DOCSLIB.ORG

Draft Fish and Wildlife Habitat Areas BAS Memo

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Draft Fish and Wildlife Habitat Areas BAS Memo DRAFT KITTITAS COUNTY CRITICAL AREA ORDINANCE – FISH AND WILDLIFE HABITAT CONSERVATION AREAS BEST AVAILABLE SCIENCE REVIEW AND CONSIDERATIONS FOR CODE UPDATE Prepared for: June 2012 Kittitas County Kittitas County CAO– FWHCAs Best Available Science Review & Consideration For Code Update TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 1.0 Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas .......................................................................... 1 1.1 OVERVIEW OF INVENTORY ................................................................................................................... 3 1.1.1 Species and Habitats ............................................................................................................. 3 1.1.2 State Priority Habitats and Species ....................................................................................... 9 1.1.3 Habitats and Species of Local Importance .......................................................................... 10 1.1.4 Naturally Occurring Ponds ................................................................................................. 10 1.1.5 Waters of the State ............................................................................................................... 10 1.1.6 Waters Planted with Game Fish .......................................................................................... 11 1.1.7 State Natural Areas ............................................................................................................. 11 1.1.8 Lands Essential for Habitat Connectivity ............................................................................ 11 1.2 HABITAT EVALUATION OF KITTITAS COUNTY .................................................................................... 11 1.2.1 Kittitas County Vegetative Matrix ....................................................................................... 12 1.3 OVERVIEW OF HABITAT FUNCTIONS AND VALUES ............................................................................. 26 1.3.1 Habitat Functions ................................................................................................................ 26 1.4 HUMAN ACTIVITY AND HABITAT FUNCTIONS .................................................................................... 27 1.4.1 Ecological Disturbance ....................................................................................................... 27 1.4.2 Behavioral Disturbance ....................................................................................................... 30 1.5 HABITAT MANAGEMENT AND PROTECTION TOOLS ............................................................................ 31 1.5.1 Acquisition, Designation, Rating, and Classification .......................................................... 31 1.5.2 Buffers ................................................................................................................................. 31 1.5.3 Reporting Requirements ...................................................................................................... 33 1.5.4 Timing Restrictions .............................................................................................................. 33 1.5.5 Habitat Mitigation ............................................................................................................... 34 1.6 REVIEW OF KITTITAS COUNTY FWHCA REGULATIONS – WILDLIFE ................................................. 34 1.6.1 Existing Kittitas County Code ............................................................................................. 34 1.6.2 Considerations for Code Updates ....................................................................................... 35 2.0 Fish and Other Aquatic Species .................................................................................................. 37 2.1 OVERVIEW OF INVENTORY ................................................................................................................. 37 2.1.1 Species and Habitats ........................................................................................................... 37 2.1.2 Aquatic Habitats .................................................................................................................. 43 2.1.3 Overview of Aquatic Habitat Functions and Values ............................................................ 48 2.1.4 Channel Migration Zones (CMZs) ....................................................................................... 52 2.1.5 Large Woody Debris Recruitment (LWD) ........................................................................... 52 2.1.6 Shading and Temperature.................................................................................................... 53 2.1.7 Bank Stabilization and Habitat Formation .......................................................................... 53 2.1.8 Filtering of Sediment, Nutrients, and Chemicals ................................................................. 54 2.1.9 Organic Input and Nutrient Source ..................................................................................... 55 2.1.10 Microclimate ........................................................................................................................ 55 2.2 HUMAN ACTIVITY AND AQUATIC HABITAT FUNCTIONS ..................................................................... 55 2.2.1 Freshwater Riverine Limiting Factors ................................................................................ 55 2.2.2 Altered Flow Regime ........................................................................................................... 57 2.2.3 Habitat Concerns ................................................................................................................. 58 2.2.4 Climate and Oceanic Conditions ......................................................................................... 58 2.2.5 Harvest and Habitat Factors ............................................................................................... 60 2.2.6 Habitat Management and Protection Tools ......................................................................... 60 2.2.7 Protection and Management of Anadromous Species ......................................................... 64 2.3 REVIEW OF KITTITAS COUNTY FISH AND WILDLIFE HABITAT CONSERVATION AREAS REGULATIONS – FISH AND AQUATIC HABITAT ......................................................................................................................... 67 2.3.1 Incorporation of GMA Guidance on Identification of FWHCAs ......................................... 68 2.3.2 Incorporation of Best Available Science With Respect to Functions and Values of FWHCAs ............................................................................................................................ 70 2.3.3 Reporting Requirements for FWHCAs ................................................................................ 71 Environmental Science Associates Page i June 2012 Kittitas County CAO– FWHCAs Best Available Science Review & Consideration For Code Update 2.3.4 Mitigation Sequencing ......................................................................................................... 72 2.3.5 Timing Restrictions .............................................................................................................. 73 3.0 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................. 74 LIST OF TABLES Table 1. WDFW Designated Priority Habitats that Occur in Kittitas County. ............................... 2 Table 2. Listed, Sensitive, and Candidate Species Known or Suspected to Occur in Kittitas County. .................................................................................................................................... 4 Table 3. Priority Species Known or Suspected to Occur in Kittitas County .................................. 9 Table 4. Effects of Disturbance and Habitat Alteration on Wildlife ............................................ 28 Table 5. Recommended Buffer Widths to Provide Effective Wildlife Habitat ............................ 32 Table 6. Habitat Associations and Distribution of Priority and Listed Fish Species in Kittitas ... 44 Table 7. Stream Riparian Functions and Appropriate Widths Identified by May (2000). ........... 49 Table 8. Stream Riparian Functions and Appropriate Widths Identified by Knutson and Naef (1997). ................................................................................................................................... 49 Table 9. Stream Riparian Functions and Appropriate Widths Identified by FEMAT (1993). ..... 49 Table 10. Water Type Conversions from WAC 222-16-031. ....................................................... 61 Table 11. Allowable In-Water Work Windows for Kittitas County Streams ............................... 63 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Curves correlating to the percent effectiveness of a function in relation to SPTH (FEMAT 1993). .................................................................................................................... 51 Page ii Environmental Science Associates June 2012 Kittitas County CAO– FWHCAs Best Available Science Review & Consideration For Code Update 1.0 FISH AND WILDLIFE HABITAT CONSERVATION AREAS1 Washington State’s Growth Management Act (GMA) (RCW 36.70A.060) requires counties and cities to adopt development regulations
Load more

Recommended publications
  • List of Animal Species with Ranks October 2017
    Washington Natural Heritage Program List of Animal Species with Ranks October 2017 The following list of animals known from Washington is complete for resident and transient vertebrates and several groups of invertebrates, including odonates, branchipods, tiger beetles, butterflies, gastropods, freshwater bivalves and bumble bees. Some species from other groups are included, especially where there are conservation concerns. Among these are the Palouse giant earthworm, a few moths and some of our mayflies and grasshoppers. Currently 857 vertebrate and 1,100 invertebrate taxa are included. Conservation status, in the form of range-wide, national and state ranks are assigned to each taxon. Information on species range and distribution, number of individuals, population trends and threats is collected into a ranking form, analyzed, and used to assign ranks. Ranks are updated periodically, as new information is collected. We welcome new information for any species on our list. Common Name Scientific Name Class Global Rank State Rank State Status Federal Status Northwestern Salamander Ambystoma gracile Amphibia G5 S5 Long-toed Salamander Ambystoma macrodactylum Amphibia G5 S5 Tiger Salamander Ambystoma tigrinum Amphibia G5 S3 Ensatina Ensatina eschscholtzii Amphibia G5 S5 Dunn's Salamander Plethodon dunni Amphibia G4 S3 C Larch Mountain Salamander Plethodon larselli Amphibia G3 S3 S Van Dyke's Salamander Plethodon vandykei Amphibia G3 S3 C Western Red-backed Salamander Plethodon vehiculum Amphibia G5 S5 Rough-skinned Newt Taricha granulosa
    [Show full text]
  • Washington Inland Fish
    NatureMapping for Fish and Streams A citizen’s guide to stream monitoring and restoration Washington Department of FISH AND WILDLIFE Outreach and Education TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Number Introduction 1 NatureMapping 1 Stream Safety and Etiquette 1 How to Use This Manual 1 Fish and Their Needs 2 Salmon 3 The Salmon Life Cycle 3 Other Fish 4 Data Collection 6 Fish Surveys 6 Habitat Surveys 9 Stream Bugs 9 Redd Identification 12 Step by Step Survey Instructions 13 Data Input Form 14 Appendix 1 - Anadromous Fish 15 Appendix 2 - Inland Fish 19 Appendix 3 - Critical Stocks 22 Glossary 23 January 1997 Produced by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Outreach and Education Funded by the Shewmaker Bequest Scholarship Written by Adam Couto Contributors: Chuck Baranski, Jim Byrd, Kent Dimmitt, Steve Jenks, Mike O’Malley, Lynn Palensky, Darrell Pruett, Carol Smith, Kathleen South, Margaret Tudor, Bill Tweit, the Washington State Department of Ecology, and the North West Indian Fisheries Commision. Introduction Introduction NatureMapping ...is a joint outreach program (developed by the NATUREMAPPING for STREAMS Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife and the Stream Safety and Etiquette University of Washington Gap Analysis Project) to 1. Always ask permission to enter private property. Your promote biodiversity studies through citizen and school- ability to monitor and enhance fish habitat depends on based data collection. The objective is to empower the goodwill of the landowner. citizens to plan and manage resources for a community 2. Watch for redds (salmon egg nests), particularly from within a watershed. September through January. Redds can be hard to see, and eggs are easily killed by a poorly placed foot.
    [Show full text]
  • Aquatic Reserves Program Guidance (Final EIS) on September 6, 2002
    N A T U R A L R E S O U R C E SA Implementation andDesignation Aquatic ReserveProgram Photo b y Ca rol Cloen Guidance September 2005 Acknowledgements Technical Reviewers of Site Evaluation Criteria and Ecological Framework Dr. James W. Barry, California Department of Parks and Recreation Dr. Mike Beck, The Nature Conservancy Dr. Megan Dethier, University of Washington Dr. David Fluharty, University of Washington Dr. Ron Hilborn, University of Washington Wayne Palsson, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Dr. Julia Parrish, University of Washington Kit Rawson, Tulalip Tribe Dr. Mary Ruckelshaus, National Marine Fisheries Service Other Contributors Marc Daily Carol Piening Jay Udelhoven Helen Berry Tom Mumford Scott Pearson John Gammon DNR Regional Review David Roberts Scott Robinson Rex Thompson Editor / Report Production Jane Chavey All contributors are DNR staff unless otherwise indicated. Copies of this report may be obtained from the Aquatic Reserves Program Manager or copied from the web page. Contact Information Aquatic Reserve Program Manager Phone: 360-902-1100 E-mail: [email protected] Webpage: www.dnr.wa.gov/htdocs/aqr/reserves DOUG SUTHERLAND Commissione r of Public Lands November 4, 2005 Dear Reader, Washington’s aquatic environment is an invaluable public resource that is treasured by the people of the state. The 2.4 million acres of state-owned aquatic lands is managed by the Washington State Department of Natural Resources to foster water- dependent use, public access, renewable resources, and environmental protection. Established in September 2002, the Aquatic Reserves Program is part of the Department’s efforts to conserve significant state-owned aquatic lands through preservation, restoration, and enhancement.
    [Show full text]
  • MAMMALS of WASHINGTON Order DIDELPHIMORPHIA
    MAMMALS OF WASHINGTON If there is no mention of regions, the species occurs throughout the state. Order DIDELPHIMORPHIA (New World opossums) DIDELPHIDAE (New World opossums) Didelphis virginiana, Virginia Opossum. Wooded habitats. Widespread in W lowlands, very local E; introduced from E U.S. Order INSECTIVORA (insectivores) SORICIDAE (shrews) Sorex cinereus, Masked Shrew. Moist forested habitats. Olympic Peninsula, Cascades, and NE corner. Sorex preblei, Preble's Shrew. Conifer forest. Blue Mountains in Garfield Co.; rare. Sorex vagrans, Vagrant Shrew. Marshes, meadows, and moist forest. Sorex monticolus, Montane Shrew. Forests. Cascades to coast, NE corner, and Blue Mountains. Sorex palustris, Water Shrew. Mountain streams and pools. Olympics, Cascades, NE corner, and Blue Mountains. Sorex bendirii, Pacific Water Shrew. Marshes and stream banks. W of Cascades. Sorex trowbridgii, Trowbridge's Shrew. Forests. Cascades to coast. Sorex merriami, Merriam's Shrew. Shrub steppe and grasslands. Columbia basin and foothills of Blue Mountains. Sorex hoyi, Pygmy Shrew. Many habitats. NE corner (known only from S Stevens Co.), rare. TALPIDAE (moles) Neurotrichus gibbsii, Shrew-mole. Moist forests. Cascades to coast. Scapanus townsendii, Townsend's Mole. Meadows. W lowlands. Scapanus orarius, Coast Mole. Most habitats. W lowlands, central E Cascades slopes, and Blue Mountains foothills. Order CHIROPTERA (bats) VESPERTILIONIDAE (vespertilionid bats) Myotis lucifugus, Little Brown Myotis. Roosts in buildings and caves. Myotis yumanensis, Yuma Myotis. All habitats near water, roosting in trees, buildings, and caves. Myotis keenii, Keen's Myotis. Forests, roosting in tree cavities and cliff crevices. Olympic Peninsula. Myotis evotis, Long-eared Myotis. Conifer forests, roosting in tree cavities, caves and buildings; also watercourses in arid regions.
    [Show full text]
  • Induced Spatial Heterogeneity in Forest Canopies: Responses of Small Mammals
    INDUCED SPATIAL HETEROGENEITY IN FOREST CANOPIES: RESPONSES OF SMALL MAMMALS ANDREW B. CAREY,1 Pacific Northwest Research Station, U.S. Forest Service, 3625 93rd Avenue S.W., Olympia, WA 98512, USA SUZANNE M. WILSON, Pacific Northwest Research Station, U.S. Forest Service, 3625 93rd Avenue S.W., Olympia, WA 98512, USA Abstract: We hypothesized that creating a mosaic of interspersed patches of different densities of canopy trees in a second-growth Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesiz) forest would accelerate development of biocomplexity (diversity in ecosystem structure, composition, and processes) by promoting spatial heterogeneity in understory, midstory, and canopy, compared to typical managed forests. In turn, increased spatial heterogeneity was expected to promote variety in fine-scale plant associations, foliage height diversity, and abundance of small mammals. Three years following treatment, understory species richness and herb cover were greater with variable-density thinning than without. Midstory and canopy species did not have time to develop significant differences between treatments. Variable-density thinning resulted in larger populations of deer mice (Peromyscus maniculatus), a species associated with understory shrubs; creeping voles (Microtus oregonz), a species associated with herbaceous vegetation, and vagrant shrews (Sorex vagrans), a species usually associated with openings but common in old growth. No forest-floor small-mammal species, including those associated with old-growth forest, declined in abundance following variable-density thinning. Annual variation in population size was not related to treatment. Variable-density thinning may accelerate the development of biocomplexity in second-growth forest by promoting spatial heterogeneity and compositional diversity in the plant community, increasing diversity and abundance of small mammals, and similarly affecting other vertebrate communities.
    [Show full text]
  • Northern Short−Tailed Shrew (Blarina Brevicauda)
    FIELD GUIDE TO NORTH AMERICAN MAMMALS Northern Short−tailed Shrew (Blarina brevicauda) ORDER: Insectivora FAMILY: Soricidae Blarina sp. − summer coat Credit: painting by Nancy Halliday from Kays and Wilson's Northern Short−tailed Shrews have poisonous saliva. This enables Mammals of North America, © Princeton University Press them to kill mice and larger prey and paralyze invertebrates such as (2002) snails and store them alive for later eating. The shrews have very limited vision, and rely on a kind of echolocation, a series of ultrasonic "clicks," to make their way around the tunnels and burrows they dig. They nest underground, lining their nests with vegetation and sometimes with fur. They do not hibernate. Their day is organized around highly active periods lasting about 4.5 minutes, followed by rest periods that last, on average, 24 minutes. Population densities can fluctuate greatly from year to year and even crash, requiring several years to recover. Winter mortality can be as high as 90 percent in some areas. Fossils of this species are known from the Pliocene, and fossils representing other, extinct species of the genus Blarina are even older. Also known as: Short−tailed Shrew, Mole Shrew Sexual Dimorphism: Males may be slightly larger than females. Length: Range: 118−139 mm Weight: Range: 18−30 g http://www.mnh.si.edu/mna 1 FIELD GUIDE TO NORTH AMERICAN MAMMALS Least Shrew (Cryptotis parva) ORDER: Insectivora FAMILY: Soricidae Least Shrews have a repertoire of tiny calls, audible to human ears up to a distance of only 20 inches or so. Nests are of leaves or grasses in some hidden place, such as on the ground under a cabbage palm leaf or in brush.
    [Show full text]
  • Speckled Dace, Rhinichthys Osculus, in Canada, Prepared Under Contract with Environment and Climate Change Canada
    COSEWIC Assessment and Status Report on the Speckled Dace Rhinichthys osculus in Canada ENDANGERED 2016 COSEWIC status reports are working documents used in assigning the status of wildlife species suspected of being at risk. This report may be cited as follows: COSEWIC. 2016. COSEWIC assessment and status report on the Speckled Dace Rhinichthys osculus in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. xi + 51 pp. (http://www.registrelep-sararegistry.gc.ca/default.asp?lang=en&n=24F7211B-1). Previous report(s): COSEWIC 2006. COSEWIC assessment and update status report on the speckled dace Rhinichthys osculus in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. vi + 27 pp. (www.sararegistry.gc.ca/status/status_e.cfm). COSEWIC 2002. COSEWIC assessment and update status report on the speckled dace Rhinichthys osculus in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. vi + 36 pp. (www.sararegistry.gc.ca/status/status_e.cfm). Peden, A. 2002. COSEWIC assessment and update status report on the speckled dace Rhinichthys osculus in Canada, in COSEWIC assessment and update status report on the speckled dace Rhinichthys osculus in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. 1-36 pp. Peden, A.E. 1980. COSEWIC status report on the speckled dace Rhinichthys osculus in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. 1-13 pp. Production note: COSEWIC would like to acknowledge Andrea Smith (Hutchinson Environmental Sciences Ltd.) for writing the status report on the Speckled Dace, Rhinichthys osculus, in Canada, prepared under contract with Environment and Climate Change Canada.
    [Show full text]
  • Field Key to the Freshwater Fishes of British Columbia
    FIELD KEY TO THE FRESHWATER FISHES OF BRITISH COLUMBIA J.D. McPhail and R. Carveth Fish Museum, Department of Zoology, University of British Columbia, 6270 University Blvd., Vancouver, B.C., Canada, V6T 1Z4 (604) 822-4803 Fax (604) 822-2416 © The Province of British Columbia Published by the Resources Inventory Committee Canadian Cataloguing in Publication Data McPhail, J. D. (John Donald) Field key to the freshwater, fishes of British Columbia Also available through the Internet. Previously issued: Field key to the freshwater fishes of British Columbia. Draft for 1994 field testing, 1994. Includes bibliographical references: p. ISBN 0-7726-3830-6 (Field guide) ISBN 0-7726-3844-6 (Computer file) 1. Freshwater fishes - British Columbia - Identification. I. Carveth, R. II. Resources Inventory Committee (Canada) III. Title. QL626.5.B7M36 1999 597.176'09711 C99-960109-1 Additional Copies of this publication can be purchased from: Government Publications Centre Phone: (250) 387-3309 or Toll free: 1 -800-663-6105 Fax: (250) 387-0388 www.publications.gov.bc.ca Digital Copies are available on the Internet at: http://www.for.gov. bc.ca/ric Text copyright © 1993 J.D. McPhail Illustrations copyright © 1993 D.L. McPhail All rights reserved. Design and layout by D.L. McPhail "Admitted that some degree of obscurity is inseparable from both theology and ichthyology, it is not inconsistent with profound respect for the professors of both sciences to observe that a great deal of it has been created by themselves." Sir Herbert Maxwell TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction · i Region 1 - Vancouver Island 1 Region 2 - Fraser 27 Region 3 - Columbia 63 Region 4 - MacKenzie 89 Region 5 - Yukon 115 Region 6 - North Coast 127 Region 7 - Queen Charlotte Islands 151 Region 8 - Central Coast 167 Appendix 193 Acknowledgements .
    [Show full text]
  • Abstracts Part 1
    375 Poster Session I, Event Center – The Snowbird Center, Friday 26 July 2019 Maria Sabando1, Yannis Papastamatiou1, Guillaume Rieucau2, Darcy Bradley3, Jennifer Caselle3 1Florida International University, Miami, FL, USA, 2Louisiana Universities Marine Consortium, Chauvin, LA, USA, 3University of California, Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara, CA, USA Reef Shark Behavioral Interactions are Habitat Specific Dominance hierarchies and competitive behaviors have been studied in several species of animals that includes mammals, birds, amphibians, and fish. Competition and distribution model predictions vary based on dominance hierarchies, but most assume differences in dominance are constant across habitats. More recent evidence suggests dominance and competitive advantages may vary based on habitat. We quantified dominance interactions between two species of sharks Carcharhinus amblyrhynchos and Carcharhinus melanopterus, across two different habitats, fore reef and back reef, at a remote Pacific atoll. We used Baited Remote Underwater Video (BRUV) to observe dominance behaviors and quantified the number of aggressive interactions or bites to the BRUVs from either species, both separately and in the presence of one another. Blacktip reef sharks were the most abundant species in either habitat, and there was significant negative correlation between their relative abundance, bites on BRUVs, and the number of grey reef sharks. Although this trend was found in both habitats, the decline in blacktip abundance with grey reef shark presence was far more pronounced in fore reef habitats. We show that the presence of one shark species may limit the feeding opportunities of another, but the extent of this relationship is habitat specific. Future competition models should consider habitat-specific dominance or competitive interactions.
    [Show full text]
  • Coccidia (Apicomplexa: Eimeriidae) of the Mammalian Order Insectivora
    University of Nebraska - Lincoln DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln Faculty Publications from the Harold W. Manter Laboratory of Parasitology Parasitology, Harold W. Manter Laboratory of 2000 Coccidia (Apicomplexa: Eimeriidae) of the Mammalian Order Insectivora Donald W. Duszynski University of New Mexico, [email protected] Steve J. Upton Kansas State University Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/parasitologyfacpubs Part of the Parasitology Commons Duszynski, Donald W. and Upton, Steve J., "Coccidia (Apicomplexa: Eimeriidae) of the Mammalian Order Insectivora" (2000). Faculty Publications from the Harold W. Manter Laboratory of Parasitology. 196. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/parasitologyfacpubs/196 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Parasitology, Harold W. Manter Laboratory of at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Publications from the Harold W. Manter Laboratory of Parasitology by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. SPECIAL PUBLICATION THE MUSEUM OF SOUTHWESTERN BIOLOGY NUMBER 4, pp. 1-67 30 OCTOBER 2000 Coccidia (Apicomplexa: Eimeriidae) of the Mammalian Order Insectivora DONALD W. DUSZYNSKI AND STEVE J. UPTON TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction 1 Materials and Methods 2 Results 3 Family Erinaceidae Erinaceus Eimeria ostertagi 3 E. perardi 4 Isospora erinacei 4 I. rastegaievae 5 I. schmaltzi 6 Hemiechinus E. auriti 7 E. bijlikuli 7 Hylomys E. bentongi 7 I. hylomysis 8 Family Soricidae Crocidura E. firestonei 8 E. leucodontis 9 E. milleri 9 E. ropotamae 10 Suncus E. darjeelingensis 10 E. murinus...................................................................................................................... 11 E. suncus 12 Blarina E. blarinae 13 E. brevicauda 13 I. brevicauda 14 Cryptotis E.
    [Show full text]
  • Xerces Society's
    Conserving the Gems of Our Waters Best Management Practices for Protecting Native Western Freshwater Mussels During Aquatic and Riparian Restoration, Construction, and Land Management Projects and Activities Emilie Blevins, Laura McMullen, Sarina Jepsen, Michele Blackburn, Aimée Code, and Scott Homan Black CONSERVING THE GEMS OF OUR WATERS Best Management Practices for Protecting Native Western Freshwater Mussels During Aquatic and Riparian Restoration, Construction, and Land Management Projects and Activities Emilie Blevins Laura McMullen Sarina Jepsen Michele Blackburn Aimée Code Scott Hoffman Black The Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation www.xerces.org The Xerces® Society for Invertebrate Conservation is a nonprot organization that protects wildlife through the conservation of invertebrates and their habitat. Established in 1971, the Society is at the forefront of invertebrate protection, harnessing the knowledge of scientists and the enthusiasm of citizens to implement conservation programs worldwide. The Society uses advocacy, education, and applied research to promote invertebrate conservation. The Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation 628 NE Broadway, Suite 200, Portland, OR 97232 Tel (855) 232-6639 Fax (503) 233-6794 www.xerces.org Regional oces from coast to coast. The Xerces Society is an equal opportunity employer and provider. Xerces® is a trademark registered in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Oce © 2018 by The Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation Primary Authors and Contributors The Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation: Emilie Blevins, Laura McMullen, Sarina Jepsen, Michele Blackburn, Aimée Code, and Scott Homan Black. Acknowledgements Funding for this report was provided by the Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board, The Nature Conservancy and Portland General Electric Salmon Habitat Fund, the Charlotte Martin Foundation, Meyer Memorial Trust, and Xerces Society members and supporters.
    [Show full text]
  • Speckled Dace Rhinichthys Osculus
    COSEWIC Assessment and Update Status Report on the Speckled Dace Rhinichthys osculus in Canada ENDANGERED 2002 COSEWIC COSEPAC COMMITTEE ON THE STATUS OF COMITÉ SUR LA SITUATION DES ENDANGERED WILDLIFE IN ESPÈCES EN PÉRIL CANADA AU CANADA COSEWIC status reports are working documents used in assigning the status of wildlife species suspected of being at risk. This report may be cited as follows: Please note: Persons wishing to cite data in the report should refer to the report (and cite the author(s)); persons wishing to cite the COSEWIC status will refer to the assessment (and cite COSEWIC). A production note will be provided if additional information on the status report history is required. COSEWIC 2002. COSEWIC assessment and update status report on the speckled dace Rhinichthys osculus in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. vi + 36 pp. Peden, A. 2002. COSEWIC assessment and update status report on the speckled dace Rhinichthys osculus in Canada, in COSEWIC assessment and update status report on the speckled dace Rhinichthys osculus in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. 1-36 pp. Previous report: Peden, A. 1980. COSEWIC status report on the speckled dace Rhinichthys osculus in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. 13 pp. For additional copies contact: COSEWIC Secretariat c/o Canadian Wildlife Service Environment Canada Ottawa, ON K1A 0H3 Tel.: (819) 997-4991 / (819) 953-3215 Fax: (819) 994-3684 E-mail: COSEWIC/[email protected] http://www.cosewic.gc.ca Également disponible en français sous le titre Évaluation et Rapport de situation du COSEPAC sur le naseux moucheté (Rhinichthys osculus) au Canada – Mise à jour Cover illustration: Speckled dace — Photograph courtesy Royal B.C.
    [Show full text]