DOCSLIB.ORG

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife's Vector Control Guidance

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife's Vector Control Guidance Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife’s Vector Control Guidance For Sensitive Areas Compiled by: D. Faucera, ODFW, Fish Division, Water Quantity/Quality Program Date: 2/13/2014 Table of Contents I. Introduction .............................................................................................................................................. 1 II. Background .............................................................................................................................................. 2 III. Vector Control Overview ....................................................................................................................... 4 A. Mosquito Life History ......................................................................................................................... 4 B. Common Mosquitoes in Oregon .......................................................................................................... 4 C. Benefits of Mosquito Reduction .......................................................................................................... 6 D. Integrated Pest Management .............................................................................................................. 7 1. Habitat Reduction ............................................................................................................................ 8 2. Avoidance/Education ....................................................................................................................... 8 3. Larval and Pupal Control .................................................................................................................. 8 4. Adult Control .................................................................................................................................... 9 E. Biological Mosquito Controls ............................................................................................................. 11 1. Fish ................................................................................................................................................. 11 2. Bats, Birds, Amphibians and Insects .............................................................................................. 12 F. EPA Regulation ................................................................................................................................... 13 1. Toxicity Categories ......................................................................................................................... 14 2. Environmental Fate and Ecotoxicity of Products ........................................................................... 15 3. Ecological Risk Assessments .......................................................................................................... 17 G. Treatments Used for Mosquito Control ............................................................................................ 18 1. Larvicide Treatments ..................................................................................................................... 18 a. Biological Larvicides .................................................................................................................. 19 b. Chemical Larvicides and Pupacides ........................................................................................... 21 (1) Insect Growth Regulators ........................................................................................... 21 (2) Monomolecular Films ................................................................................................. 22 (3) Surface Oils ................................................................................................................. 22 (4) Organophosphates .................................................................................................... 23 2. Adulticide Treatments ................................................................................................................... 23 a. Pyrethrins and Pyrethroids ....................................................................................................... 25 b. Organophosphates .................................................................................................................... 27 IV. Sensitive Areas ..................................................................................................................................... 28 i A. Sensitive Area Categories .................................................................................................................. 29 1. Wildlife Areas ................................................................................................................................. 29 a. ODFW-Owned or Managed Wildlife Areas ............................................................................... 29 b. National Wildlife Areas/Refuges ............................................................................................... 30 2. Wetlands of Concern ..................................................................................................................... 31 3. Unique, Rare, or Vulnerable Habitats ............................................................................................ 32 B. Species Timing ................................................................................................................................... 33 V. General Guidance for Treatment in Sensitive Areas ............................................................................. 33 A. Health Threat Levels and Recommended Treatment Protocols ........................................................ 35 B. Treatment Preferences on Sensitive Areas ........................................................................................ 37 1. Larvicides ....................................................................................................................................... 38 a. Biological Larvicides .................................................................................................................. 38 b. Insect Growth Regulators ......................................................................................................... 38 c. Monomolecular Films ................................................................................................................ 39 d. Surface Oils ............................................................................................................................... 40 e. Organophosphates .................................................................................................................... 40 1. Adulticides ..................................................................................................................................... 41 a. Synthetic Pyrethroid-like .......................................................................................................... 41 b. Natural Pyrethrins ..................................................................................................................... 41 c. Synthetic Pyrethroids ............................................................................................................... 42 d. Organophosphates .................................................................................................................... 43 VI. PUP Review and Approval .................................................................................................................... 44 VII. Annual Reports .................................................................................................................................... 45 Tables: Table 1. Common mosquitoes found in Oregon, their habitats, and potential disease transmission. ....... 5 Table 2. Larvicide products proposed for use in Oregon during 2013. ..................................................... 19 Table 3. Adulticide products proposed for use in Oregon during 2013. .................................................... 24 Table 4. Recommended triggers and treatment protocols for sensitive areas in Oregon. ....................... 36 ii Appendices: Appendix A. OREGON REVISED STATUTES ................................................................................................ 46 Appendix B. MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING ................................................................................ 50 Appendix C. ENVIRONMENTAL FATE AND ECOTOXICITY DATA FOR PRODUCTS PROPOSED FOR USE IN OREGON ..................................................................................................................................................... 61 Appendix D. SPECIES TIMING TABLES FOR SELECT WILDIFE AREAS .......................................................... 67 Appendix E. WETLANDS OF CONSERVATION CONCERN ......................................................................... 134 Appendix Tables: Appendix Table C1. Environmental Fate and Ecotoxicity data for larvicide products proposed for use in Oregon during 2013. ................................................................................................................................... 62 Appendix Table C2. Environmental Fate and Ecotoxicity data for adulticide products proposed for use in Oregon during 2013. ................................................................................................................................... 64 iii I. Introduction The Oregon Department of Fish and WiIdlife’s (ODFW) mission is “To
Load more

Recommended publications
  • An Inventory of Fish in Streams in Mount Rainier National Park 2001-2003
    National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior Natural Resource Stewardship and Science An Inventory of Fish in Streams at Mount Rainier National Park 2001-2003 Natural Resource Technical Report NPS/NCCN/NRTR—2013/717.N ON THE COVER National Park staff conducting a snorkel fish survey in Kotsuck Creek, Mount Rainier National Park, 2002. Photograph courtesy of Mount Rainier National Park. An Inventory of Fish in Streams at Mount Rainier National Park 2001-2003 Natural Resource Technical Report NPS/NCCN/NRTR—2013/717.N Barbara A. Samora, Heather Moran, Rebecca Lofgren National Park Service North Coast and Cascades Network Inventory and Monitoring Program Mount Rainier National Park Tahoma Woods Star Rt. Ashford, WA. 98304 April 2013 U.S. Department of the Interior National Park Service Natural Resource Stewardship and Science Fort Collins, Colorado The National Park Service, Natural Resource Stewardship and Science office in Fort Collins, Colorado, publishes a range of reports that address natural resource topics. These reports are of interest and applicability to a broad audience in the National Park Service and others in natural resource management, including scientists, conservation and environmental constituencies, and the public. The Natural Resource Technical Report Series is used to disseminate results of scientific studies in the physical, biological, and social sciences for both the advancement of science and the achievement of the National Park Service mission. The series provides contributors with a forum for displaying comprehensive data that are often deleted from journals because of page limitations. All manuscripts in the series receive the appropriate level of peer review to ensure that the information is scientifically credible, technically accurate, appropriately written for the intended audience, and designed and published in a professional manner.
    [Show full text]
  • Effects of Removal Or Reduced Density of the Malaria Mosquito, Anopheles
    Medical and Veterinary Entomology (2018), doi: 10.1111/mve.12327 REVIEW ARTICLE Effects of the removal or reduction in density of the malaria mosquito, Anopheles gambiae s.l., on interacting predators and competitors in local ecosystems C. M. COLLINS1 , J. A. S. BONDS2, M. M. QUINLAN1 and J. D. MUMFORD1 1Centre for Environmental Policy, Imperial College London, London, U.K. and 2Bonds Consulting Group LLC, Panama City Beach, Florida, U.S.A. Abstract. New genetic control methods for mosquitoes may reduce vector species without direct effects on other species or the physical environment common with insecticides or drainage. Effects on predators and competitors could, however, be a concern as Anopheles gambiae s.l. is preyed upon in all life stages. We overview the literature and assess the strength of the ecological interactions identified. Most predators identified consume many other insect species and there is no evidence that anyspecies preys exclusively on any anopheline mosquito. There is one predatory species with a specialisation on blood-fed mosquitoes including An. gambiae s.l.. Evarcha culicivora is a jumping spider, known as the vampire spider, found around Lake Victoria. There is no evidence that these salticids require Anopheles mosquitoes and will readily consume blood-fed Culex. Interspecific competition studies focus on other mosquitoes of larval habitats. Many of these take place in artificial cosms and give contrasting results to semi-field studies. This may limit their extrapolation regarding the potential impact of reduced An. gambiae numbers. Previous mosquito control interventions are informative and identify competitive release and niche opportunism; so while the identity and relative abundance of the species present may change, the biomass available to predators may not.
    [Show full text]
  • Botanical Survey Report Horseshoe Pond Restoration Project Point Reyes National Seashore Marin County, California
    Botanical Survey Report Horseshoe Pond Restoration Project Point Reyes National Seashore Marin County, California Prepared By: Lorraine Parsons Point Reyes National Seashore Division of Natural Resources Management Point Reyes Station, CA 94956 May 17, 2002 CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 REGULATORY BACKGROUND The purpose of this report is to provide background information regarding botanical resources within the Horseshoe Pond Restoration Project area (Proposed Project Area). Point Reyes National Seashore (Seashore) is preparing an Environmental Assessment (EA) for the Proposed Project. Background information in this report will be used to guide development and assess potential environmental impacts of the Proposed Project. As part of the EA, the Seashore must consider whether the Proposed Project could impact special status plant species, as well as special status wildlife species and other sensitive biological resources such as wetlands and riparian areas. Special status plant species include those that are legally protected under the federal and California Endangered Species Acts (ESA) or other regulations and species that are considered rare by the scientific community. Special status species are defined as: • plants that are listed or proposed for listing as threatened or endangered under the California ESA (Fish and Game Code §2050 et seq.; 14 CCR §670.1 et seq.) and/or the federal ESA (50 CFR 17.11 for animals; various notices in the Federal Register [FR] for proposed species); • plants that are candidates for possible future listing as threatened or endangered under the federal ESA (61 FR 7506 February 28, 1996); • plants that meet the definition of rare or endangered under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (14 CCR §15380) which includes species not found on state or federal endangered species lists; • plants that are designated as “species of concern” (former category 2 candidates for listing) by the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • 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]
  • Scientific Note
    Journal of the American Mosquito Control Association, 18(4):359-363' 2OOz Copyright @ 2002 by the American Mosquito Control Association' Inc' SCIENTIFIC NOTE COLONIZATION OF ANOPHELES MACULAZUS FROM CENTRAL JAVA, INDONESIA' MICHAEL J. BANGS,' TOTO SOELARTO,3 BARODJI,3 BIMO P WICAKSANA'AND DAMAR TRI BOEWONO3 ABSTRACT, The routine colonization of Anopheles maculatus, a reputed malaria vector from Central Java, is described. The strain is free mating and long lived in the laboratory. This species will readily bloodfeed on small rodents and artificial membrane systems. Either natural or controlled temperatures, humidity, and lighting provide acceptable conditions for continuous rearing. A simple larval diet incorporating a l0:4 powdered mixture of a.i"a beef and rice hulls proved acceptable. Using a variety of simple tools and procedures, this colony strain appears readily adaptable to rearing under most laboratory conditions. This appears to be the first report of continuous colonization using a free-mating sffain of An. maculatus. Using this simple, relatively inexpensive method of mass colonization adds to the short list of acceptable laboratory populations used in the routine production of human-infecting plasmodia. KEY WORDS Anopheles maculatus, Central Java, colonization, larval diet, malaria vector, Indonesia Anop he Ie s (Ce ll ia) maculat us Theobald belongs nificantly divergent in phylogenetic terms from oth- to the Theobaldi group of the Neocellia series, er members of the complex and may represent one which also includes Anopheles karwari (James) and or more separate species awaiting formal descrip- Anopheles theobaldi Giles (Subbarao 1998). The tion (Rongnoparut, personal communication). For An. maculatus species complex is considered an purposes of this article, the Central Java strain will "spe- important malaria vector assemblage over certain be referred to as An.
    [Show full text]
  • Shell Creek Checklist-Apr2012
    Checklist of Vascular Plants Shell Creek and Vicinity April 2012 Avenales Wildlife Area, Sinton Ranch, San Luis Obispo County, California PREPARED BY DAVID J. KEIL, BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES DEPARTMENT, CALIFORNIA POLYTECHNIC STATE UNIVERSITY, SAN LUIS OBISPO Scientific name1,2 Common name FAMILY Abronia pogonantha Desert sand-verbena NYCTAGINACEAE Achillea millefolium Yarrow ASTERACEAE Achyrachaena mollis Blow wives ASTERACEAE Acmispon americanus (Lotus purshianus) Spanish-clover FABACEAE Acmispon brachycarpus (Lotus humistratus) Foothill deervetch FABACEAE Acmispon glaber (Lotus scoparius) Deerweed FABACEAE Acmispon strigosus (Lotus strigosus) Strigose deervetch FABACEAE Acmispon wrangelianus California deervetch FABACEAE Acourtia microcephala Sacapelote ASTERACEAE Adenostoma fasciculatum Chamise ROSACEAE Agoseris heterophylla Annual mountain dandelion ASTERACEAE *Amaranthus albus3 Tumble amaranth AMARANTHACEAE *Amaranthus retroflexus Redroot amaranth AMARANTHACEAE Ambrosia acanthicarpa Annual bursage ASTERACEAE Amsinckia menziesii subsp. intermedia Fiddleneck BORAGINACEAE Amsinckia tessellata subsp. gloriosa Fiddleneck BORAGINACEAE Amsinckia tessellata subsp. tessellata Fiddleneck BORAGINACEAE *Anagallis arvensis Scarlet pimpernel MYRSINACEAE Ancistrocarphus filagineus Woolly fishhooks ASTERACEAE Apiastrum angustifolium Apiastrum APIACEAE Arctostaphylos glauca Bigberry manzanita ERICACEAE Artemisia californica California sagebrush ASTERACEAE Artemisia douglasiana Mugwort ASTERACEAE Asclepias fascicularis Milkweed APOCYNACEAE Asclepias vestita
    [Show full text]
  • Ecologically Sound Mosquito Management in Wetlands. the Xerces
    Ecologically Sound Mosquito Management in Wetlands An Overview of Mosquito Control Practices, the Risks, Benefits, and Nontarget Impacts, and Recommendations on Effective Practices that Control Mosquitoes, Reduce Pesticide Use, and Protect Wetlands. Celeste Mazzacano and Scott Hoffman Black The Xerces Society FOR INVERTEBRATE CONSERVATION Ecologically Sound Mosquito Management in Wetlands An Overview of Mosquito Control Practices, the Risks, Benefits, and Nontarget Impacts, and Recommendations on Effective Practices that Control Mosquitoes, Reduce Pesticide Use, and Protect Wetlands. Celeste Mazzacano Scott Hoffman Black The Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation Oregon • California • Minnesota • Michigan New Jersey • North Carolina www.xerces.org The Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation is a nonprofit 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 citi- zens to implement conservation programs worldwide. The Society uses advocacy, education, and ap- plied 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 offices in California, Minnesota, Michigan, New Jersey, and North Carolina. © 2013 by The Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation Acknowledgements Our thanks go to the photographers for allowing us to use their photos. Copyright of all photos re- mains with the photographers. In addition, we thank Jennifer Hopwood for reviewing the report. Editing and layout: Matthew Shepherd Funding for this report was provided by The New-Land Foundation, Meyer Memorial Trust, The Bul- litt Foundation, The Edward Gorey Charitable Trust, Cornell Douglas Foundation, Maki Foundation, and Xerces Society members.
    [Show full text]
  • Greene's Tuctoria 0 12.5 25 50 75 100
    14. TUCTORIA GREENEI (GREENE’S TUCTORIA) a. Description and Taxonomy Taxonomy.—The genus Tuctoria is in the grass family (Poaceae), subfamily Chloridoideae, and is a member of the Orcuttieae tribe, which also includes Neostapfia and Orcuttia (Reeder 1965, Keeley 1998). Vasey (1891:146) originally assigned the name Orcuttia greenei to this species, from a type specimen collected in 1890 “on moist plains of the upper Sacramento, near Chico, California,” presumably in Butte County (Hoover 1941, Crampton 1958). Citing differences in lemma morphology, arrangement of the spikelets, and other differences (see “Description” below), Reeder (1982) segregated the genus Tuctoria from Orcuttia and created the new scientific name Tuctoria greenei for this species. Subsequent research suggests that Tuctoria is intermediate in evolutionary position between the primitive genus Neostapfia and the advanced genus Orcuttia (Keeley 1998, L. Boykin in litt. 2000). Several other common names have been used for this species, including Chico grass (Scribner 1899), awnless Orcutt grass (Abrams 1940), Greene’s orcuttia (Smith et al. 1980), and Greene’s Orcutt grass (California Department of Fish and Game 1991, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1985c). Description and Identification.—The basic characteristics pertaining to all members of the Orcuttieae were described above in the Neostapfia colusana account. The genus Tuctoria is characterized by flattened spikelets similar to those of Orcuttia species, except that the spikelets of Tuctoria grow in a spiral, as opposed to a distichous, arrangement. Tuctoria species have short-toothed, narrow lemmas. The juvenile and terrestrial leaves of Tuctoria are similar to those of Orcuttia, but Tuctoria does not produce the floating type of intermediate leaves (Reeder 1982, Keeley 1998).
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix C. Plant Species Observed at the Yolo Grasslands Regional Park (2009-2010)
    Appendix C. Plant Species Observed at the Yolo Grasslands Regional Park (2009-2010) Plant Species Observed at the Yolo Grassland Regional Park (2009-2010) Wetland Growth Indicator Scientific Name Common Name Habitat Occurrence Habit Status Family Achyrachaena mollis Blow wives AG, VP, VS AH FAC* Asteraceae Aegilops cylinricia* Jointed goatgrass AG AG NL Poaceae Aegilops triuncialis* Barbed goat grass AG AG NL Poaceae Aesculus californica California buckeye D T NL Hippocastanaceae Aira caryophyllea * [Aspris c.] Silver hairgrass AG AG NL Poaceae Alchemilla arvensis Lady's mantle AG AH NL Rosaceae Alopecurus saccatus Pacific foxtail VP, SW AG OBL Poaceae Amaranthus albus * Pigweed amaranth AG, D AH FACU Amaranthaceae Amsinckia menziesii var. intermedia [A. i.] Rancher's fire AG AH NL Boraginaceae Amsinckia menziesii var. menziesii Common fiddleneck AG AH NL Boraginaceae Amsinckia sp. Fiddleneck AG, D AH NL Boraginaceae Anagallis arvensis * Scarlet pimpernel SW, D, SS AH FAC Primulaceae Anthemis cotula * Mayweed AG AH FACU Asteraceae Anthoxanthum odoratum ssp. odoratum * Sweet vernal grass AG PG FACU Poaceae Aphanes occidentalis [Alchemilla occidentalis] Dew-cup AG, F AH NL Rosaceae Asclepias fascicularis Narrow-leaved milkweed AG PH FAC Ascepiadaceae Atriplex sp. Saltbush VP, SW AH ? Chenopodiaceae Avena barbata * Slender wild oat AG AG NL Poaceae Avena fatua * [A. f. var. glabrata, A. f. var. vilis] Wild oat AG AG NL Poaceae Brassica nigra * Black mustard AG, D AH NL Brassicaceae Brassica rapa field mustard AG, D AH NL Brassicaceae Briza minor * Little quakinggrass AG, SW, SS, VP AG FACW Poaceae Brodiaea californica California brodiaea AG PH NL Amaryllidaceae Brodiaea coronaria ssp. coronaria [B.
    [Show full text]
  • Tidal Marsh Recovery Plan Habitat Creation Or Enhancement Project Within 5 Miles of OAK
    U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Recovery Plan for Tidal Marsh Ecosystems of Northern and Central California California clapper rail Suaeda californica Cirsium hydrophilum Chloropyron molle Salt marsh harvest mouse (Rallus longirostris (California sea-blite) var. hydrophilum ssp. molle (Reithrodontomys obsoletus) (Suisun thistle) (soft bird’s-beak) raviventris) Volume II Appendices Tidal marsh at China Camp State Park. VII. APPENDICES Appendix A Species referred to in this recovery plan……………....…………………….3 Appendix B Recovery Priority Ranking System for Endangered and Threatened Species..........................................................................................................11 Appendix C Species of Concern or Regional Conservation Significance in Tidal Marsh Ecosystems of Northern and Central California….......................................13 Appendix D Agencies, organizations, and websites involved with tidal marsh Recovery.................................................................................................... 189 Appendix E Environmental contaminants in San Francisco Bay...................................193 Appendix F Population Persistence Modeling for Recovery Plan for Tidal Marsh Ecosystems of Northern and Central California with Intial Application to California clapper rail …............................................................................209 Appendix G Glossary……………......................................................................………229 Appendix H Summary of Major Public Comments and Service
    [Show full text]
  • Ventura County Plant Species of Local Concern
    Checklist of Ventura County Rare Plants (Twenty-second Edition) CNPS, Rare Plant Program David L. Magney Checklist of Ventura County Rare Plants1 By David L. Magney California Native Plant Society, Rare Plant Program, Locally Rare Project Updated 4 January 2017 Ventura County is located in southern California, USA, along the east edge of the Pacific Ocean. The coastal portion occurs along the south and southwestern quarter of the County. Ventura County is bounded by Santa Barbara County on the west, Kern County on the north, Los Angeles County on the east, and the Pacific Ocean generally on the south (Figure 1, General Location Map of Ventura County). Ventura County extends north to 34.9014ºN latitude at the northwest corner of the County. The County extends westward at Rincon Creek to 119.47991ºW longitude, and eastward to 118.63233ºW longitude at the west end of the San Fernando Valley just north of Chatsworth Reservoir. The mainland portion of the County reaches southward to 34.04567ºN latitude between Solromar and Sequit Point west of Malibu. When including Anacapa and San Nicolas Islands, the southernmost extent of the County occurs at 33.21ºN latitude and the westernmost extent at 119.58ºW longitude, on the south side and west sides of San Nicolas Island, respectively. Ventura County occupies 480,996 hectares [ha] (1,188,562 acres [ac]) or 4,810 square kilometers [sq. km] (1,857 sq. miles [mi]), which includes Anacapa and San Nicolas Islands. The mainland portion of the county is 474,852 ha (1,173,380 ac), or 4,748 sq.
    [Show full text]
  • 2010 Animal Species of Concern
    MONTANA NATURAL HERITAGE PROGRAM Animal Species of Concern Species List Last Updated 08/05/2010 219 Species of Concern 86 Potential Species of Concern All Records (no filtering) A program of the University of Montana and Natural Resource Information Systems, Montana State Library Introduction The Montana Natural Heritage Program (MTNHP) serves as the state's information source for animals, plants, and plant communities with a focus on species and communities that are rare, threatened, and/or have declining trends and as a result are at risk or potentially at risk of extirpation in Montana. This report on Montana Animal Species of Concern is produced jointly by the Montana Natural Heritage Program (MTNHP) and Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife, and Parks (MFWP). Montana Animal Species of Concern are native Montana animals that are considered to be "at risk" due to declining population trends, threats to their habitats, and/or restricted distribution. Also included in this report are Potential Animal Species of Concern -- animals for which current, often limited, information suggests potential vulnerability or for which additional data are needed before an accurate status assessment can be made. Over the last 200 years, 5 species with historic breeding ranges in Montana have been extirpated from the state; Woodland Caribou (Rangifer tarandus), Greater Prairie-Chicken (Tympanuchus cupido), Passenger Pigeon (Ectopistes migratorius), Pilose Crayfish (Pacifastacus gambelii), and Rocky Mountain Locust (Melanoplus spretus). Designation as a Montana Animal Species of Concern or Potential Animal Species of Concern is not a statutory or regulatory classification. Instead, these designations provide a basis for resource managers and decision-makers to make proactive decisions regarding species conservation and data collection priorities in order to avoid additional extirpations.
    [Show full text]