DOCSLIB.ORG

Flint Hills National Wildlife Refuge, Final Comprehensive Conservation

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Flint Hills National Wildlife Refuge, Final Comprehensive Conservation Flint Hills National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan September 2000 Prepared For: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 134 Union Blvd., Suite 350 Lakewood, Colorado 80228 Prepared by: Research Management Consultants, Inc. 1746 Cole Blvd., Suite 300 Golden, Colorado 80401 Flint Hills National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2000 3 Flint Hills National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan Approval U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 6 4 Flint Hills National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2000 Table of Contents Executive Summary ...................................................................................... 7 Vision .............................................................................................................. 10 Introduction Regional Setting ........................................................................................ 11 Refuge Purpose Statements .................................................................... 12 Planning Perspectives and Considerations Purpose of and Need for the Plan ........................................................... 15 Planning Process ....................................................................................... 16 Planning Perspectives ............................................................................... 17 Expected Planning Outcomes .................................................................. 17 The Ecosystem Approach to Management ............................................ 18 The Arkansas/Red Rivers Ecosystem .................................................... 18 Refuge and Ecosystem Planning Issues and Opportunities ............... 21 Ecosystem and Refuge Resource Description Area of Ecological Concern ..................................................................... 24 Vegetation ................................................................................................... 27 Wildlife ........................................................................................................ 28 Threatened and Endangered Species ............................................. 28 Exotic Species ............................................................................................ 29 Climate ........................................................................................................ 29 Geology ....................................................................................................... 29 Soils ............................................................................................................. 29 Water Management ................................................................................... 30 Cultural and Historic Resources Features ............................................ 35 Socio-economic Features .......................................................................... 35 Public Use ................................................................................................... 36 Refuge Staffing .......................................................................................... 36 Flint Hills NWR Management Program Biological Diversity, Land Protection, Wildlife, and Habitat Protection ...................................................................... 44 Hydrological Restoration and Water Quality ........................................ 47 Public Use, Recreation, Wildlife Interpretation, and Education ....... 53 Cultural Resources .................................................................................... 55 Interagency Coordination and Relations ............................................... 55 Improvement of Staffing, Funding, and Facilities ................................ 56 Legal, Policy, Administrative Guidelines, and Other Special Considerations Legal Mandates ......................................................................................... 57 Agency-Wide Policy Directions ............................................................... 58 National Wildlife Refuge System: Mission and Goals................... 59 Refuge Purpose Statements .................................................................... 61 Plan Implementation Resource Projects ..................................................................................... 62 Proposed Funding and Personnel ............................................................ 64 Partnership Opportunities ....................................................................... 65 Step-Down Management Planning ......................................................... 66 Completed Plans and Other Documents ......................................... 66 Plans and Documents to be Developed in the Future ................... 66 Wilderness Review ............................................................................. 67 Refuge Program Monitoring and Evaluation ........................................ 67 Monitoring and Evaluation of the CCP .................................................. 67 Flint Hills National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2000 5 References....................................................................................................... 68 List of Preparers ............................................................................................. 69 Glossary ............................................................................................................ 70 Abbreviations and Acronyms .................................................................... 73 Appendices A. Plant List .................................................................................................... 74 B. Fish List ...................................................................................................... 82 C. Amphibian and Reptile List ..................................................................... 83 D. Wild Bird Species List .............................................................................. 84 E. Mammal List .............................................................................................. 87 F. Threatened and Endangered Species List ............................................ 87 G. Arkansas/Red Rivers Ecosystem Plan ................................................... 88 H. Key Legislation and Policies .................................................................... 97 I. Cooperative Agreements .......................................................................... 98 J. Contaminant Assessment Process ......................................................... 113 K. Compatibility Determinations ................................................................ 115 L. Finding of No Significant Impact and Environmental Action Memorandum ............................................. 119 M. Mailing List ............................................................................................... 121 N. Public Involvement................................................................................... 122 O. Intra-Service Section 7 Biological Evaluation ..................................... 123 6 Flint Hills National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2000 Executive Summary The Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) for the Flint Hills National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) would serve as a management tool to be used by the Refuge staff and its partners in the preservation and restoration of the ecosystem’s natural resources. In that regard, the Plan will guide management decisions over the next 15 years and set forth strategies for achieving Refuge goals and objectives within that time frame. The management actions presented within this document reflect the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service’s) efforts to meet the goals of the Refuge Improvement Act of 1997. The goals listed below will guide Refuge management: Goal 1: To restore, enhance, and protect the natural diversity on the Flint Hills NWR including threatened and endangered species by appropriate management of habitat and wildlife resources on Refuge lands and by strengthening existing and establishing new cooperative efforts with public and private stakeholders. Goal 2: To restore and maintain a hydrological system for the Neosho River drainage by managing for wetlands (Map #8), control of exotic species, and management of trust responsibilities for the maintenance of plant and animal communities. Goal 3: Provide opportunities for wildlife-dependent public access and recreational opportunities to include compatible forms of hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, photography, interpretation, and educational activities. Goal 4: To protect, manage, and interpret cultural resources on the Flint Hills NWR for the benefit of present and future generations. Goal 5: To strengthen interagency and jurisdictional relationships in order to coordinate efforts with respect to the Refuge and surrounding area issues resulting in decisions benefitting fish and wildlife resources while at the same time avoiding duplication of effort. Goal 6: Improve staffing, funding, and facilities that would result in long- term enhancement of habitat and wildlife resources in the area of ecological concern and support the achievement of the goals of this Plan and the goals of the National Wildlife Refuge System (System). Flint Hills National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2000 7 Objectives with measurable outcomes would guide the Refuge staff
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Hagerman National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan
    U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Hagerman National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan April2006 United States Department of the Interior FISH AND Wll...DLIFE SERVICE P.O. Box 1306 Albuquerque, New Mexico 87103 In Reply Refer To: R2/NWRS-PLN JUN 0 5 2006 Dear Reader: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) is proud to present to you the enclosed Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) for the Hagerman National Wildlife Refuge (Refuge). This CCP and its supporting documents outline a vision for the future of the Refuge and specifies how this unique area can be maintained to conserve indigenous wildlife and their habitats for the enjoyment of the public for generations to come. Active community participation is vitally important to manage the Refuge successfully. By reviewing this CCP and visiting the Refuge, you will have opportunities to learn more about its purpose and prospects. We invite you to become involved in its future. The Service would like to thank all the people who participated in the planning and public involvement process. Comments you submitted helped us prepare a better CCP for the future of this unique place. Sincerely, Tom Baca Chief, Division of Planning Hagerman National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan Sherman, Texas Prepared by: United States Fish and Wildlife Service Division of Planning Region 2 500 Gold SW Albuquerque, New Mexico 87103 Comprehensive conservation plans provide long-term guidance for management decisions and set forth goals, objectives, and strategies needed to accomplish refuge purposes and identify the 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.
    [Show full text]
  • F.3 References for Appendix F
    F-1 APPENDIX F: ECOREGIONS OF THE 11 WESTERN STATES AND DISTRIBUTION BY ECOREGION OF WIND ENERGY RESOURCES ON BLM-ADMINISTERED LANDS WITHIN EACH STATE F-2 F-3 APPENDIX F: ECOREGIONS OF THE 11 WESTERN STATES AND DISTRIBUTION BY ECOREGION OF WIND ENERGY RESOURCES ON BLM-ADMINISTERED LANDS WITHIN EACH STATE F.1 DESCRIPTIONS OF THE ECOREGIONS Ecoregions delineate areas that have a general similarity in their ecosystems and in the types, qualities, and quantities of their environmental resources. They are based on unique combinations of geology, physiography, vegetation, climate, soils, land use, wildlife, and hydrology (EPA 2004). Ecoregions are defined as areas having relative homogeneity in their ecological systems and their components. Factors associated with spatial differences in the quality and quantity of ecosystem components (including soils, vegetation, climate, geology, and physiography) are relatively homogeneous within an ecoregion. A number of individuals and organizations have characterized North America on the basis of ecoregions (e.g., Omernik 1987; CEC 1997; Bailey 1997). The intent of such ecoregion classifications has been to provide a spatial framework for the research, assessment, management, and monitoring of ecosystems and ecosystem components. The ecoregion discussions presented in this programmatic environmental impact statement (PEIS) follow the Level III ecoregion classification based on Omernik (1987) and refined through collaborations among U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regional offices, state resource management agencies, and other federal agencies (EPA 2004). The following sections provide brief descriptions of each of the Level III ecoregions that have been identified for the 11 western states in which potential wind energy development may occur on BLM-administered lands.
    [Show full text]
  • Ecoregions of the Mississippi Alluvial Plain
    92° 91° 90° 89° 88° Ecoregions of the Mississippi Alluvial Plain Cape Girardeau 73cc 72 io Ri Ecoregions denote areas of general similarity in ecosystems and in the type, quality, and quantity of This level III and IV ecoregion map was compiled at a scale of 1:250,000 and depicts revisions and Literature Cited: PRINCIPAL AUTHORS: Shannen S. Chapman (Dynamac Corporation), Oh ver environmental resources; they are designed to serve as a spatial framework for the research, subdivisions of earlier level III ecoregions that were originally compiled at a smaller scale (USEPA Bailey, R.G., Avers, P.E., King, T., and McNab, W.H., eds., 1994, Omernik, J.M., 1987, Ecoregions of the conterminous United States (map Barbara A. Kleiss (USACE, ERDC -Waterways Experiment Station), James M. ILLINOIS assessment, management, and monitoring of ecosystems and ecosystem components. By recognizing 2003, Omernik, 1987). This poster is part of a collaborative effort primarily between USEPA Region Ecoregions and subregions of the United States (map) (supplementary supplement): Annals of the Association of American Geographers, v. 77, no. 1, Omernik, (USEPA, retired), Thomas L. Foti (Arkansas Natural Heritage p. 118-125, scale 1:7,500,000. 71 the spatial differences in the capacities and potentials of ecosystems, ecoregions stratify the VII, USEPA National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory (Corvallis, Oregon), table of map unit descriptions compiled and edited by McNab, W.H., and Commission), and Elizabeth O. Murray (Arkansas Multi-Agency Wetland Bailey, R.G.): Washington, D.C., U.S. Department of Agriculture - Forest Planning Team). 37° environment by its probable response to disturbance (Bryce and others, 1999).
    [Show full text]
  • Winter 2014-2015 (22:3) (PDF)
    Contents NATIVE NOTES Page Fern workshop 1-2 Wavey-leaf basket Grass 3 Names Cacalia 4 Trip Report Sandstone Falls 5 Kate’s Mountain Clover* Trip Report Brush Creek Falls 6 Thank yous memorial 7 WEST VIRGINIA NATIVE PLANT SOCIETY NEWSLETTER News of WVNPS 8 VOLUME 22:3 WINTER 2014-15 Events, Dues Form 9 Judy Dumke-Editor: [email protected] Phone 740-894-6859 Magnoliales 10 e e e visit us at www.wvnps.org e e e . Fern Workshop University of Charleston Charleston WV January 17 2015, bad weather date January 24 2015 If you have thought about ferns, looked at them, puzzled over them or just want to know more about them join the WVNPS in Charleston for a workshop led by Mark Watson of the University of Charleston. The session will start at 10 A.M. with a scheduled end point by 12:30 P.M. A board meeting will follow. The sessions will be held in the Clay Tower Building (CTB) room 513, which is the botany lab. If you have any pressed specimens to share, or to ask about, be sure to bring them with as much information as you have on the location and habitat. Even photographs of ferns might be of interest for the session. If you have a hand lens that you favor bring it along as well. DIRECTIONS From the North: Travel I-77 South or 1-79 South into Charleston. Follow the signs to I-64 West. Take Oakwood Road Exit 58A and follow the signs to Route 61 South (MacCorkle Ave.).
    [Show full text]
  • (Lamiaceae and Verbenaceae) Using Two DNA Barcode Markers
    J Biosci (2020)45:96 Ó Indian Academy of Sciences DOI: 10.1007/s12038-020-00061-2 (0123456789().,-volV)(0123456789().,-volV) Re-evaluation of the phylogenetic relationships and species delimitation of two closely related families (Lamiaceae and Verbenaceae) using two DNA barcode markers 1 2 3 OOOYEBANJI *, E C CHUKWUMA ,KABOLARINWA , 4 5 6 OIADEJOBI ,SBADEYEMI and A O AYOOLA 1Department of Botany, University of Lagos, Akoka, Yaba, Lagos, Nigeria 2Forest Herbarium Ibadan (FHI), Forestry Research Institute of Nigeria, Ibadan, Nigeria 3Department of Education Science (Biology Unit), Distance Learning Institute, University of Lagos, Akoka, Lagos, Nigeria 4Landmark University, Omu-Aran, Kwara State, Nigeria 5Ethnobotany Unit, Department of Plant Biology, Faculty of Life Sciences, University of Ilorin, Ilorin, Nigeria 6Department of Ecotourism and Wildlife Management, Federal University of Technology, Akure, Ondo State, Nigeria *Corresponding author (Email, [email protected]) MS received 21 September 2019; accepted 27 May 2020 The families Lamiaceae and Verbenaceae comprise several closely related species that possess high mor- phological synapomorphic traits. Hence, there is a tendency of species misidentification using only the mor- phological characters. Herein, we evaluated the discriminatory power of the universal DNA barcodes (matK and rbcL) for 53 species spanning the two families. Using these markers, we inferred phylogenetic relation- ships and conducted species delimitation analysis using four delimitation methods: Automated Barcode Gap Discovery (ABGD), TaxonDNA, Bayesian Poisson Tree Processes (bPTP) and General Mixed Yule Coalescent (GMYC). The phylogenetic reconstruction based on the matK gene resolved the relationships between the families and further suggested the expansion of the Lamiaceae to include some core Verbanaceae genus, e.g., Gmelina.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter Two Characterization of the IWJV Landscape Principal Author: Patrick Donnelly
    Chapter Two Characterization of the IWJV Landscape Principal Author: Patrick Donnelly Photo by Patrick Donnelly Inside this Chapter Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 2.2 Ecological Setting ................................................................................................................ 2.3 • Northwestern Forested Mountains Ecological Region (162.2 million acres) ......................... 2.3 • North American Deserts Ecological Region (278.9 million acres) ........................................ 2.4 • Temperate Sierras Ecological Region (19.9 million acres) .................................................. 2.7 Defining an Ecological Framework ....................................................................................... 2.9 • Global/Intercontinental Scale (Level I Ecoregions) ............................................................. 2.9 • National/Sub-continental Scale (Level II Ecoregions) ....................................................... 2.10 • Regional Scale (Level III Ecoregions) .............................................................................. 2.12 • Local Scale (Level IV Ecoregions) ................................................................................... 2.14 Conservation Estate & Landownership Patterns ................................................................ 2.15 Literature Cited ................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Ecoregions of Texas
    Ecoregions of Texas 23 Arizona/New Mexico Mountains 26 Southwestern Tablelands 30 Edwards Plateau 23a Chihuahuan Desert Slopes 26a Canadian/Cimarron Breaks 30a Edwards Plateau Woodland 23b Montane Woodlands 26b Flat Tablelands and Valleys 30b Llano Uplift 24 Chihuahuan Deserts 26c Caprock Canyons, Badlands, and Breaks 30c Balcones Canyonlands 24a Chihuahuan Basins and Playas 26d Semiarid Canadian Breaks 30d Semiarid Edwards Plateau 24b Chihuahuan Desert Grasslands 27 Central Great Plains 31 Southern Texas Plains 24c Low Mountains and Bajadas 27h Red Prairie 31a Northern Nueces Alluvial Plains 24d Chihuahuan Montane Woodlands 27i Broken Red Plains 31b Semiarid Edwards Bajada 24e Stockton Plateau 27j Limestone Plains 31c Texas-Tamaulipan Thornscrub 25 High Plains 29 Cross Timbers 31d Rio Grande Floodplain and Terraces 25b Rolling Sand Plains 29b Eastern Cross Timbers 25e Canadian/Cimarron High Plains 29c Western Cross Timbers 25i Llano Estacado 29d Grand Prairie 25j Shinnery Sands 29e Limestone Cut Plain 25k Arid Llano Estacado 29f Carbonate Cross Timbers 25b 26a 26a 25b 25e Level III ecoregion 26d 300 60 120 mi Level IV ecoregion 26a Amarillo 27h 60 0 120 240 km County boundary 26c State boundary Albers equal area projection 27h 25i 26b 25j 27h 35g 35g 26b Wichita 29b 35a 35c Lubbock 26c Falls 33d 27i 29d Sherman 35a 25j Denton 33d 35c 32a 33f 35b 25j 26b Dallas 33f 35a 35b 27h 29f Fort 35b Worth 33a 26b Abilene 32c Tyler 29b 24c 29c 35b 23a Midland 26c 30d 35a El Paso 24a 23b Odessa 35b 24a 24b 25k 27j 33f Nacogdoches 24d Waco Pecos 25j
    [Show full text]
  • 2019 Ecological Indicator Report
    2019 CFLRP Ecological Indicator Progress Report OVERVIEW Introduction In 2011, the National Forest Foundation convened CFLRP participants to develop a set of national indicators. The resulting five indicators are economic impacts, fire risk and costs, collaboration, leveraged funds, and ecological condition. Data to support these five indicators comes from a number of sources, including the Treatment for Restoration Economic Analysis Toolkit, collaboration surveys conducted by NFF, and the Annual Reports. Projects first reported on ecological indicators in 2014. Since then, the CFLRP staff in the US Forest Service Washington Office have worked with colleagues and partners to review and update to template to make improvements while maintaining a consistent protocol to 2014. The intent of the 2019 CFLRP Ecological Indicator Progress Report is to better understand your progress in advancing ecological outcomes. It is not intended to capture everything about your monitoring activities. To aid you in filling out this report, we recommend that you read the new 2019 Guidance Document. We also recommend that you reference your past Annual Reports and your 2014 Ecological Indicator Progress Reports. For additional help, please email [email protected]. We appreciate the time and energy you dedicate to completing this progress report. This information is critical for understanding the ecological outcomes of your work, telling the national story, supporting communication and transparency, and sharing successful approaches and practices across the nation.
    [Show full text]
  • Floerkea Proserpinacoides Willdenow False Mermaid-Weed
    New England Plant Conservation Program Floerkea proserpinacoides Willdenow False Mermaid-weed Conservation and Research Plan for New England Prepared by: William H. Moorhead III Consulting Botanist Litchfield, Connecticut and Elizabeth J. Farnsworth Senior Research Ecologist New England Wild Flower Society Framingham, Massachusetts For: New England Wild Flower Society 180 Hemenway Road Framingham, MA 01701 508/877-7630 e-mail: [email protected] • website: www.newfs.org Approved, Regional Advisory Council, December 2003 1 SUMMARY Floerkea proserpinacoides Willdenow, false mermaid-weed, is an herbaceous annual and the only member of the Limnanthaceae in New England. The species has a disjunct but widespread range throughout North America, with eastern and western segregates separated by the Great Plains. In the east, it ranges from Nova Scotia south to Louisiana and west to Minnesota and Missouri. In the west, it ranges from British Columbia to California, east to Utah and Colorado. Although regarded as Globally Secure (G5), national ranks of N? in Canada and the United States indicate some uncertainly about its true conservation status in North America. It is listed as rare (S1 or S2) in 20% of the states and provinces in which it occurs. Floerkea is known from only 11 sites total in New England: three historic sites in Vermont (where it is ranked SH), one historic population in Massachusetts (where it is ranked SX), and four extant and three historic localities in Connecticut (where it is ranked S1, Endangered). The Flora Conservanda: New England ranks it as a Division 2 (Regionally Rare) taxon. Floerkea inhabits open or forested floodplains, riverside seeps, and limestone cliffs in New England, and more generally moist alluvial soils, mesic forests, springy woods, and streamside meadows throughout its range.
    [Show full text]
  • Kansas North Montana Dakota
    Kansas North Montana Dakota South Dakota Wyoming Nebraska Utah Colorado Kansas Kansas Partners Program Conservation Focus Areas Introduction and Overview visible on global satellite images. “Natural Kansas” edited by Joseph It is within this prairie landscape, T Collins, University Press of Kansas is known as the “Prairie where PFW program is needed. Kansas. State.” Often, people will drive With 97% of the state in private through and have the perception ownership (Kansas Department Focus Area Selection of miles and miles of nothing, not of Wildlife and Parks 2008), there even a tree. The lack of trees, are ample opportunities for the Through continued communication cities, and crop fields, or rather, the PFW program to assist ranchers with our conservation partners we presence of vast intact grasslands and farmers with voluntary fish established four focus areas for the is exactly what makes Kansas and wildlife habitat restoration KS PFW program. The Southwest unique. This feature provides an projects. Over time, invasive Kansas Prairies and Playas, North extraordinary view of the past and species, fragmentation, and poor Central Prairies, Flint Hills, and what the landscape can continue land management have led to Central Wetlands and Prairies to look like in the future. The fact degradation and loss of prairie prioritize our conservation efforts. that someone can drive and see only habitats, contributing to the decline Using Geographic Information miles and miles of unaltered terrain of numerous Federal trust species. Systems (GIS) technologies, we is beautiful to many. A landscape Through educational efforts and incorporated datasets created void of trees, forms the unique the application of appropriate by conservation partners that character of the prairie and hosts a land management strategies, the included; species habitat models, vast amount of native wildlife.
    [Show full text]
  • From Easement to Stewardship Attorneys at Law Focuses on Oil Flint Hills Ranches Get a Conservation Boost and Gas, Energy, Environmental and Real Estate Law
    KANSAS Fall 2020 • nature.org/kansas Photos courtesy Jeff Kennedy and John Mize Jeff Kennedy and John Mize Join Board of Trustees The Nature Conservancy’s Kansas Board of Trustees is pleased to announce two attorneys, Jeff Kennedy (Wichita) and John Mize Cattle drive in the Flint Hills, Chase county, Kansas © Ryan Donnell (Salina), have joined their ranks. Jeff’s practice at Martin Pringle, From Easement to Stewardship Attorneys at Law focuses on oil Flint Hills ranches get a conservation boost and gas, energy, environmental and real estate law. He served Conservation easements have long been of Kansas and Oklahoma. Stewardship on the Kansas Energy Council an important tool to protect farms, assistance may be in the form of help with and was a member of the Kansas ranches and working forests across the prescribed burning, equipment loans, Energy & Environmental Policy United States. They have been especially mapping of invasive species or cost- Advisory Group. effective in the Flint Hills, where nearly all share dollars. Emphasis will be placed on the land is privately owned and more than enhancing biodiversity of the property, John recently retired from Clark, 110,000 acres have been permanently and ongoing monitoring of plant and Mize and Linville, Chartered protected with conservation easements. animal communities will measure success. after a long career practicing While easements are an effective strategy health care and non-profit to curb the threat of development of “Layering this additional conservation law. He has served on the native grasslands, other conservation on top of easements advances our goal of Kansas Commission on Judicial challenges remain.
    [Show full text]
  • East Central Plains (Post Oak Savanna)
    TEXAS CONSERVATION ACTION PLAN East Central Texas Plains (Post Oak Savanna) ECOREGION HANDBOOK August 2012 Citing this document: Texas Parks and Wildlife Department. 2012. Texas Conservation Action Plan 2012 – 2016: East Central Texas Plains Handbook. Editor, Wendy Connally, Texas Conservation Action Plan Coordinator. Austin, Texas. Contents SUMMARY ..................................................................................................................................................... 1 HOW TO GET INVOLVED ............................................................................................................................... 2 OVERVIEW ..................................................................................................................................................... 3 RARE SPECIES and COMMUNITIES .............................................................................................................. 13 PRIORITY HABITATS ..................................................................................................................................... 13 ISSUES ......................................................................................................................................................... 19 CONSERVATION ACTIONS ........................................................................................................................... 28 ECOREGION HANDBOOK FIGURES Figure 1. ECPL Ecoregion with County Boundaries ......................................................................................
    [Show full text]