DOCSLIB.ORG

Guidance for Conducting RCRA Ecological Risk Assessments

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Guidance for Conducting RCRA Ecological Risk Assessments Guidance for Conducting RCRA Ecological Risk Assessments “This Policy Does Not Have the Force of Law” March 2003 State of Ohio Environmental Protection Agency Division of Hazardous Waste Management P.O. Box 1049 Lazarus Government Center Columbus, Ohio 43216-1049 version date: March 2003 Page ii Forward: Ohio EPA Division of Hazardous Waste Management (DHW M) utilizes guidance to aid regulators and the regulated community in meeting laws, rules, regulations, and policy. Guidance outlines the recommended practices and explains their rationale in an effort to achieve consistency in the regulation of hazardous waste. It is important to note, however, that the term implies no enforcement authority. The Agency may not require an entity to follow methods recommended by this or any other guidance document. It may, however, require an en tity to demonstrate that an alternate method produces data and information that meet the pertinent requirements. This Guidance for Co nducting R CRA E cological Risk Ass essments is prim arily des igned to a ssist facility operators/owners in p reparing an e cological r isk assessment, and to assist technical staff of DHWM in reviewing these risk assessments. An ecological risk assessment may be performed for a RCRA closure or corrective action. Page iii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Forward . ii Ohio EPA Districts . vi Acknowledgments . vii Acronyms . viii Chapter 1 OVERVIEW ............................................ 1-1 1.1 Overview of the Ecological Risk Assessment Process ........ 1-1 1.1.1 Level I - Scoping Ecological Risk Assessment .......... 1-3 1.1.2 Level II - Screening Ecological Risk Assessment ........ 1-3 1.1.3 Level III - Baseline Ecological Risk Assessment ........ 1-4 1.1.4 Level IV - Field Baseline Ecological Risk Assessment .... 1-4 Chapter 2 Level I - Scoping Ecological Risk Assessment 2.1 Objective ........................................... 2-1 2.2 Prerequisites ........................................ 2-1 2.3 Tasks .............................................. 2-1 2.3.1 Task 1: Assess Existing Data ....................... 2-1 2.3.2 Task 2: Site Information and Identification of Important Ecological Resources ...................... 2-2 2.3.3 Task 3: Identify Potential Chemical and Non-chemical Stressors ................................ 2-2 2.3.4 Task 4: Level I Assessment ........................ 2-2 2.3.5 Task 5: Subm it Level I Deliverable ................... 2-3 ATTACHMENT A - Phase I Site Assessment . 2-4 ATTACHMENT B - Ecological Scoping Checklist ............... 2-7 ATTACHMENT C - Evaluation of Potential Ecological Harm ...... 2-11 ATTACHMENT D - Level I Deliverable Outline ................. 2-12 ATTACHMENT E - ODNR Species List ...................... 2-13 Chapter 3 Level II - Screening Ecological Risk Assessment 3.1 Objective ........................................... 3-1 3.2 Prerequisites ........................................ 3-1 3.3 Tasks 3.3.1 Task 1: Evaluate Existing Site Data .................. 3-1 3.3.2 Task 2: Site Characterization ....................... 3-2 3.3.3 Task 3: Data/Media Evaluation ..................... 3-2 Frequency of Detection ..................... 3-2 Common Laboratory Contaminants ............ 3-3 Background Concentrations ................. 3-3 Ohio Sediment Reference Values (SRVs) ....... 3-4 3.3.4 Task 4: Scientific Management Decision Point ......... 3-4 3.3.5 Task 5: Screening ................................ 3-4 Soil ..................................... 3-5 Surface Water ............................ 3-5 Sediment ................................ 3-6 Persistent, Bioaccumulative, and Toxic Pollutants 3-7 Cumulative Effects ......................... 3-7 Benchm ark Availability ...................... 3-7 State and/or Federal Listed Species ........... 3-7 Page iv 3.3.6 Task 6: PECOC Selection ....................... 3-7 3.3.7 Task 7: Conduct Site Survey ..................... 3-8 3.3.8 Task 8: Update Site Description .................. 3-8 3.3.9 Task 9: Re vise Conceptual Site Model ............. 3-8 3.3.10 Task 10: Identify Ecological Receptors .............. 3-9 State and/or Federal Listed Species ......... 3-9 3.3.11 Task 11: Identify Com plete Exposure Pathways ....... 3-10 3.3.12 Task 12: Identify Candidate Assessm ent Endpoints .... 3-10 3.3.13 Task 13: Scientific Management Decision Point (SMDP) 3-11 3.3.14 Task 14: Submit Level II Report ................... 3-12 ATTACHMENT A - Flowchart and Legend .................... 3-13 ATTACHMENT B - Potential Ecological Contaminants of Concern . 3-20 ATTACHMENT C - Summary of Ecological Receptors .......... 3-21 ATTACHMENT D - Exposure Routes for Ecological Receptors by E nvironm ental Media .................. 3-22 ATTACHMENT E - CSM Diagram .......................... 3-23 ATTACHMENT F - Level II Report .......................... 3-24 ATTACHMENT G - Point of Compliance ..................... 3-25 ATTACHMENT H - Ohio Specific Sediment Reference Values .... 3-26 ATTACHMENT I - Supplemental Guidance to RAGS: Calculating the Concentration Term .................. 3-32 ATTACHMENT J - ECO Update: Ecological Significance and Selection of Candidate Assessm ent Endpoints . 3-41 ATTACHMENT K- Generic Receptor Species List . 3-47 Chapter 4 Level III - Baseline Ecological Risk Assessment 4.1 Objective ........................................... 4-1 4.2 Prerequisites ........................................ 4-1 4.3 Tasks 4.3.1 Task 1: Complete Problem Formulation ............... 4-1 4.3.2 Task 2: Prepare Analysis Plan ...................... 4-2 4.3.3 Task 3: Perform Exposure Assessment ............... 4-2 4.3.4 Task 4: Perform Toxicity Assessment ................ 4-4 4.3.5 Task 5: Perform Risk Characterization ................ 4-4 4.3.6 Task 6: Perform Uncertainty Analysis ................. 4-6 4.3.7 Task 7: Scientific Management Decision Point (SMDP) ... 4-7 4.3.8 Task 8: Subm it Level III Deliverable .................. 4-7 4.3.9 Task 9: Scientific Management Decision Point (SMDP) ... 4-7 ATTACHMENT A - Generic Receptors ....................... 4-8 ATTACHMENT B - Exposure Assessment .................... 4-13 ATTACHMENT C -Toxicity Assessment ...................... 4-22 ATTACHMENT D - Receptor Life History Data ................. 4-32 ATTACHMENT E - Level III Report - Outline .................. 4-43 Chapter 5 Level IV - Field Baseline Ecological Risk Assessment 5.1 Objective ........................................... 5-1 5.2 Prerequisites ........................................ 5-1 5.3 Tasks 5.3.1 Task 1: Refine Problem Formulation ................. 5-1 Select ECOCs ............................ 5-1 Review/revise Establish Measures ............ 5-1 5.3.2 Task 2: Select Assessment Tools ................... 5-2 Tissue Analysis/Bioaccumulation Studies ....... 5-2 Population/Community Evaluations/Toxicity Tests 5-2 Toxicity Tests (Bioassay) .................... 5-3 Page v 5.3.3 Task 3: Prepare Field Ecological Sampling and Analysis Plan 5-3 5.3.4 Task 4: Conduct Field/Laboratory Work ............... 5-3 5.3.5 Task 5: Perform Risk Characterization ................ 5-4 5.3.6 Task 6: Perform Uncertainty Analysis ................. 5-4 5.3.7 Task 7: Subm it Level IV deliverable .................. 5-4 ATTACHMENT A - Useful References ....................... 5-5 CHAPTER 6 Definitions Definitions .............................................. 6-1 CHAPTER 7 Literature Cited Literature Cited .......................................... 7-1 Page vi Ohio Environmental Protection Agency Division of Hazardous Waste Management* Central District Office Southeast District Office 3232 Alum Creek Drive 2195 Front Street Columbus, Ohio 43207-3417 Logan, Ohio 43138 Phone: (614)728-3778 Phone: (740)385-8501 Fax: (614)728-3898 Fax: (740)385-6490 Manager: Steve Rath Manager: Dave Chenault Northeast District Office Southwest District Office 2110 East Aurora Road 401 East Fifth Street Twinsburg, Ohio 44087 Dayton, Ohio 45402-2911 Phone: (330)963-1200 Phone: (937)285-6357 Fax: (330)487-0769 Fax: (937)285-6249 Manager: Kurt Princic Manager: Don Marshall Northwest District Office 347 North Dunbridge Road Bowling Green, Ohio 43402 Phone: (419)352-8461 Fax: (419)352-8468 Manager: Shannon Nabors * For questions about this guidance document, please call the Ohio EPA DHWM’s Central Office risk assessment coordinator at (614)644-2917. Page vii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS: The ecological risk assessment (ERA) process proposed in this document is based on several federal and state guidance documents modified to reflect conditions of the State of Ohio. Ohio EPA DHWM would like to acknowledge t heir debt t o these ag encies, part icularly U. S. EPA and the Oreg on Department of Environm ental Quality. Ohio EPA would also like to recognize the efforts of staff members who assisted and cooperated with the development of this docum ent: Bernie Counts Laurie Eggert Brian Tucker Lawrence Sirinek Chris Skalski Sheila Abraham Dave Altfater Tara Spoon Jeff Reynolds Vanessa Steigerwald-Dick Jim Sferra Page viii ACRONYMS ADD Average Daily Dose ADDA - Average Daily Dose by ingestion of Animal matter ADDP - Average Daily Dose by ingestion of Plant matter ADDS - Average Daily Dose by ingestion of Soil ADDTotal - Total Average Daily Dose AF Fraction of the diet that is Animal matter ARL Acceptable Risk Level AUF Area Use Factor BAF Bioaccumulation Factor BAFI - Bioaccumulation Factor for Invertebrates BAFP - Bioaccumulation Factor for Prey Items BCF Bioconcentration Factor BSAF Biota-to-Sediment Accumulation Factor BW Body Weight CF Dry-weight to wet weight Conversion Factor
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Field Release of the Leaf-Feeding Moth, Hypena Opulenta (Christoph)
    United States Department of Field release of the leaf-feeding Agriculture moth, Hypena opulenta Marketing and Regulatory (Christoph) (Lepidoptera: Programs Noctuidae), for classical Animal and Plant Health Inspection biological control of swallow- Service worts, Vincetoxicum nigrum (L.) Moench and V. rossicum (Kleopow) Barbarich (Gentianales: Apocynaceae), in the contiguous United States. Final Environmental Assessment, August 2017 Field release of the leaf-feeding moth, Hypena opulenta (Christoph) (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae), for classical biological control of swallow-worts, Vincetoxicum nigrum (L.) Moench and V. rossicum (Kleopow) Barbarich (Gentianales: Apocynaceae), in the contiguous United States. Final Environmental Assessment, August 2017 Agency Contact: Colin D. Stewart, Assistant Director Pests, Pathogens, and Biocontrol Permits Plant Protection and Quarantine Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service U.S. Department of Agriculture 4700 River Rd., Unit 133 Riverdale, MD 20737 Non-Discrimination Policy The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination against its customers, employees, and applicants for employment on the bases of race, color, national origin, age, disability, sex, gender identity, religion, reprisal, and where applicable, political beliefs, marital status, familial or parental status, sexual orientation, or all or part of an individual's income is derived from any public assistance program, or protected genetic information in employment or in any program or activity conducted or funded by the Department. (Not all prohibited bases will apply to all programs and/or employment activities.) To File an Employment Complaint If you wish to file an employment complaint, you must contact your agency's EEO Counselor (PDF) within 45 days of the date of the alleged discriminatory act, event, or in the case of a personnel action.
    [Show full text]
  • 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
    [Show full text]
  • State of Colorado 2016 Wetland Plant List
    5/12/16 State of Colorado 2016 Wetland Plant List Lichvar, R.W., D.L. Banks, W.N. Kirchner, and N.C. Melvin. 2016. The National Wetland Plant List: 2016 wetland ratings. Phytoneuron 2016-30: 1-17. Published 28 April 2016. ISSN 2153 733X http://wetland-plants.usace.army.mil/ Aquilegia caerulea James (Colorado Blue Columbine) Photo: William Gray List Counts: Wetland AW GP WMVC Total UPL 83 120 101 304 FACU 440 393 430 1263 FAC 333 292 355 980 FACW 342 329 333 1004 OBL 279 285 285 849 Rating 1477 1419 1504 1511 User Notes: 1) Plant species not listed are considered UPL for wetland delineation purposes. 2) A few UPL species are listed because they are rated FACU or wetter in at least one Corps Region. 3) Some state boundaries lie within two or more Corps Regions. If a species occurs in one region but not the other, its rating will be shown in one column and the other column will be BLANK. Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited. 1/22 5/12/16 Scientific Name Authorship AW GP WMVC Common Name Abies bifolia A. Murr. FACU FACU Rocky Mountain Alpine Fir Abutilon theophrasti Medik. UPL UPL FACU Velvetleaf Acalypha rhomboidea Raf. FACU FACU Common Three-Seed-Mercury Acer glabrum Torr. FAC FAC FACU Rocky Mountain Maple Acer grandidentatum Nutt. FACU FAC FACU Canyon Maple Acer negundo L. FACW FAC FAC Ash-Leaf Maple Acer platanoides L. UPL UPL FACU Norw ay Maple Acer saccharinum L. FAC FAC FAC Silver Maple Achillea millefolium L. FACU FACU FACU Common Yarrow Achillea ptarmica L.
    [Show full text]
  • Identification of Milkweeds (Asclepias, Family Apocynaceae) in Texas
    Identification of Milkweeds (Asclepias, Family Apocynaceae) in Texas Texas milkweed (Asclepias texana), courtesy Bill Carr Compiled by Jason Singhurst and Ben Hutchins [email protected] [email protected] Texas Parks and Wildlife Department Austin, Texas and Walter C. Holmes [email protected] Department of Biology Baylor University Waco, Texas Identification of Milkweeds (Asclepias, Family Apocynaceae) in Texas Created in partnership with the Lady Bird Johnson Wildflower Center Design and layout by Elishea Smith Compiled by Jason Singhurst and Ben Hutchins [email protected] [email protected] Texas Parks and Wildlife Department Austin, Texas and Walter C. Holmes [email protected] Department of Biology Baylor University Waco, Texas Introduction This document has been produced to serve as a quick guide to the identification of milkweeds (Asclepias spp.) in Texas. For the species listed in Table 1 below, basic information such as range (in this case county distribution), habitat, and key identification characteristics accompany a photograph of each species. This information comes from a variety of sources that includes the Manual of the Vascular Flora of Texas, Biota of North America Project, knowledge of the authors, and various other publications (cited in the text). All photographs are used with permission and are fully credited to the copyright holder and/or originator. Other items, but in particular scientific publications, traditionally do not require permissions, but only citations to the author(s) if used for scientific and/or nonprofit purposes. Names, both common and scientific, follow those in USDA NRCS (2015). When identifying milkweeds in the field, attention should be focused on the distinguishing characteristics listed for each species.
    [Show full text]
  • Travels in America Performed in 1806, for the Purpose of Exploring
    Library of Congress Travels in America performed in 1806, for the purpose of exploring the rivers Alleghany, Monongahela, Ohio, and Mississippi, and ascertaining the produce and condition of their banks and vicinity. By Thomas Ashe, esq. ... TRAVELS IN AMERICA, PERFORMED IN 1806, For the Purpose of exploring the RIVERS ALLEGHANY, MONONGAHELA, OHIO, AND MISSISSIPPI, AND ASCERTAINING THE PRODUCE AND CONDITION OF THEIR BANKS AND VICINITY. BY THOMAS ASHE, ESQ. IN THREE VOLUMES. VOL. 1. LC LONDON: PRINTED FOR RICHARD PHILLIPS, BRIDGE-STREET; By John Abraham, Clement's Lane. 1808. F333 A8 224612 15 PREFACE. Travels in America performed in 1806, for the purpose of exploring the rivers Alleghany, Monongahela, Ohio, and Mississippi, and ascertaining the produce and condition of their banks and vicinity. By Thomas Ashe, esq. ... http://www.loc.gov/resource/lhbtn.3028a Library of Congress IT is universally acknowledged, that no description of writing comprehends so much amusement and entertainment as well written accounts of voyages and travels, especially in countries little known. If the voyages of a Cook and his followers, exploratory of the South Sea Islands, and the travels of a Bruce, or a Park, in the interior regions of Africa, have merited and obtained celebrity, the work now presented to the public cannot but claim a similar merit. The western part of America, become interesting in every point of view, has been little known, and misrepresented by the few writers on the subject, led by motives of interest or traffic, and has not heretofore been exhibited in a satisfactory manner. Mr. Ashe, the author of the present work, and who has now returned to America, here gives an account every way satisfactory.
    [Show full text]
  • State of New York City's Plants 2018
    STATE OF NEW YORK CITY’S PLANTS 2018 Daniel Atha & Brian Boom © 2018 The New York Botanical Garden All rights reserved ISBN 978-0-89327-955-4 Center for Conservation Strategy The New York Botanical Garden 2900 Southern Boulevard Bronx, NY 10458 All photos NYBG staff Citation: Atha, D. and B. Boom. 2018. State of New York City’s Plants 2018. Center for Conservation Strategy. The New York Botanical Garden, Bronx, NY. 132 pp. STATE OF NEW YORK CITY’S PLANTS 2018 4 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 6 INTRODUCTION 10 DOCUMENTING THE CITY’S PLANTS 10 The Flora of New York City 11 Rare Species 14 Focus on Specific Area 16 Botanical Spectacle: Summer Snow 18 CITIZEN SCIENCE 20 THREATS TO THE CITY’S PLANTS 24 NEW YORK STATE PROHIBITED AND REGULATED INVASIVE SPECIES FOUND IN NEW YORK CITY 26 LOOKING AHEAD 27 CONTRIBUTORS AND ACKNOWLEGMENTS 30 LITERATURE CITED 31 APPENDIX Checklist of the Spontaneous Vascular Plants of New York City 32 Ferns and Fern Allies 35 Gymnosperms 36 Nymphaeales and Magnoliids 37 Monocots 67 Dicots 3 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This report, State of New York City’s Plants 2018, is the first rankings of rare, threatened, endangered, and extinct species of what is envisioned by the Center for Conservation Strategy known from New York City, and based on this compilation of The New York Botanical Garden as annual updates thirteen percent of the City’s flora is imperiled or extinct in New summarizing the status of the spontaneous plant species of the York City. five boroughs of New York City. This year’s report deals with the City’s vascular plants (ferns and fern allies, gymnosperms, We have begun the process of assessing conservation status and flowering plants), but in the future it is planned to phase in at the local level for all species.
    [Show full text]
  • Zootaxa,Revision of the Genus Psectrotarsia Dognin, 1907 (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae
    Zootaxa 1637: 1–19 (2007) ISSN 1175-5326 (print edition) www.mapress.com/zootaxa/ ZOOTAXA Copyright © 2007 · Magnolia Press ISSN 1175-5334 (online edition) Revision of the Genus Psectrotarsia Dognin, 1907 (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae: Heliothinae) MICHAEL G. POGUE Systematic Entomology Laboratory, PSI, Agricultural Research Service, U. S. Department of Agriculture, c/o Smithsonian Institution, P.O. Box 37012, NMNH, MRC-168, Washington, DC, 20013-7012, USA; [email protected] Abstract Based on characters of the male and female genitalia, the genus Erythroecia Hampson, 1910 is considered a new syn- onym of Psectrotarsia Dognin, 1907. Psectrotarsia contains five species: P. flava Dognin (type species); P. su av is (H. Edwards), new combination; P. h e ba rd i (Skinner), new combination; P. euposis (Dyar), new combination and revised status; and P. rhodophora (Hampson), new combination. Each species is redescribed and illustrated. Copitarsia fuscir- ena (Hampson), new combination, and C. tamsi (Giacomelli), new combination, are transferred from Psectrotarsia to Copitarsia Hampson, 1906. Psectrotarsia ranges from the northeastern, midwestern, and southwestern United States to Guatemala. Key words: systematics, genitalia, new synonym, new combination, revised status, Erythroecia Introduction Psectrotarsia Dognin, 1907 was used first in combination with the type species, P. f la va Dognin, but a formal description of the genus was not provided. Hampson (1908) used Psectrotarsia in a key to the genera of Acro- nyctinae, but did not include species names (Poole, 1989). Hampson (1910) did not regard Psectrotarsia as formally described, and therefore, redescribed it and designated P. f us c ire n a Hampson as the type species; thus, he created both a junior synonym and homonym of Psectrotarsia Dognin.
    [Show full text]
  • Fuller’S Leadership and Over- Vincent of the Refuge Staff Are Notable for Having Sight Were Invaluable
    Acknowledgments Acknowledgments Many people have contributed to this plan over many detailed and technical requirements of sub- the last seven years. Several key staff positions, missions to the Service, the Environmental Protec- including mine, have been filled by different people tion Agency, and the Federal Register. Jon during the planning period. Tom Palmer and Neil Kauffeld’s and Nita Fuller’s leadership and over- Vincent of the Refuge staff are notable for having sight were invaluable. We benefited from close col- been active in the planning for the entire extent. laboration and cooperation with staff of the Illinois Tom and Neil kept the details straight and the rest Department of Natural Resources. Their staff par- of us on track throughout. Mike Brown joined the ticipated from the early days of scoping through staff in the midst of the process and contributed new reviews and re-writes. We appreciate their persis- insights, analysis, and enthusiasm that kept us mov- tence, professional expertise, and commitment to ing forward. Beth Kerley and John Magera pro- our natural resources. Finally, we value the tremen- vided valuable input on the industrial and public use dous involvement of citizens throughout the plan- aspects of the plan. Although this is a refuge plan, ning process. We heard from visitors to the Refuge we received notable support from our regional office and from people who care about the Refuge without planning staff. John Schomaker provided excep- ever having visited. Their input demonstrated a tional service coordinating among the multiple level of caring and thought that constantly interests and requirements within the Service.
    [Show full text]
  • Moths of North Carolina - Early Draft 1
    Erebidae Catocala marmorata Marbled Underwing 10 9 8 n=2 • 7 High Mt. • • 6 N 5 u 4 • 3 • • m 2 b 1 0 • e • • • r 5 25 15 5 25 15 5 25 15 5 25 15 5 25 15 5 25 15 • 15 5 25 15 5 25 15 5 25 15 5 25 15 5 25 15 5 25 NC counties: 14 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec o 10 • f 9 n=3 = Sighting or Collection 8 • 7 Low Mt. High counts of: • in NC since 2001 F 6 • l 5 1 - Brunswick - 1995-10-04 = Not seen since 2001 4 • i 3 1 - Brunswick - 1995-10-31 g 2 Status Rank h 1 1 - Martin - 1996-10-15 0 NC US NC Global t 5 25 15 5 25 15 5 25 15 5 25 15 5 25 15 5 25 15 15 5 25 15 5 25 15 5 25 15 5 25 15 5 25 15 5 25 D Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec a 10 10 9 9 t 8 n=6 8 n=5 e 7 Pd 7 CP s 6 6 5 5 4 4 3 3 2 2 1 1 0 0 5 25 15 5 25 15 5 25 15 5 25 15 5 25 15 5 25 15 5 25 15 5 25 15 5 25 15 5 25 15 5 25 15 5 25 15 15 5 25 15 5 25 15 5 25 15 5 25 15 5 25 15 5 25 15 5 25 15 5 25 15 5 25 15 5 25 15 5 25 15 5 25 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Three periods to each month: 1-10 / 11-20 / 21-31 FAMILY: Erebidae SUBFAMILY: Erebinae TRIBE: Catocalini TAXONOMIC_COMMENTS: One of 103 species in this genus that occur in North America (Lafontaine and Schmidt, 2010, 2015), 67 of which have been recorded in North Carolina.
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • New York Natural Heritage Program Rare Plant Status List May 2004 Edited By
    New York Natural Heritage Program Rare Plant Status List May 2004 Edited by: Stephen M. Young and Troy W. Weldy This list is also published at the website: www.nynhp.org For more information, suggestions or comments about this list, please contact: Stephen M. Young, Program Botanist New York Natural Heritage Program 625 Broadway, 5th Floor Albany, NY 12233-4757 518-402-8951 Fax 518-402-8925 E-mail: [email protected] To report sightings of rare species, contact our office or fill out and mail us the Natural Heritage reporting form provided at the end of this publication. The New York Natural Heritage Program is a partnership with the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation and by The Nature Conservancy. Major support comes from the NYS Biodiversity Research Institute, the Environmental Protection Fund, and Return a Gift to Wildlife. TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction.......................................................................................................................................... Page ii Why is the list published? What does the list contain? How is the information compiled? How does the list change? Why are plants rare? Why protect rare plants? Explanation of categories.................................................................................................................... Page iv Explanation of Heritage ranks and codes............................................................................................ Page iv Global rank State rank Taxon rank Double ranks Explanation of plant
    [Show full text]
  • Coefficients of Conservatism for the Vascular Flora of the Dakotas and Adjacent Grasslands
    (200) B565i no. 2001 -1 mt of the Interior al Survey c.1 Coefficients of Conservatism for the Vascular Flora of the Dakotas and Adjacent Grasslands Information and Technology Report USGS/BRD/ITR- 2001 -0001 ~USGS science for a changing world Cover art: Penstemon nitidus courtesy of Dorothy E. Mushet. U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey Coefficients of Conservatism for the Vascular Flora of the Dakotas and Adjacent Grasslands By The Northern Great Plains Floristic Quality Assessment Panel Information and Technology Report USGS/BRD/ITR- 2001 -0001 OCT 1 G 2.001 U.S. Department of the Interior Gale A. Norton, Secretary U.S. Geological Survey Charles G. Groat, Director U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia: 2001 Any use of trade, product, or firm names in this publication is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government. Cop ies of th is publication are available from the National Technical Information Service, 5285 Port Royal Road, Spring­ field, Virginia 22161 (1 -800-553-6847 or 703-487 -4650). Copies also are available to registered users from the Defense Technical Information Center, Attn .: Help Desk, 8725 Kingman Road, Suite 0944, Fort Belvoir, Virginia 22060-6218 (1 -800 -225-3842 or 703 -767 - 9050). Suggested citation: The orthem Great Plain Floristic Quality Assessment Panel, 200 I, Coefficient of conservatism for the vascular flora of the Dakotas and adjacent grasslands: U.S. Geological Survey, Biological Resources Divi ion, Lnformation and Technology Report USGS/ BRD/lTR- 200 1-0001, 32 p. Contents Page Ab tract ...........
    [Show full text]