DOCSLIB.ORG

T-9-T-2 Grant Submittal Package

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Region 3 Federal Aid Transmittal Form U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Federal Aid Bishop Henry Whipple Federal Building One Federal Drive Fort Snelling, MN 55111-4056 ... Date Received: (RegioD 3 FA Date Stamp) Date Approval Requested by: Date Submitted: June 4,2009 Project No.: T-9-T-2 Project Title: Michigan's Comprehensive State Wildlife Grant State Contact: Eric Sink FWS Biologist: Jon Parker, 612-713-5142 Telephone Number: 517-335-1064 e-mail address: [email protected] Track (circle one): Routine = 15 day Non-Routine = 30 day 1Non-Routine = 45 da~ Grant Segment: X Type(s): Grant Proposal (GP): GP Renewal: GPAmend: SegmentAmend: USFWS will complete USFWS will complete .... Obligation Intent: Sub-Account Federal Share Circle or Check if Applicable: WR Regular 5220 $ In-Kind Value Program Income WR Sect 4 Hunter Ed 5210 $ SHPO WR Sect 10 Hunter Ed 523- $ !NEPA (EA Letter or EA)I ISection 71 WL Cons. & Rest. 5511 $ !Lobby Certificationl SFR Regular 9514 $ Other (describe in Note/Special Instructions section below) Needs funding condition (describe in Note/Special SFR Aquatic Ed. 9511 $ Instructions section below) SFR Boat Access 9521 $ COMPETITIVE 0 or NON-COMPETITIVE () 5621 Other: $ 1,157,616 Notes/Special Instructions ( circle): Biologist lFisca~ Land Secretary Chris, Please approve SAF. Eric APPLICATION FOR Version 7/03 FEDERAL ASSISTANCE 2. DATE SUBMITTED June 4, 2009 Applicant Identifier 1. TYPE OF SUBMISSION: 3. DATE RECEIVED BY STATE State Application Identifier Application : Pre-application Michigan Construction Construction 4. DATE RECEIVED BY FEDERAL AGENCY Federal Identifier Non-Construction Non-Construction T-9-T-2 5. APPLICANT INFORMATION Legal Name: MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES Organizational Unit: Department: Michigan Department of Natural Resources Organizational DUNS: 805339991 Division: Wildlife Address: Name and telephone number of person to be contacted on matters involving this Street: PO BOX 30028 application (give area code) Prefix: Mr. First Name: Eric City: LANSING Middle Name: County: INGHAM Last Name: Sink State: MI Zip Code: 48909-7528 Suffix: Country: USA Email: [email protected] 6. EMPLOYER IDENTIFICATION NUMBER (EIN): Phone Number (give area code) Fax Number (give area code) 38-6000134 (517) 335-1064 (517) 335-4242 8. TYPE OF APPLICATION: 7. TYPE OF APPLICANT: (See back of form for Application Types) New If Revision, enter appropriate letter(s) in box(es) A. State Government (See back of form for description of letters.) Other (specify): None None Other (specify): Add new segment to the grant to cover FY 2009 9. NAME OF FEDERAL AGENCY: U.S. DOI - Fish & Wildlife Service 10. CATALOG OF FEDERAL DOMESTIC ASSISTANCE NUMBER: 11. DESCRIPTIVE TITLE OF APPLICANT’S PROJECT: 15.634 - State Wildlife Grants Michigan's Comprehensive State Wildlife Grant Other (specify): 12. AREAS AFFECTED BY PROJECT (Cities, Counties, States, etc.): Statewide 13. PROPOSED PROJECT 14. CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICTS OF: Start Date: 8/15/2009Ending Date: 9/30/2010 a. Applicant: Eighth b. Project: Statewide 15. ESTIMATED FUNDING: 16. IS APPLICATION SUBJECT TO REVIEW BY STATE EXECUTIVE ORDER 12372 PROCESS? a. Federal $ 2,315,232 a. YES THIS PREAPPLICATION/APPLICATION WAS MADE AVAILABLE TO THE STATE EXECUTIVE ORDER 12372 PROCESS FOR REVIEW ON b. Applicant $ 0 c. State $ 1,403,672 DATE: June 4, 2009 d. Local $ 0 b. NO PROGRAM IS NOT COVERED BY E. O. 12372 e. Other $ 911,560 OR PROGRAM HAS NOT BEEN SELECTED BY STATE FOR REVIEW f. Program Income $ 0 17. IS THE APPLICANT DELINQUENT ON ANY FEDERAL DEBT? g. TOTAL $ 4,630,464 Yes If “Yes” attach an explanation. No 18. TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF, ALL DATA IN THIS APPLICATION/PREAPPLICATION ARE TRUE AND CORRECT. THE DOCUMENT HAS BEEN DULY AUTHORIZED BY THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE APPLICANT AND THE APPLICANT WILL COMPLY WITH THE ATTACHED ASSURANCES. a. Authorized Representative Prefix: Ms. First Name: Mindy Middle Name: Last Name: Koch Suffix: b. Title: c. Telephone Number (give area code) Resource Management Deputy (517) 373-2425 Email: Fax Number (give area code) (517) 375-4242 d. Signature of Authorized Representative e. Date Signed: June 4, 2009 Previous Edition Usable Standard Form 424 (Rev. 9-2003) Authorized for Local Reproduction Prescribed by OMB Circular A-102 BUDGET INFORMATION - Non-Construction Programs OMB Approval No. 3048-0044 SECTION A - BUDGET SUMMARY Grant Program Catalog of Federal Estimated Unobligated Funds New or Revised Budget Function Domestic Assistance or Activity Number Federal Non-Federal Federal Non-Federal Total (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) (g) 1. SWG Implementation 15.634 $0 $0 $2,315,232 $2,315,232 $4,630,464 2. SWG Planning 15.634 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 3. 4. 5. Totals $0 $0 $2,315,232 $2,315,232 $4,630,464 SECTION B - BUDGET CATEGORIES GRANT SEGMENT BUDGET DETAILS Total 6. Object Class Categories (Segment 2 - Impl.) (Segment 2 - Plan.) (5) a. Personnel $972,865 $0 $972,865 b. Fringe Benefits $369,689 $0 $369,689 c. Travel $75,000 $0 $75,000 d. Equipment $0 $0 $0 e. Supplies $315,000 $0 $315,000 f. Contractual $2,621,000 $0 $2,621,000 g. Construction $0 $0 $0 h. Other - Audit - 0.0038 $17,529 $0 $17,529 i. Total Direct Charges (sum of 6a-6h) $4,371,083 $0 $4,371,083 j. Indirect Charges - 0.1932 $259,381 $0 $259,381 k. TOTALS (sum of 6i-6j) $4,630,464 $0 $4,630,464 7. Program Income $0 $0 $0 Previous Edition Usable Authorized for Local Reproduction Standard Form 424A (Rev. 7-97) SECTION C - NON-FEDERAL RESOURCES (a) Grant Program (b) Applicant (c) State (d) Other Sources (e) TOTALS 8. 15.634 SWG Implementation $1,403,672 $911,560 $2,315,232 9. 15.634 SWG Planning $0 $0 $0 10. $0 11. $0 12. TOTAL (sum of lines 8-11) $0 $1,403,672 $911,560 $2,315,232 SECTION D - FORECASTED CASH NEEDS Total for 1st Year 1st Quarter 2nd Quarter 3rd Quarter 4th Quarter 13. Federal $2,315,232 $578,808 $578,808 $578,808 $578,808 14. Non-Federal $2,315,232 $578,808 $578,808 $578,808 $578,808 15. TOTAL (sum of lines 13 and 14) $4,630,464 $1,157,616 $1,157,616 $1,157,616 $1,157,616 SECTION E - BUDGET ESTIMATES OF FEDERAL FUNDS NEEDED FOR BALANCE OF THE PROJECT FUTURE FUNDING PERIODS (Years) (a) Grant Program (b) First (c) Second (d) Third (e) Fourth 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. TOTAL (sum of lines 16-19) $0 $0 $0 $0 SECTION F - OTHER BUDGET INFORMATION 21. Direct Charges: 22. Indirect Charges: 19.32% on Personnel and Fringe Benefits 23. Remarks: Authorized for Local Reproduction Standard Form 424A (Rev. 7-97) Page 2 REGION 3 WSFR SECTION 7 EVALUATION DOCUMENTATION PHASE I: COMPLETED BY GRANTEE (See Phase I Instructions for completing this form) State: Michigan Grantee: Natural Resources Grant Program(s): State Wildlife Grant (SWG) Grant Title and Number (add amendment no.): T-9-T-2 – Michigan’s Comprehensive SWG I Location: A. List counties where grant activities will occur. At least some of the activities supported in this grant will occur in all Michigan counties. This grant supports a number of project statements that are programmitic as opposed to project based. B. Describe the action area (see instructions). This grant contains five chapters to support the following programmatic areas for managing species of greatest conservation need (SGCNs): 1. Technical Guidance These activities include training and professional development. The action area includes offices and service centers throughout Michigan. Some training events are field based and may occur at select Department owned facilities and lands statewide (see Map 1). 2. Surveys, Monitoring and Research This grant supports three studies that were previously approved under Segment 1 of this grant. All other studies previously approved have been completed; no work will be supported for these studies in this grant segment). STUDY 1.1: Statewide surveys – This study is to survey and monitor avian and herptile species statewide. Surveys include spatial data analyses from existing data layers and field surveys. Data analyses work occurs in offices and labs in Lansing and East Lansing. Field surveys can occur statewide. STUDY 1.3: Biodiversity assessment and EO Inventory – This study uses available spatial data along with known occurrence data to determine areas of significant importance to SGCNs in offices and labs in Lansing and East Lansing. Using results of data analyses, targeted field surveys are conducted on Wildlife Division Lands in the four southern Michigan management units (see Map 2). STUDY 1.4: Importance of coarse woody debris – This study analyzes methods to sample for coarse woody debris in forest in the eastern Upper Peninsula management unit (see Map 3). Study sites are located within state forests and on federal and private lands. 3. Habitat Management This grant supports habitat management activities on Department owned lands statewide. Lands where activities may occur include State Game Areas (SGAs), State Recreation Areas (SRAs), State Parks (SPs) and State Forests (SFs) as well as some federal lands including national forests and military installations (see Map 1). 4. Population Management This grant supports population management activities that may occur statewide. 5. Planning This grant supports the planning activities of revising the Wildlife Action Plan (WAP) while developing and revising implementation plans from the WAP. These planning activities can occur at field offices T-9-T-2 Phase I Section 7 Evaluation Form Page 1 of 14 and service centers statewide as well as the main Wildlife Division office in Lansing. II. Species/Critical Habitat: A. Species information 1. Using the FWS web site (http://www.fws.gov/midwest/Endangered/), list species that are/or may be present in the county(ies): There are 22 species in Michigan on the Federal List of Threatened and Endangered Species (see attached table).
Recommended publications
  • Download Animal List

    Download Animal List

    MICHIGAN'S SPECIAL ANIMALS Endangered, Threatened, Special Concern, and Probably Extirpated This list presents the Endangered (E), Threatened (T), and Probably Extirpated (X) animal species of Michigan, which are protected under the Endangered Species Act of the State of Michigan (Part 365 of PA 451, 1994 Michigan Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act). The current list became effective on April 9, 2009, after extensive review by technical advisors to the Michigan Department of Natural Resources and the citizenry of the state. Also included in this list are animal species of Special Concern (SC). While not afforded legal protection under the Act, many of these species are of concern because of declining or relict populations in the state. Should these species continue to decline, they would be recommended for Threatened or Endangered status. Protection of Special Concern species now, before they reach dangerously low population levels, would prevent the need to list them in the future by maintaining adequate numbers of self-sustaining populations within Michigan. Some other potentially rare species are listed as Special Concern pending more precise information on their status in the state; when such information becomes available, they could be moved to threatened or endangered status or deleted from the list. This list was produced by the Endangered Species Program of the Michigan Department of Natural Resources and the Michigan Natural Features Inventory. English names in common usage or from published sources have been incorporated, when possible, to promote public understanding of and participation in the Endangered Species Program. To comment on the list or request additional copies, or for information on the Endangered Species Program, contact the Endangered Species Coordinator, Wildlife Division, Michigan Department of Natural Resources, P.O.
  • Natural Communities of Michigan: Classification and Description

    Natural Communities of Michigan: Classification and Description

    Natural Communities of Michigan: Classification and Description Prepared by: Michael A. Kost, Dennis A. Albert, Joshua G. Cohen, Bradford S. Slaughter, Rebecca K. Schillo, Christopher R. Weber, and Kim A. Chapman Michigan Natural Features Inventory P.O. Box 13036 Lansing, MI 48901-3036 For: Michigan Department of Natural Resources Wildlife Division and Forest, Mineral and Fire Management Division September 30, 2007 Report Number 2007-21 Version 1.2 Last Updated: July 9, 2010 Suggested Citation: Kost, M.A., D.A. Albert, J.G. Cohen, B.S. Slaughter, R.K. Schillo, C.R. Weber, and K.A. Chapman. 2007. Natural Communities of Michigan: Classification and Description. Michigan Natural Features Inventory, Report Number 2007-21, Lansing, MI. 314 pp. Copyright 2007 Michigan State University Board of Trustees. Michigan State University Extension programs and materials are open to all without regard to race, color, national origin, gender, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, marital status or family status. Cover photos: Top left, Dry Sand Prairie at Indian Lake, Newaygo County (M. Kost); top right, Limestone Bedrock Lakeshore, Summer Island, Delta County (J. Cohen); lower left, Muskeg, Luce County (J. Cohen); and lower right, Mesic Northern Forest as a matrix natural community, Porcupine Mountains Wilderness State Park, Ontonagon County (M. Kost). Acknowledgements We thank the Michigan Department of Natural Resources Wildlife Division and Forest, Mineral, and Fire Management Division for funding this effort to classify and describe the natural communities of Michigan. This work relied heavily on data collected by many present and former Michigan Natural Features Inventory (MNFI) field scientists and collaborators, including members of the Michigan Natural Areas Council.
  • Insects of Western North America 4. Survey of Selected Insect Taxa of Fort Sill, Comanche County, Oklahoma 2

    Insects of Western North America 4. Survey of Selected Insect Taxa of Fort Sill, Comanche County, Oklahoma 2

    Insects of Western North America 4. Survey of Selected Insect Taxa of Fort Sill, Comanche County, Oklahoma 2. Dragonflies (Odonata), Stoneflies (Plecoptera) and selected Moths (Lepidoptera) Contributions of the C.P. Gillette Museum of Arthropod Diversity Colorado State University Survey of Selected Insect Taxa of Fort Sill, Comanche County, Oklahoma 2. Dragonflies (Odonata), Stoneflies (Plecoptera) and selected Moths (Lepidoptera) by Boris C. Kondratieff, Paul A. Opler, Matthew C. Garhart, and Jason P. Schmidt C.P. Gillette Museum of Arthropod Diversity Department of Bioagricultural Sciences and Pest Management Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado 80523 March 15, 2004 Contributions of the C.P. Gillette Museum of Arthropod Diversity Colorado State University Cover illustration (top to bottom): Widow Skimmer (Libellula luctuosa) [photo ©Robert Behrstock], Stonefly (Perlesta species) [photo © David H. Funk, White- lined Sphinx (Hyles lineata) [photo © Matthew C. Garhart] ISBN 1084-8819 This publication and others in the series may be ordered from the C.P. Gillette Museum of Arthropod Diversity, Department of Bioagricultural Sciences, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado 80523 Copyrighted 2004 Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY……………………………………………………………………………….…1 INTRODUCTION…………………………………………..…………………………………………….…3 OBJECTIVE………………………………………………………………………………………….………5 Site Descriptions………………………………………….. METHODS AND MATERIALS…………………………………………………………………………….5 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION………………………………………………………………………..…...11 Dragonflies………………………………………………………………………………….……..11
  • HABITAT MANAGEMENT PLAN Green Bay and Gravel Island

    HABITAT MANAGEMENT PLAN Green Bay and Gravel Island

    HABITAT MANAGEMENT PLAN Green Bay and Gravel Island National Wildlife Refuges October 2017 Habitat Management Plans provide long-term guidance for management decisions; set forth goals, objectives, and strategies needed to accomplish refuge purposes; and, identify the Fish and Wildlife Service’s best estimate of future needs. These plans detail program planning levels that are sometimes substantially above current budget allocations and as such, are primarily for Service strategic planning and program prioritization purposes. The plans do not constitute a commitment for staffing increases, operational and maintenance increases, or funding for future land acquisition. The National Wildlife Refuge System, managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, is the world's premier system of public lands and waters set aside to conserve America's fish, wildlife, and plants. Since the designation of the first wildlife refuge in 1903, the System has grown to encompass more than 150 million acres, 556 national wildlife refuges and other units of the Refuge System, plus 38 wetland management districts. This page intentionally left blank. Habitat Management Plan for Green Bay and Gravel Island National Wildlife Refuges EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This Habitat Management Plan (HMP) provides vision and specific guidance on enhancing and managing habitat for the resources of concern (ROC) at the refuge. The contributions of the refuge to ecosystem- and landscape-scale wildlife and biodiversity conservation, specifically migratory waterfowl, are incorporated into this HMP. The HMP is intended to provide habitat management direction for the next 15 years. The HMP is also needed to ensure that the refuge continues to conserve habitat for migratory birds in the context of climate change, which affects all units of the National Wildlife Refuge System.
  • Wet-Mesic Flatwoods Communitywet-Mesic Flatwoods, Abstract Page 1

    Wet-Mesic Flatwoods Communitywet-Mesic Flatwoods, Abstract Page 1

    Wet-mesic Flatwoods CommunityWet-mesic Flatwoods, Abstract Page 1 Historical Range Prevalent or likely prevalent Infrequent or likely infrequent Absent or likely absent Photo by Suzan L. Campbell Overview: Wet-mesic flatwoods is a somewhat Rank Justification: The acreage of wet-mesic poorly drained to poorly drained forest on mineral flatwoods present in Michigan circa 1800 is difficult soils dominated by a mixture of lowland and upland to determine because the community type has hardwoods. The community occurs exclusively on characteristics that overlap those of several of the glacial lakeplain in southeastern Lower Michigan, forest types mapped based on General Land Office where an impermeable clay layer in the soil profile (GLO) survey notes, primarily hardwood swamp and contributes to poor internal drainage. Seasonal beech-sugar maple forest (Comer et al. 1995a, Kost hydrologic fluctuations and windthrow are important et al. 2007). Analysis of GLO survey notes reveals natural disturbances that influence community structure, that lowland forest dominated by hardwoods covered species composition, and successional trajectory of wet- approximately 570,000 ha (1,400,000 ac) of southern mesic flatwoods. Lower Michigan circa 1800 (Comer et al. 1995a). These stands were characterized by mixed hardwoods Global and State Rank: G2G3/S2 (490,000 ha or 1,200,000 ac), black ash (77,000 ha or 190,000 ac), elm (5,300 ha or 13,000 ac), and silver Range: Flatwoods communities characterized by maple-red maple (4,000 ha or 10,000 ac). The majority relatively flat topography, slowly permeable to of lowland forest acreage in southern Lower Michigan impermeable subsurface soil layers, and seasonal was associated with stream and river floodplains, hydrologic fluctuation occur scattered throughout the and is classified as floodplain forest (Tepley et al.
  • CHECKLIST of WISCONSIN MOTHS (Superfamilies Mimallonoidea, Drepanoidea, Lasiocampoidea, Bombycoidea, Geometroidea, and Noctuoidea)

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

    WISCONSIN ENTOMOLOGICAL SOCIETY SPECIAL PUBLICATION No. 6 JUNE 2018 CHECKLIST OF WISCONSIN MOTHS (Superfamilies Mimallonoidea, Drepanoidea, Lasiocampoidea, Bombycoidea, Geometroidea, and Noctuoidea) Leslie A. Ferge,1 George J. Balogh2 and Kyle E. Johnson3 ABSTRACT A total of 1284 species representing the thirteen families comprising the present checklist have been documented in Wisconsin, including 293 species of Geometridae, 252 species of Erebidae and 584 species of Noctuidae. Distributions are summarized using the six major natural divisions of Wisconsin; adult flight periods and statuses within the state are also reported. Examples of Wisconsin’s diverse native habitat types in each of the natural divisions have been systematically inventoried, and species associated with specialized habitats such as peatland, prairie, barrens and dunes are listed. INTRODUCTION This list is an updated version of the Wisconsin moth checklist by Ferge & Balogh (2000). A considerable amount of new information from has been accumulated in the 18 years since that initial publication. Over sixty species have been added, bringing the total to 1284 in the thirteen families comprising this checklist. These families are estimated to comprise approximately one-half of the state’s total moth fauna. Historical records of Wisconsin moths are relatively meager. Checklists including Wisconsin moths were compiled by Hoy (1883), Rauterberg (1900), Fernekes (1906) and Muttkowski (1907). Hoy's list was restricted to Racine County, the others to Milwaukee County. Records from these publications are of historical interest, but unfortunately few verifiable voucher specimens exist. Unverifiable identifications and minimal label data associated with older museum specimens limit the usefulness of this information. Covell (1970) compiled records of 222 Geometridae species, based on his examination of specimens representing at least 30 counties.
  • Butterflies of North America

    Butterflies of North America

    Insects of Western North America 7. Survey of Selected Arthropod Taxa of Fort Sill, Comanche County, Oklahoma. 4. Hexapoda: Selected Coleoptera and Diptera with cumulative list of Arthropoda and additional taxa Contributions of the C.P. Gillette Museum of Arthropod Diversity Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80523-1177 2 Insects of Western North America. 7. Survey of Selected Arthropod Taxa of Fort Sill, Comanche County, Oklahoma. 4. Hexapoda: Selected Coleoptera and Diptera with cumulative list of Arthropoda and additional taxa by Boris C. Kondratieff, Luke Myers, and Whitney S. Cranshaw C.P. Gillette Museum of Arthropod Diversity Department of Bioagricultural Sciences and Pest Management Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado 80523 August 22, 2011 Contributions of the C.P. Gillette Museum of Arthropod Diversity. Department of Bioagricultural Sciences and Pest Management Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80523-1177 3 Cover Photo Credits: Whitney S. Cranshaw. Females of the blow fly Cochliomyia macellaria (Fab.) laying eggs on an animal carcass on Fort Sill, Oklahoma. ISBN 1084-8819 This publication and others in the series may be ordered from the C.P. Gillette Museum of Arthropod Diversity, Department of Bioagricultural Sciences and Pest Management, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado, 80523-1177. Copyrighted 2011 4 Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .............................................................................................................7 SUMMARY AND MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS
  • Exhibit B.7.2

    Exhibit B.7.2

    NCNHDE-13081 October 15, 2020 Robert Zarzecki Soil & Environmental Consultants, PA 8412 Falls of Neuse Road, Suite 104 Raleigh, NC 27615 RE: HERNDON FARMS; 13862 Dear Robert Zarzecki: The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) appreciates the opportunity to provide information about natural heritage resources for the project referenced above. A query of the NCNHP database indicates that there are records for rare species, important natural communities, natural areas, and/or conservation/managed areas within the proposed project boundary. These results are presented in the attached ‘Documented Occurrences’ tables and map. The attached ‘Potential Occurrences’ table summarizes rare species and natural communities that have been documented within a one-mile radius of the property boundary. The proximity of these records suggests that these natural heritage elements may potentially be present in the project area if suitable habitat exists. Tables of natural areas and conservation/managed areas within a one-mile radius of the project area, if any, are also included in this report. If a Federally-listed species is documented within the project area or indicated within a one-mile radius of the project area, the NCNHP recommends contacting the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) for guidance. Contact information for USFWS offices in North Carolina is found here: https://www.fws.gov/offices/Directory/ListOffices.cfm?statecode=37. Please note that natural heritage element data are maintained for the purposes of conservation planning, project review, and scientific research, and are not intended for use as the primary criteria for regulatory decisions. Information provided by the NCNHP database may not be published without prior written notification to the NCNHP, and the NCNHP must be credited as an information source in these publications.
  • VOLUME IIB ATTACHMENT 1D Agency Correspondence And

    VOLUME IIB ATTACHMENT 1D Agency Correspondence And

    ROVER PIPELINE PROJECT Resource Report 1: Project Description VOLUME IIB ATTACHMENT 1D Agency Correspondence and Public Outreach February 2015 ROVER PIPELINE PROJECT Resource Report 1: Project Description CONTENTS Project Introduction Letters – June 25, 2014 and August 26, 2014 Correspondence with Federal Agencies Correspondence with Pennsylvania Agencies Correspondence with Ohio Agencies Correspondence with Michigan Agencies Public Official Outreach 1 February 2015 PROJECT INTRODUCTION LETTERS Rover Pipeline Project Agency Project Introduction Letter – June 25, 2014 FEDERAL Ginger Mullins Chief, Regulatory Branch U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Huntington District 502 Eighth Street Huntington, WV 25701-2070 Scott Hans Chief, Regulatory Branch U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Pittsburgh District 1000 Liberty Avenue, Suite 2200 Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Diane C. Kozlowski Chief, Regulatory Branch U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Buffalo District 1776 Niagara Street Buffalo, NY 14207 John Konik Chief, Regulatory Branch U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Detroit District 77 Michigan Avenue Detroit, Michigan 48226-2550. Tinka Hyde Division Director, Water U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 5 (OH, MI) 77 West Jackson Blvd. Chicago, IL 60604 Gary Jensen, Team Leader U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration National Scenic Byways Program 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE Washington, DC 20590 Gary C. Chancey Public Affairs Officer U.S. Forest Service Wayne National Forest 13700 US Highway 33 Nelsonville, OH 45764 1 of 5 Rover Pipeline Project Agency Project Introduction Letter – June 25, 2014 John Schmidt, Project Leader U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service West Virginia Ecological Services Field Office 694 Beverly Pike Elkins, WV 26241 Lora Zimmerman, Project Leader/Supervisor U.S.
  • Species of Greatest Conservation Need

    Species of Greatest Conservation Need

    Appendix 1 - Species of Greatest Conservation Need Michigan’s Wildlife Action Plan 2015-2025 Cover Photos Credits Habitat – MNFI, Yu Man Lee Cerulean Warbler – Roger Eriksson MICHIGAN’S WILDLIFE ACTION PLAN 2015-2025 Species of Greatest Conservation Need List & Rationales SGCN List Mussels Snails A fingernail clam ( Pisidium simplex ) A land snail (no common name) ( Catinella gelida ) Black sandshell ( Ligumia recta ) A land snail (no common name) ( Catinella protracta ) Clubshell ( Pleurobema clava ) A land snail (no common name) ( Euconulus alderi ) Creek Heelsplitter ( Lasmigona compressa ) A land snail (no common name) ( Glyphyalinia solida ) Deertoe ( Truncilla truncata ) A land snail (no common name) ( Vallonia gracilicosta Eastern Elliptio ( Elliptio complanata ) albula ) Eastern pondmussel ( Ligumia nasuta ) A land snail (no common name) ( Vertigo modesta Elktoe ( Alasmidonta marginata ) modesta ) A land snail (no common name) ( Vertigo modesta Ellipse ( Venustaconcha ellipsiformis ) parietalis ) European pea clam ( Sphaerium corneum ) Acorn ramshorn ( Planorbella multivolvis ) Fawnsfoot ( Truncilla donaciformis ) An aquatic snail (no common name) ( Planorbella smithi ) Flutedshell ( Lasmigona costata ) Banded globe ( Anguispira kochi ) Giant northern pea clam ( Pisidium idahoense ) Boreal fossaria ( Fossaria galbana ) Greater European pea clam ( Pisidium amnicum ) Broadshoulder physa ( Physella parkeri ) Hickorynut ( Obovaria olivaria ) Brown walker ( Pomatiopsis cincinnatiensis ) Kidney shell ( Ptychobranchus fasciolaris ) Bugle
  • Illustration Sources

    Illustration Sources

    APPENDIX ONE ILLUSTRATION SOURCES REF. CODE ABR Abrams, L. 1923–1960. Illustrated flora of the Pacific states. Stanford University Press, Stanford, CA. ADD Addisonia. 1916–1964. New York Botanical Garden, New York. Reprinted with permission from Addisonia, vol. 18, plate 579, Copyright © 1933, The New York Botanical Garden. ANDAnderson, E. and Woodson, R.E. 1935. The species of Tradescantia indigenous to the United States. Arnold Arboretum of Harvard University, Cambridge, MA. Reprinted with permission of the Arnold Arboretum of Harvard University. ANN Hollingworth A. 2005. Original illustrations. Published herein by the Botanical Research Institute of Texas, Fort Worth. Artist: Anne Hollingworth. ANO Anonymous. 1821. Medical botany. E. Cox and Sons, London. ARM Annual Rep. Missouri Bot. Gard. 1889–1912. Missouri Botanical Garden, St. Louis. BA1 Bailey, L.H. 1914–1917. The standard cyclopedia of horticulture. The Macmillan Company, New York. BA2 Bailey, L.H. and Bailey, E.Z. 1976. Hortus third: A concise dictionary of plants cultivated in the United States and Canada. Revised and expanded by the staff of the Liberty Hyde Bailey Hortorium. Cornell University. Macmillan Publishing Company, New York. Reprinted with permission from William Crepet and the L.H. Bailey Hortorium. Cornell University. BA3 Bailey, L.H. 1900–1902. Cyclopedia of American horticulture. Macmillan Publishing Company, New York. BB2 Britton, N.L. and Brown, A. 1913. An illustrated flora of the northern United States, Canada and the British posses- sions. Charles Scribner’s Sons, New York. BEA Beal, E.O. and Thieret, J.W. 1986. Aquatic and wetland plants of Kentucky. Kentucky Nature Preserves Commission, Frankfort. Reprinted with permission of Kentucky State Nature Preserves Commission.
  • Natural Heritage Program List of Rare Animal Species of North Carolina 2020

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

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