Avian Research Center, Department of Biology, University of Oklahoma, Norman, Oklahoma 73019 USA 10Kansas Department of Wildlife, Parks & Tourism, Emporia, Kansas 66801 USA 11Missouri Department of Conservation, Jefferson City, Missouri 65101 USA 12Division of Biology, Kansas State University, Manhattan, Kansas 66506 USA Citation: Winder, V.
    [Show full text]
  • Predation and the Management of Prairie Grouse
    rgt''::gi°:k..//iS, EiS>3g Uv¢ -m USs,,uI_E 0000 30 i9, . t9 i.<,es,9S<,-0se!<:mNs § | $,S3+: 29 i^. i XL_3r.X.5 i >Sm&23xz.e\3§* 7)iLi;i"v" 3 333.9 _ >i;.i;.is9u9\:S 9.93S9i><.,.::::;;.3i9.00.tl329s9,Z, <'i'-: 3* >gt 0 i =v i : uooBS; v.E.: :::.-.0)f L\j;t;f . gk ::i:::; :0 g 0 - n_ +s_ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 24 SPECIALCOVERAGE ;= E :2:i9'1J '3 i1 6w'S : 5R igis'3.333. d6Ci:9r9;,,e ",X,, :2- ,,,.,,, ,,,,D,: it 3 _ x s § tg > 3b.9; f :; 3 &.:i: :,':@,,: :, -,:: S EI II 1Ew °00; r r _i s 1ts\J11 1s t11 _ S: 9: m X _ 20 ,Q,FB ___Ff N_ .3_r: :. j,:. .,:: _ISIP.9IkP V :>> | Ttanagementof prairie . grouse _IIS. .: 9:::; E _3|6by ,:. ::: MichaelA. Schroeder and .:. .^. :%9: M:g9tW;x3&90Wt93FiXti-:::: LET:: lvlcllaruD* h 2 1x.r Davuacsn ,1 1 .9 : :9 .:13 ' :: . :<i:> 2 :$ . : 3:.v: . e°9'# ;;.3§2 ESe'E ,.,.,::. :::>':E ': .::ji :E:in: :: 1 .X.-72 , t0Ws:: :, x --: :piaper E ::: ii8.:.g ,:.E: examines the importanceof predationin the life cycles of sage grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus), sharp-tailedgrouse (Tympanuchus phasianellus), greaterprairie-chicken (17 cupido), and lesser prairie-chicken(l: pallidicinctus). Most individualprairie grouse eventuallysuccumb to predation,with substantial effects on nest success, juvenilesurvival, and adult survival. Predatorcontrol has occasionallybeen used as a managementtool with the belief that reducingpreda- tor numberscan enhance viabilityof game populationsin generaland prairie grouse in particular.Although some experimentalresearch has shown that direct reduction of predatornumbers can increase grouse recruitment,most currentman- agement plans recommendindirect management of the grouse-predatorrelation- ship by manipulatinghabitats.
    [Show full text]