DOCSLIB.ORG

Amphibian Ecological Risk Assessment Guidance Manual

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Amphibian Ecological Risk Assessment Guidance Manual ENGINEERING SERVICE CENTER Port Hueneme, California 93043-4370 TECHNICAL REPORT TR-2245-ENV DEVELOPMENT OF A STANDARDIZED APPROACH FOR ASSESSING POTENTIAL RISKS TO AMPHIBIANS EXPOSED TO SEDIMENT AND HYRDIC SOILS Prepared by: ENSR International May 2004 Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited. Printed on recycled paper Form Approved REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE OMB No. 0704-0811 The public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing the burden to Department of Defense, Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports (0704-0188), 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302. Respondents should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information, it if does not display a currently valid OMB control number. PLEASE DO NOT RETURN YOUR FORM TO THE ABOVE ADDRESS. 1. REPORT DATE (DD-MM-YYYY) 2. REPORT TYPE 3. DATES COVERED (From – To) May 2004 Final 4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE 5a. CONTRACT NUMBER DEVELOPMENT OF A STANDARDIZED APPROACH FOR ASSESSING POTENTIAL RISKS TO AMPHIBIANS EXPOSED 5b. GRANT NUMBER TO SEDIMENT AND HYDRIC SOILS 5c. PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER 6. AUTHOR(S) 5d. PROJECT NUMBER John Bleiler, Dave Pillard, David Barclift, Amy Hawkins, and Jason Speicher 5e. TASK NUMBER 5f. WORK UNIT NUMBER 7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESSES 8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NUMBER ENSR International 2 Technology Park Drive TR-2245-ENV Westford, MA 01886-3140, USA 9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 10. SPONSOR/MONITORS ACRONYM(S) Commander Naval Facilities Engineering Service Center rd 1100 23 Ave 11. SPONSOR/MONITOR’S REPORT NUMBER(S) Port Hueneme, CA 93043-4370 12. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT 13. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES 14. ABSTRACT The guidance manual presents a standardized two-tiered risk assessment protocol for evaluating potential risks to amphibians. The Tier I Amphibian ERA Protocol comprises a screening level ERA. This approach uses readily available information to identify potential amphibian exposure pathways at a site and determine which exposure pathways are potentially complete. The Tier 1 protocol includes effects-based and background screening steps to determine whether or not potentially complete exposure pathways have the potential to pose a significant environmental risk. Ultimately, the results of the Tier 1 protocol are used to determine whether or not additional amphibian ERA is warranted. 15. SUBJECT TERMS Amphibian, soil, sediment, remediation, ecological risk assessment (ERA) 16. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF: 17. LIMITATION OF 18. NUMBER OF 19a. NAME OF RESPONSIBLE PERSON PAGES a. REPORT b. ABSTRACT c. THIS PAGE ABSTRACT U U U U 339 19b. TELEPHONE NUMBER (include area code) Standard Form 298 (Rev. 8/98) Prescribed by ANSI Std. Z39.18 Naval Facilities Engineering Service Center (NFESC) Port Hueneme, California DEVELOPMENT OF A STANDARDIZED APPROACH FOR ASSESSING POTENTIAL RISKS TO AMPHIBIANS EXPOSED TO SEDIMENT AND HYDRIC SOILS FINAL Deliverable No. 5: Amphibian Ecological Risk Assessment Guidance Manual March 2004 Document Number 09070-045-419 CV03025_A ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This document was prepared by ENSR International (ENSR) for the Naval Facilities Engineering Command (NAVFAC). Numerous people from ENSR contributed to the development of this guidance manual including: John Bleiler (Project Manager); Dave Pillard (Lead Aquatic Toxicologist), Doree Dufresnee, Christine Archer, Kristen Wandland, Andrea Desilets, and Joan Tracey. Members of NAVFAC's Risk Assessment Workgroup (RAW) have made significant contributions to this document by providing technical input, review, and direction throughout the project. Specifically, those members include David Barclift, Amy Hawkins, D.B. Chan, Ed Corl, Ruth Owens, Lisa Yeutter, and Jason Speicher. This guidance manual has also gone through a peer review process by independent experts in the field of ecological risk assessment and amphibian ecology/toxicology. In particular, NAVFAC would like to acknowledge the insightful technical review comments provided by Ihor Hlohowskyj (Argonne National Laboratory), Greg Linder (U.S. Geological Service), Ken Munney (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service), Patti Tyler (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency), and Mark Johnson (U.S. Army Center for Health Promotion and Preventive Medicine). Amphibian Ecological Risk Assessment Guidance Manual Q:\mw97\Projects\9070045\419\acknowledgement.doc TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY..................................................................................................... ES-1 SECTION 1.0 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................ 1-1 1.1 Project Scope .................................................................................................................. 1-1 1.2 Project Background......................................................................................................... 1-1 1.3 Problem Statement.......................................................................................................... 1-3 1.4 Tiered Framework for Amphibian Risk Evaluation ....................................................... 1-5 1.5 Document Organization.................................................................................................. 1-7 SECTION 2.0 AMPHIBIANS AS ECOLOGICAL INDICATORS ..................................... 2-1 2.1 Amphibian Classification................................................................................................ 2-1 2.2 Amphibian Physiology.................................................................................................... 2-1 2.3 Amphibian Breeding Ecology......................................................................................... 2-2 2.4 Habitat Use ..................................................................................................................... 2-5 2.5 Amphibian Trophic Status .............................................................................................. 2-5 2.6 Other Stressors................................................................................................................ 2-7 2.7 State of the Science......................................................................................................... 2-8 SECTION 3.0 TIER I INITIAL EVALUATION................................................................... 3-1 3.1 Initial Evaluation of Habitat Quality............................................................................... 3-1 3.2 Effects Based Screening ................................................................................................. 3-7 3.3 Refinement of Chemicals of Potential Ecological Concern.......................................... 3-11 3.4 Recommendations......................................................................................................... 3-18 SECTION 4.0 TIER II REFINED EVALUATION ............................................................... 4-1 4.1 Abiotic Media Sampling and Screening ......................................................................... 4-1 4.2 Amphibian Toxicity Testing........................................................................................... 4-2 4.3 Field Surveys .................................................................................................................. 4-5 4.4 Bioaccumulation Evaluations ......................................................................................... 4-6 Amphibian Ecological Risk Assessment Guidance Manual i Q:\mw97\Projects\9070045\419\TOC.doc SECTION 5.0 SUMMARY....................................................................................................... 5-1 SECTION 6.0 LITERATURE CITED.................................................................................... 6-1 APPENDIX A EXAMPLE FIELD EVALUATION FORMS APPENDIX B LITERATURE REVIEW & INTERPRETATION ATTACHMENT B-1 CALCULATION OF LINEAR REGRESSION APPENDIX C SOP DEVELOPMENT ATTACHMENT C-1 SOP APPENDIX D SOP VALIDATION ii Amphibian Ecological Risk Assessment Guidance Manual Q:\mw97\Projects\9070045\419\TOC.doc LIST OF TABLES Table 3-1 National and Regional Amphibian Natural History and Taxonomic References.............................................................................. 3-3 Table 3-2 Sediment Screening Benchmarks.................................................................... 3-9 Table 3-3 Surface Water Screening Benchmarks......................................................... 3-10 Table 3-4 Summary of Surface Water Toxicity Studies .............................................. 3-13 Table 3-5 Comparison of Surface Water Screening Benchmarks to Calculated Centiles ............................................................................................................ 3-15 Table 3-6 Summary of NOECs and LOECs – Lethal Endpoints................................ 3-16 Table 3-7 Summary of NOECs and LOECs – Sublethal Endpoints........................... 3-17 Table 4-1 Critical Body Residues
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Cfreptiles & Amphibians
    WWW.IRCF.ORG TABLE OF CONTENTS IRCF REPTILES &IRCF AMPHIBIANS REPTILES • VOL &15, AMPHIBIANS NO 4 • DEC 2008 • 189 27(2):288–292 • AUG 2020 IRCF REPTILES & AMPHIBIANS CONSERVATION AND NATURAL HISTORY TABLE OF CONTENTS FEATURE ARTICLES . Chasing BullsnakesAmphibians (Pituophis catenifer sayi) in Wisconsin: of the Melghat, On the Road to Understanding the Ecology and Conservation of the Midwest’s Giant Serpent ...................... Joshua M. Kapfer 190 . The Shared History of TreeboasMaharashtra, (Corallus grenadensis) and Humans on Grenada: India A Hypothetical Excursion ............................................................................................................................Robert W. Henderson 198 RESEARCH ARTICLES Hayat A. Qureshi and Gajanan A. Wagh . Biodiversity Research Laboratory,The Texas Horned Department Lizard in of Central Zoology, and ShriWestern Shivaji Texas Science ....................... College, Emily Amravati, Henry, Jason Maharashtra–444603, Brewer, Krista Mougey, India and Gad (gaj [email protected]) 204 . The Knight Anole (Anolis equestris) in Florida .............................................Brian J. Camposano,Photographs Kenneth L. Krysko, by the Kevin authors. M. Enge, Ellen M. Donlan, and Michael Granatosky 212 CONSERVATION ALERT . World’s Mammals in Crisis ............................................................................................................................................................. 220 . More Than Mammals .....................................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Crawford Reservoir
    Crawford Reservoir FISH SURVEY AND MANAGEMENT INFORMATION Eric Gardunio, Fish Biologist Montrose Service Center General Information: Crawford Reservoir is a popular fishery that provides angling opportunity for yellow perch, channel catfish, northern pike, rainbow trout, black crappie, and largemouth bass. This reser- voir, located in Crawford State Park, covers 414 surface acres at full capacity and is open year round to an- gling. Visit the State Parks website for information on regulations, camping, and recreation: http://parks.state.co.us/Parks/Crawford Location: 2 miles south of the town of Crawford on Hwy 92. Primary Management: Warmwater Mixed Species Lake Category 602 Amenities Previous Stocking Sportfishing Notes 2019 Black Crappie Boat Ramps (2) Rainbow Trout (10”): 9,100 Good spots include the East Campgrounds (2) Largemouth Bass (2”): 30,088 shore primarily around the Showers Clear Fork boat ramp cove or Largemouth Bass (6”): 150 anywhere with brush Visitors Center Largemouth Bass (20”): 70 Good baits include small tube Restrooms Channel Catfish (7”): 1,500 jigs and worms Parking Areas 2018 Channel Catfish Picnic Shelters Rainbow Trout (10”): 12,184 Good spots include the north Largemouth Bass (2”): 30,000 side of peninsula cove and near the dam Channel Catfish (7”): 4,250 Good baits include night 2017 crawlers and cut-bait WARNING !!! Rainbow Trout (10”): 12,184 Largemouth Bass Prevent the Spread of Largemouth Bass (2”): 20,000 Good spots include the rocky Zebra Mussels and other Largemouth Bass (16”): 70 areas near the dam and flood- Aquatic Nuisance Species ed brush and vegetation in the Channel Catfish (9”): 2,000 spring and summer.
    [Show full text]
  • Acute Toxicity of Para-Nonylphenol to Saltwater Animals
    Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, Vol. 19, No. 3, pp. 617±621, 2000 Printed in the USA 0730-7268/00 $9.00 1 .00 ACUTE TOXICITY OF PARA-NONYLPHENOL TO SALTWATER ANIMALS SUZANNE M. LUSSIER,*² DENISE CHAMPLIN,² JOSEPH LIVOLSI,² SHERRY POUCHER,³ and RICHARD J. PRUELL² ²U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Atlantic Ecology Division, 27 Tarzwell Drive, Narragansett, Rhode Island 02882 ³Science Applications International Corporation, 221 Third Street, Admiral's Gate, Newport, Rhode Island 02840, USA (Received 25 November 1998; Accepted 14 June 1999) AbstractÐpara-Nonylphenol (PNP), a mixture of alkylphenols used in producing nonionic surfactants, is distributed widely in surface waters and aquatic sediments, where it can affect saltwater species. This article describes a database for acute toxicity of PNP derived for calculating a national saltwater quality criterion. Using a ¯ow-through exposure system with measured concen- trations, we tested early life stages of four species of saltwater invertebrates and two species of ®sh. Static 96-h tests were also conducted on zoeal Homarus americanus, embryo-larval Mulinia lateralis, and larval Pleuronectes americanus. The number of organisms surviving the ¯ow-through test was measured at 2, 4, 8, and 12 h and daily through day 7. Mortality for most species plateaued by 96 h. The ranked sensitivities (96-h 50% lethal concentrations, measured in micrograms per liter) for the species tested were 17 for Pleuronectes americanus, 37.9 (48-h 50% effective concentration) for Mulinia lateralis, 59.4 for Paleomonetes vulgaris, 60.6 for Americamysis bahia (formerly Mysidopsis bahia), 61.6 for Leptocheirus plumulosos, 70 for Menidia beryllina, 71 for Homarus americanus, 142 for Cyprinodon variegatus, and .195 for Dyspanopius sayii.
    [Show full text]
  • C:\Documents and Settings\Leel\Desktop\WA 2-15 DRP
    DRAFT DETAILED REVIEW PAPER ON MYSID LIFE CYCLE TOXICITY TEST EPA CONTRACT NUMBER 68-W-01-023 WORK ASSIGNMENT 2-15 July 2, 2002 Prepared for L. Greg Schweer WORK ASSIGNMENT MANAGER U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY ENDOCRINE DISRUPTOR SCREENING PROGRAM WASHINGTON, D.C. BATTELLE 505 King Avenue Columbus, Ohio 43201 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ....................................................... 1 2.0 INTRODUCTION .............................................................. 2 2.1 DEVELOPING AND IMPLEMENTING THE ENDOCRINE DISRUPTOR SCREENING PROGRAM (EDSP).......................................... 2 2.2 THE VALIDATION PROCESS............................................. 2 2.3 PURPOSE OF THE REVIEW ............................................. 3 2.4 METHODS USED IN THIS ANALYSIS...................................... 4 2.5 ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ....................................... 5 3.0 OVERVIEW AND SCIENTIFIC BASIS OF MYSID LIFE CYCLE TOXICITY TEST ........... 6 3.1 ECDYSTEROID SENSITIVITY TO MEASURED ENDPOINTS ................... 9 4.0 CANDIDATE MYSID TEST SPECIES ............................................ 11 4.1 AMERICAMYSIS BAHIA ................................................ 12 4.1.1 Natural History ................................................... 12 4.1.2 Availability, Culture, and Handling .................................. 12 4.1.3 Strengths and Weaknesses ....................................... 13 4.2 HOLMESIMYSIS COSTATA ............................................. 13 4.2.1 Natural History ................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Largemouth Bass, Smallmouth Bass, and Spotted Bass Management and Fishing in Pennsylvania
    Largemouth Bass, Smallmouth Bass, and Spotted Bass Management and Fishing in Pennsylvania Prepared by R. Lorantas, D. Kristine and C. Hobbs PFBC Warmwater Unit 2005 (updated 2013; R. Lorantas) Goal: Maintain or enhance largemouth, smallmouth, and spotted bass sport fishing through harvest management of naturally sustained bass populations and through habitat preservation and enhancement. Judiciously stock largemouth and smallmouth bass in compatible new and reclaimed habitats. Largemouth bass and smallmouth bass occur throughout Pennsylvania and were originally indigenous to the Ohio River and Lake Erie Drainage. Spotted bass, Pennsylvania’s most rare black bass, occurs only in the Ohio River drainage. The Ohio drainage includes the Ohio River, Allegheny River and Monongahela River drainages. Largemouth bass typically predominate in reservoirs and lakes and occur at lower densities in slow moving rivers and streams within these drainages. Smallmouth bass are typically abundant in rivers, warmwater streams and medium to large size lakes and reservoirs in these drainages. Spotted bass are most abundant within a 20 mile radius of the confluence of the Ohio, Allegheny and Monongahela Rivers. In the Lake Erie drainage largemouth bass are largely confined to Presque Isle Bay, however smallmouth bass are abundant in Lake Erie as well as Presque Isle Bay. Smallmouth bass and largemouth bass stocking by the Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission and other agencies over a century ago into the Delaware, Susquehanna, and Potomac River Drainages lead to colonization of waters within these drainages, and both species are now self­sustaining in these drainages. Most natural warm­ water lakes and man­made reservoirs in Pennsylvania contain self– sustaining largemouth and smallmouth bass populations.
    [Show full text]
  • 2021 Fish Suppliers
    2021 Fish Suppliers A.B. Jones Fish Hatchery Largemouth bass, hybrid bluegill, bluegill, black crappie, triploid grass carp, Nancy Jones gambusia – mosquito fish, channel catfish, bullfrog tadpoles, shiners 1057 Hwy 26 Williamsburg, KY 40769 (606) 549-2669 ATAC, LLC Pond Management Specialist Fathead minnows, golden shiner, goldfish, largemouth bass, smallmouth bass, Rick Rogers hybrid bluegill, bluegill, redear sunfish, walleye, channel catfish, rainbow trout, PO Box 1223 black crappie, triploid grass carp, common carp, hybrid striped bass, koi, Lebanon, OH 45036 shubunkin goldfish, bullfrog tadpoles, and paddlefish (513) 932-6529 Anglers Bait-n-Tackle LLC Fathead minnows, rosey red minnows, bluegill, hybrid bluegill, goldfish and Kaleb Rodebaugh golden shiners 747 North Arnold Ave Prestonsburg, KY 606-886-1335 Andry’s Fish Farm Bluegill, hybrid bluegill, largemouth bass, koi, channel catfish, white catfish, Lyle Andry redear sunfish, black crappie, tilapia – human consumption only, triploid grass 10923 E. Conservation Club Road carp, fathead minnows and golden shiners Birdseye, IN 47513 (812) 389-2448 Arkansas Pondstockers, Inc Channel catfish, bluegill, hybrid bluegill, redear sunfish, largemouth bass, Michael Denton black crappie, fathead minnows, and triploid grass carp PO Box 357 Harrisbug, AR 75432 (870) 578-9773 Aquatic Control, Inc. Largemouth bass, bluegill, channel catfish, triploid grass carp, fathead Clinton Charlton minnows, redear sunfish, golden shiner, rainbow trout, and hybrid striped bass 505 Assembly Drive, STE 108
    [Show full text]
  • Comal County Regional Habitat Conservation Plan Environmental Impact Statement
    Draft Comal County Regional Habitat Conservation Plan Environmental Impact Statement Prepared for: Comal County, Texas Comal County Commissioners Court Prepared by: SWCA Environmental Consultants Smith, Robertson, Elliott, Glen, Klein & Bell, L.L.P. Prime Strategies, Inc. Texas Perspectives, Inc. Capital Market Research, Inc. April 2010 SWCA Project Number 12659-139-AUS DRAFT COMAL COUNTY REGIONAL HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT April 2010 Type of Action: Administrative Lead Agency: U.S. Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service Responsible Official: Adam Zerrenner Field Supervisor U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 10711 Burnet Road, Suite 200 Austin, Texas For Information: Bill Seawell Fish and Wildlife Biologist U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 10711 Burnet Road, Suite 200 Austin, Texas Tele: 512-490-0057 Abstract: Comal County, Texas, is applying for an incidental take permit (Permit) under section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended 16 U.S.C. § 1531, et seq. (ESA), to authorize the incidental take of two endangered species, the golden-cheeked warbler (Dendroica chrysoparia) and the black-capped vireo (Vireo atricapilla), referred to collectively as the “Covered Species.” In support of the Permit application, the County has prepared a regional habitat conservation plan (Proposed RHCP), covering a 30-year period from 2010 to 2040. The Permit Area for the Proposed RHCP and the area of potential effect for this Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is Comal County in central Texas. The requested Permit would authorize the following incidental take and mitigation for the golden-cheeked warbler: Take: As conservation credits are created through habitat preservation, authorize up to 5,238 acres (2,120 hectares) of golden-cheeked warbler habitat to be impacted over the 30-year life of the Proposed RHCP.
    [Show full text]
  • 8431-A-2017.Pdf
    Available Online at http://www.recentscientific.com International Journal of CODEN: IJRSFP (USA) Recent Scientific International Journal of Recent Scientific Research Research Vol. 8, Issue, 8, pp. 19482-19486, August, 2017 ISSN: 0976-3031 DOI: 10.24327/IJRSR Research Article BATRACHOFAUNA DIVERSITY OF DHALTANGARH FOREST OF ODISHA, INDIA *Dwibedy, SK Department of Zoology, Khallikote University, Berhampur, Odisha, India DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.24327/ijrsr.2017.0808.0702 ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT Article History: Small forests are often ignored. Their faunal resources remain hidden due to negligence. But they may be rich in animal diversity. Considering this, I have started an initial study on the batrachofauna Received 15th May, 2017 th diversity of Dhaltangarh forest. Dhaltangarh is a small reserve protected forest of Jagatsingpur Received in revised form 25 district of Odisha in India of geographical area of 279.03 acre. The duration of the study was 12 June, 2017 months. Studies were conducted by systematic observation, hand picking method, pitfall traps & Accepted 23rd July, 2017 th photographic capture. The materials used to create this research paper were a camera, key to Indian Published online 28 August, 2017 amphibians, binocular, & a frog catching net. The study yielded 10 amphibian species belonging to 4 families and 7 genera. It was concluded that this small forest is rich in amphibians belonging to Key Words: Dicroglossidae family. A new amphibian species named Srilankan painted frog was identified, Dhaltangarh, Odisha, Batrachofauna, which was previously unknown to this region. Amphibia, Anura, Dicroglossidae Copyright © Dwibedy, SK, 2017, this is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
    [Show full text]
  • Biological Opinion Regarding the Issuance of an Endangered Species Act of 1973, As Amended, (Act) Section 10(A)(1)(B) Permit
    Biological Opinion for TE-065406-0 This document transmits the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's (Service) biological opinion regarding the issuance of an Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, (Act) Section 10(a)(1)(B) permit. The federal action under consideration is the issuance of a permit authorizing the incidental take of the federally listed endangered Houston toad (Bufo houstonensis) under the authority of sections 10(a)(1)(B) and 10(a)(2) of the Act. Boy Scouts of America, Capitol Area Council No. 564 (BSA/CAC) has submitted an application for an incidental take permit under the Act for take of the Houston toad. An Environmental Assessment/Habitat Conservation Plan (EA/HCP) has been reviewed for mitigation acceptability. The implementing regulations for Section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Act, as provided for by 50 CFR 17.22, specify the criteria by which a permit allowing the incidental "take" of listed endangered species pursuant to otherwise lawful activities may be obtained. The purpose and need for the Section 10(a)(1)(B) permit is to ensure that incidental take resulting from the proposed construction and operation of a “High Adventure” camp on the 4,848-acre Griffith League Ranch in Bastrop County, Texas, will be minimized and mitigated to the maximum extent practicable, and that the take is not expected to appreciably reduce the likelihood of the survival and recovery of this federally listed endangered species in the wild or adversely modify or destroy its federally designated critical habitat. The two federally listed species identified within this EA/HCP include the endangered Houston toad (and its designated critical habitat) and the threatened bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus).
    [Show full text]
  • Houston Toad PHVA (1994).Pdf
    A contribution of the IUCN/SSC Conservation Breeding Specialist Group and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service in partial fulfillment of contract #94-172. The primary sponsors of this workshop were: The National Fish & Wildlife Foundation, the Lower Colorado River Authority, Horizon Environmental Services, Inc., The Texas Organization for Endangered Species, Espey, Houston & Associations, The Bastrop County Environmental Network, The City of Bastrop, Bastrop County, The National Audubon Society, The Sierra Club State Chapter, The Nature Conservancy, The Texas Forest Service, Texas Parks & Wildlife Department, National Wildlife Federation and the United States Fish & Wildlife Service. Cover Photo: Houston Toad (Bufo hustonensis) Provided by Bruce Stewart. Houston Toad Population & Habitat Viability Assessment Report. U.S. Seal (ed.). IUCN/SSC Conservation Breeding Specialist Group, Apple Valley, MN. 1994: 1-145. Additional copies of this publication can be ordered through the IUCN/SSC Conservation Breeding Specialist Group, 12101 Johnny Cake Ridge Road, Apple Valley, MN 55124. Send checks for US $35.00 (for printing and shipping costs) payable to CBSG; checks must be drawn on a US Bank. Visa and Mastercard also accepted. POPULATION AND HABITAT VIABILITY ASSESSMENT HOUSTON TOAD Bufo houstonensis U. S. Seal, Executive Editor Report of Workshop conducted by CBSG in partial fulfillment of USFWS Contract # 23-25 May 1994 Austin, Texas Houston Toad PHVA Report 2 Houston Toad PHVA Report 4 POPULATION AND HABITAT VIABILITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHOP HOUSTON TOAD Bufo houstonensis SECTION 1 PARTICIPANTS (Authors) & SPONSORS Houston Toad PHVA Report 5 Houston Toad PHVA Report 6 WORKSHOP PARTICIPANTS (Authors and Editors) Dede Armentrout Dee Ann Chamberlain National Audubon Society Lower Colorado River Authority Suite 301, 2525 Wallingwood P.O.
    [Show full text]
  • Arizona Distribution of Three Sonoran Desert Anurans: Bufo Retiformis, Gastrophryne Olivacea, and Pternohyla Fodiens
    Great Basin Naturalist Volume 56 Number 1 Article 5 1-31-1996 Arizona distribution of three Sonoran Desert anurans: Bufo retiformis, Gastrophryne olivacea, and Pternohyla fodiens Brian K. Sullivan Arizona State University West, Phoenix, Arizona Robert W. Bowker Glendale Community College, Glendale, Arizona Keith B. Malmos Arizona State University, Tempe Erik W. A. Gergus Arizona State University, Tempe Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/gbn Recommended Citation Sullivan, Brian K.; Bowker, Robert W.; Malmos, Keith B.; and Gergus, Erik W. A. (1996) "Arizona distribution of three Sonoran Desert anurans: Bufo retiformis, Gastrophryne olivacea, and Pternohyla fodiens," Great Basin Naturalist: Vol. 56 : No. 1 , Article 5. Available at: https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/gbn/vol56/iss1/5 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Western North American Naturalist Publications at BYU ScholarsArchive. It has been accepted for inclusion in Great Basin Naturalist by an authorized editor of BYU ScholarsArchive. For more information, please contact [email protected], [email protected]. Great Basin aturalist 56(1}, e 1996. pp. 38-47 ARIZONA DISTRIBUTION OF THREE SONORAN DESERT ANURANS, BUFO RETlFORMIS, GASTROPHRYNE OLIVACEA, AND PTERNOHYLA FOD/ENS Brian K. Sullivan1, Robert W Bowker2, Keith B. Malmos3, and Erik W A. Gergus3 ABSTRAGJ:-We surveyed historic collecting localities in south central Arizona during July; August, and September 1993-94 to determine the presence of 3 little-known Sonoran Desert anurans, Btifo retiformis, Gastrophryne oUvacea, and Ptemohyla fodiens. All 3 species were present at most historic localities visited under appropriate conditions (fol· lowing rainfall in July and August).
    [Show full text]
  • Chris Harper Private Lands Biologist U.S
    Chris Harper Private Lands Biologist U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Austin Texas Ecological Services Office 512-490-0057 x 245 [email protected] http://www.fws.gov/partners/ U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service The Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program in Texas Voluntary Habitat Restoration on Private Lands • The Mission of the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service: working with others to conserve, protect and enhance fish, wildlife, and plants and their habitats for the continuing benefit of the American people Federal Trust Species • The term “Federal trust species” means migratory birds, threatened species, endangered species, interjurisdictional fish, marine mammals, and other species of concern. • “Partners for Fish and Wildlife Act” (2006) • To authorize the Secretary of the Interior to provide technical and financial assistance to private landowners to restore, enhance, and manage private land to improve fish and wildlife habitats through the Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program. Habitat Restoration & Enhancement • Prescribed fire • Brush thinning • Grazing management • Tree planting • Native seed planting • Invasive species control • In-stream restoration • “Fish passage” • Wetlands Fire as a Driver of Vegetation Change • Climate X Fire Interactions • Climate X Grazing Interactions • Climate X Grazing X Fire • Historic effects • Time lags • Time functions • Climate-fuels-fire relationships • Fire regimes • Restoring fire-adapted ecosystems Woody encroachment Austin PFW • Houston Toad – Pine/oak savanna/woodlands • Southern Edwards Plateau
    [Show full text]