DOCSLIB.ORG

Species Status Assessment Report Scott Riffle Beetle (Optioservus

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Species Status Assessment Report Scott Riffle Beetle (Optioservus phaeus) Big Spring at Historic Lake Scott State Park. Photo by Kansas Department of Wildlife, Parks, and Tourism. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Mountain-Prairie Region Kansas Ecological Services Field Office Manhattan, Kansas & Region 6 Ecological Services Lakewood, Colorado Version 1.0, May 2019 Scott Riffle Beetle SSA 1 2019 Scott Riffle Beetle SSA 2 2019 Species Status Assessment Report for the Scott Riffle Beetle (Optioservus phaeus) Prepared by the Kansas Ecological Services Field Office U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Executive Summary This species status assessment details the results of the comprehensive biological status review by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) for the Scott riffle beetle (Optioservus phaeus) and provides a thorough account of the species’ viability and extinction risk. The Scott riffle beetle is a small freshwater aquatic beetle endemic to only one known type locality: a spring (Big Spring) located in Historic Lake Scott State Park (state park) in Scott County, Kansas. No other populations are known or are thought to exist. There are no known additional historical records for this species of riffle beetle (Ferrington et al. 1991, p. 4). To evaluate the biological status of the Scott riffle beetle both currently and into the future, we assessed a range of conditions to allow us to consider the species’ resiliency, redundancy, and representation (together, the 3Rs). The future persistence of the Scott riffle beetle is dependent on five fundamental environmental factors associated with Big Spring (its only known habitat). These factors include: (1) consistent groundwater discharge (2) relatively shallow, unpolluted, oxygenated water (3) coarse substrate such as medium sized rocks or broken concrete (4) abundance of aquatic macrophytes, algae, and periphyton (5) availability of adjacent terrestrial habitat If the Big Spring ecosystem meets these five conditions, we anticipate the only known Scott riffle beetle population to exist into the future (Table I). As we consider the future viability of the species, it should be noted that only a discovery of a previously undocumented population would lead to a higher overall species viability. We have assessed the Scott riffle beetle’s levels of resiliency, redundancy, and representation at present and into the future by describing the condition of the one population in its current state and by projecting its condition under multiple future plausible scenarios (Table I). The assessments are qualitative and are based on the knowledge and expertise of the Kansas Department of Wildlife, Parks, and Tourism (KDWPT) and other natural resources professionals. The most significant future potential stressor to the Scott riffle beetle is groundwater depletion and the subsequent loss of the spring ecosystem within which the larvae and adults need to complete their life history. Groundwater withdrawals from the High Plains Aquifer will continue into the future with depletion and recharge rates depending on regional water usage (Butler et al. 2018, pp. 52-53) and climate change (Crosbie et al. 2013, p. 3949). Anthropogenic activities that could act as stressors, such as surface water contamination, habitat destruction, substrate removal, or the introduction of invasive species are currently minimal at Big Spring due to protective measures implemented by the state park. Scott Riffle Beetle SSA i 2019 The viability of the Scott riffle beetle depends on maintaining the only known population at Big Spring over time. Given the possibility that groundwater discharge may change into the future and that this variable is fundamental to the survival of the species, we forecasted Scott riffle beetle resiliency, redundancy, and representation under five plausible future scenarios, weighting regional groundwater usage (a proxy for spring groundwater discharge1 and a variable whose impact could increase or decrease depending on the magnitude of climate change) higher than other potential variables: (1) decreased regional groundwater usage; tree removal to reduce local water stress; decreased groundwater contamination risk; increased site protection; increase in habitat area; establishment of captive population and suitable rearing facility (2) decreased regional groundwater usage; tree removal to reduce local water stress; no change in groundwater contamination risk; increased site protection; no change in habitat area; no captive population established; establishment of suitable rearing facility (3) no change in regional groundwater usage; tree removal to reduce local water stress; no change in groundwater contamination risk; increased site protection; no change in habitat area; no captive population established; establishment of suitable rearing facility (4) no change in regional groundwater usage; tree removal to reduce local water stress; no change in groundwater contamination risk; increased site protection; no change in habitat area; no captive population established; no suitable rearing facility (continuation scenario) (5) increased regional groundwater usage; increased groundwater contamination risk; decreased site protection; possible decrease in habitat area; no captive population established A Scott riffle beetle management plan written by KDWPT details management actions that have already reduced or are likely to reduce many of the potential risks to the Scott riffle beetle (Hofmeier (a) 2018, pp. 6-7). The plausible future scenarios draw heavily on the management actions contained in this plan. The underlying risk of groundwater discharge reduction as a result of regional groundwater usage, however, may be outside the current scope of this plan. Our assessment of the future viability (in terms of resiliency, redundancy, and representation) for the Scott riffle beetle is summarized in Table I below. Scenarios one and two are the only scenarios in which we would expect the resiliency of the species to not decline. Species redundancy is expected to be low in all but Scenario one which includes the establishment of one additional population, in this case in captivity. The current population inhabits the entire known range of the species; therefore, establishment of additional populations is limited to captivity. The presence of only one known population in one ecological niche with unknown genetic diversity means representation is projected to remain low under all five scenarios. 1 Historic discharge rates at Big Spring are expected to differ from current discharge rates due to differences in measurement methods and changes in the spring run infrastructure, including the installation of a pipe, the lining of the spring run in concrete, and the subsequent destruction of the concrete lining (Hofmeier (d) pers. comm. 2018). Regional groundwater usage is a variable related to groundwater discharge at Big Spring and is more accurately assessed in a historical context and in plausible management scenarios. KDWPT installed a water quality and quantity monitor in May of 2018. Measurements from this monitor can be used to calibrate regional water usage trends. Scott Riffle Beetle SSA ii 2019 Table I. Species Status Assessment summary for the Scott riffle beetle (Optioservus phaeus). 3Rs Needs Current Condition Future Condition (Viability) o adequate groundwater o One population assumed Projections based on scenarios: discharge to have medium to high ● Scenario 1 (optimistic) decreased regional groundwater usage; decreased groundwater o sufficient water quality, resiliency contamination risk; increased site protection; increase in habitat area; establishment of including sufficient dissolved captive population and suitable rearing facility. POPULATION EXPECTED TO oxygen EXPERIENCE INCREASE IN RESILIENCY o presence of periphyton and ● Scenario 2 (less optimistic) decreased regional groundwater usage; no change in diatoms groundwater contamination risk; increased site protection; no change in habitat area; o suitable substrate no captive population established; establishment of suitable rearing facility. o terrestrial habitat POPULATION EXPECTED TO EXPERIENCE NO DECLINE IN RESILIENCY Resiliency ● Scenario 3 (more optimistic than continuation) no change in regional groundwater (large populations able to usage; no change in groundwater contamination risk; increased site protection; no withstand stochastic events) change in habitat area; no captive population established; establishment of suitable rearing facility. POPULATION EXPECTED TO EXPERIENCE DECLINE IN RESILIENCY ● Scenario 4 (continuation) no change in regional groundwater usage; no change in groundwater contamination risk; increased site protection; no change in habitat area; no captive population established; no suitable rearing facility. POPULATION EXPECTED TO EXPERIENCE DECLINE IN RESILIENCY ● Scenario 5 (pessimistic) increased regional groundwater usage; increased groundwater contamination risk; decreased site protection; possible decrease in habitat area; no captive population established. POPULATION EXPECTED TO EXPERIENCE RAPID DECLINE IN RESILIENCY o multiple populations o Low redundancy, only one Projections based on scenarios: throughout known range of known population ● Scenario 1 (optimistic) INCREASE IN REDUNDANCY WITH ESTABLISHMENT OF species CAPTIVE POPULATION (because of presumed increased ability to withstand a Redundancy catastrophic event) (number and distribution of ● Scenario 2 (less optimistic) SLIGHT INCREASE IN REDUNDANCY WITH
Recommended publications
  • Optioservus Riffle Beetle

    Optioservus Riffle Beetle

    Table of Contents I. INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................................... 2 II. SPECIES ACCOUNT......................................................................................................................... 2 A. TAXONOMY DESCRIPTION .............................................................................................................. 2 1. Original Description ................................................................................................................... 2 2. Taxonomic Description ............................................................................................................... 4 B. HISTORICAL AND CURRENT DISTRIBUTION ................................................................................... 5 1. Description of habitats and locations of occurrence................................................................... 5 C. POPULATION SIZES AND ABUNDANCE ............................................................................................. 8 D. REPRODUCTIVE HABITS, HABITATS, REQUIREMENTS, AND STRATEGIES..................................... 11 E. FOOD AND FEEDING REQUIREMENTS ............................................................................................ 12 F. OTHER PERTINENT INFORMATION AND SUMMARY ...................................................................... 12 III. OWNERSHIP OF SPECIES HABITAT BY COUNTY........................................................... 13 IV.
  • Refinement of the Basin-Wide Index of Biotic Integrity for Non-Tidal Streams and Wadeable Rivers in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed

    Refinement of the Basin-Wide Index of Biotic Integrity for Non-Tidal Streams and Wadeable Rivers in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed

    Refinement of the Basin-Wide Index of Biotic Integrity for Non-Tidal Streams and Wadeable Rivers in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed APPENDICES Appendix A: Taxonomic Classification Appendix B: Taxonomic Attributes Appendix C: Taxonomic Standardization Appendix D: Rarefaction Appendix E: Biological Metric Descriptions Appendix F: Abiotic Parameters for Evaluating Stream Environment Appendix G: Stream Classification Appendix H: HUC12 Watershed Characteristics in Bioregions Appendix I: Index Methodologies Appendix J: Scoring Methodologies Appendix K: Index Performance, Accuracy, and Precision Appendix L: Narrative Ratings and Maps of Index Scores Appendix M: Potential Biases in the Regional Index Ratings Appendix Citations Appendix A: Taxonomic Classification All taxa reported in Chessie BIBI database were assigned the appropriate Phylum, Subphylum, Class, Subclass, Order, Suborder, Family, Subfamily, Tribe, and Genus when applicable. A portion of the taxa reported were reported under an invalid name according to the ITIS database. These taxa were subsequently changed to the taxonomic name deemed valid by ITIS. Table A-1. The taxonomic hierarchy of stream macroinvertebrate taxa included in the Chesapeake Bay non-tidal database.
  • S5 Ag Wildlife Damage

    S5 Ag Wildlife Damage

    Ag Wildlife Damage Category 1C Kansas State University Agricultural Experiment Station and Cooperative Extension Service Ag Wildlife Damage February 2013 Table of Contents Introduction ........................................................................................ 4 Wildlife Damage Management .......................................................... 6 Laws and Regulations ......................................................................... 8 Threatened and Endangered Species .............................................. 11 Nongame Species ........................................................................... 14 Wildlife Diseases and Humans ........................................................ 18 Public Relations and the Wildlife Professional ............................... 26 Coyotes .............................................................................................. 26 Deer, Elk, and Antelope .................................................................... 32 Rodenticides ..................................................................................... 35 House Mice ....................................................................................... 42 Native Rats ........................................................................................ 46 Native Mice ....................................................................................... 51 Black-Tailed Prairie Dogs ................................................................ 54 Pocket Gophers ................................................................................
  • Coleoptera: Insecta) of Saskatchewan

    Coleoptera: Insecta) of Saskatchewan

    1 CHECKLIST OF BEETLES (COLEOPTERA: INSECTA) OF SASKATCHEWAN R. R. Hooper1 and D. J. Larson2 1 – Royal Saskatchewan Museum, Regina, SK. Deceased. 2 – Box 56, Maple Creek, SK. S0N 1N0 Introduction A checklist of the beetles of Canada (Bousquet 1991) was published 20 years ago in order to provide a list of the species known from Canada and Alaska along with their correct names and a indication of their distribution by major political units (provinces, territories and state). A total of 7447 species and subspecies were recognized in this work. British Columbia and Ontario had the most diverse faunas, 3628 and 3843 taxa respectively, whereas Saskatchewan had a relatively poor fauna (1673 taxa) which was about two thirds that its neighbouring provinces (Alberta – 2464; Manitoba – 2351). This raises the question of whether the Canadian beetle fauna is distributed like a doughnut with a hole in the middle, or is there some other explanation. After assembling available literature records as well as the collection records available to us, we present a list of 2312 species (generally only single subspecies of a species are recognized in the province) suggesting that the Canadian distribution pattern of species is more like that of a Bismark, the dough may be a little thinner in the center but there is also a core of good things. This list was largely R. Hopper’s project. He collected Saskatchewan insects since at least the 1960’s and over the last decade before his death he had compiled a list of the species he had collected along with other records from the literature or given him by other collectors (Hooper 2001).
  • Coleoptera Elmidae

    Coleoptera Elmidae

    Animal Cells and Systems Vol. 16, No. 3, June 2012, 254Á259 Riffle beetle genus Leptelmis (Coleoptera Elmidae) in Korea with descriptions of two new species Sang Woo Junga,b and Yeon Jae Baea* aCollege of Life Sciences and Biotechnology, Korea University, Seoul 136-701, Korea; bEnvironmental Resources Research Department, National Institute of Environmental Research, Incheon 404-708, Korea (Received 19 June 2011; received in revised form 25 September 2011; accepted 4 October 2011) The riffle beetle genus Leptelmis is newly recorded in the Korean fauna with descriptions of two new species, L. coreana, n. sp. and L. ochra, n. sp. Dorsal habitus and line-drawings of diagnostic characters are provided. The adults of L. coreana and L. ochra are similar to those of L. gracilis Sharp or L. parallela Nomura in general appearance, but can be distinguished by the absence of apical spurs on the middle and hind tibiae, light brown body color, smaller body size, and the shape of aedeagus apex. Leptelmis coreana can be distinguished from L. ochra by the absence of hindwings, lack of prominent humeri and wider elytra in posterior portion. Adults of both species occur in lowland streams and large rivers, but L. ochra were encountered relatively infrequently. Keywords: Leptelmis coreana; Leptelmis ochra; Elmidae; Coleoptera; new species; Korea Introduction and submerged tree branches. Because of their tiny The genus Leptelmis was elected by Sharp in 1888 body size (normally 2Á3 mm in adult and larval body based on the type species Leptelmis gracilis Sharp length), the adults and larvae are rarely collected in the collected from Japan.
  • Bryelmis Barr (Coleoptera: Elmidae: Elminae), a New Genus of Riffle Beetle with Three New Species from the Pacific Northwest, U.S.A

    Bryelmis Barr (Coleoptera: Elmidae: Elminae), a New Genus of Riffle Beetle with Three New Species from the Pacific Northwest, U.S.A

    Bryelmis Barr (Coleoptera: Elmidae: Elminae), a New Genus of Riffle Beetle with Three New Species from the Pacific Northwest, U.S.A. Author(s) :Cheryl B. Barr Source: The Coleopterists Bulletin, 65(3):197-212. 2011. Published By: The Coleopterists Society DOI: 10.1649/072.065.0301 URL: http://www.bioone.org/doi/full/10.1649/072.065.0301 BioOne (www.bioone.org) is a a nonprofit, online aggregation of core research in the biological, ecological, and environmental sciences. BioOne provides a sustainable online platform for over 170 journals and books published by nonprofit societies, associations, museums, institutions, and presses. Your use of this PDF, the BioOne Web site, and all posted and associated content indicates your acceptance of BioOne’s Terms of Use, available at www.bioone.org/page/ terms_of_use. Usage of BioOne content is strictly limited to personal, educational, and non-commercial use. Commercial inquiries or rights and permissions requests should be directed to the individual publisher as copyright holder. BioOne sees sustainable scholarly publishing as an inherently collaborative enterprise connecting authors, nonprofit publishers, academic institutions, research libraries, and research funders in the common goal of maximizing access to critical research. The Coleopterists Bulletin, 65(3): 197–212. 2011. BRYELMIS BARR (COLEOPTERA:ELMIDAE:ELMINAE), A NEW GENUS OF RIFFLE BEETLE WITH THREE NEW SPECIES FROM THE PACIFIC NORTHWEST, U.S.A. CHERYL B. BARR Essig Museum of Entomology 1101 Valley Life Sciences Bldg., #4780 University of California Berkeley, CA 94720-4780, U.S.A. ABSTRACT Bryelmis Barr, a new genus of elmid, and three new species, Bryelmis idahoensis Barr, Bryelmis rivularis Barr, and Bryelmis siskiyou Barr, are described from streams and springs in Washington, Oregon, California, and Idaho.
  • DNA Metabarcoding Reveals Provisioning of Pollution-Sensitive Aquatic Insects, Resource Partitioning, and Dietary Shifts Among B

    DNA Metabarcoding Reveals Provisioning of Pollution-Sensitive Aquatic Insects, Resource Partitioning, and Dietary Shifts Among B

    Duquesne University Duquesne Scholarship Collection Electronic Theses and Dissertations Fall 1-1-2017 DNA metabarcoding reveals provisioning of pollution-sensitive aquatic insects, resource partitioning, and dietary shifts among breeding Neotropical migratory songbirds in a riparian habitat Brian K. Trevelline Follow this and additional works at: https://dsc.duq.edu/etd Part of the Biology Commons, Molecular Genetics Commons, and the Terrestrial and Aquatic Ecology Commons Recommended Citation Trevelline, B. K. (2017). DNA metabarcoding reveals provisioning of pollution-sensitive aquatic insects, resource partitioning, and dietary shifts mona g breeding Neotropical migratory songbirds in a riparian habitat (Doctoral dissertation, Duquesne University). Retrieved from https://dsc.duq.edu/etd/196 This One-year Embargo is brought to you for free and open access by Duquesne Scholarship Collection. It has been accepted for inclusion in Electronic Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of Duquesne Scholarship Collection. For more information, please contact [email protected]. DNA METABARCODING REVEALS PROVISIONING OF POLLUTION-SENSITIVE AQUATIC INSECTS, RESOURCE PARTITIONING, AND DIETARY SHIFTS AMONG BREEDING NEOTROPICAL MIGRATORY SONGBIRDS IN A RIPARIAN HABITAT A Dissertation Submitted to the Bayer School of Natural and Environmental Sciences Duquesne University In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy By Brian K. Trevelline December 2017 Copyright by Brian K. Trevelline 2017 DNA METABARCODING REVEALS PROVISIONING OF POLLUTION-SENSITIVE AQUATIC INSECTS, RESOURCE PARTITIONING, AND DIETARY SHIFTS AMONG BREEDING NEOTROPICAL MIGRATORY SONGBIRDS IN A RIPARIAN HABITAT By Brian K. Trevelline Approved September 7th, 2017 ________________________________ ________________________________ Dr. Brady A. Porter Dr. Jan E. Janecka Associate Professor of Biological Assistant Professor of Biological Sciences Sciences (Committee Member) (Committee Chair) ________________________________ ________________________________ Dr.
  • Riffle Beetle Life History Study

    Riffle Beetle Life History Study

    Riffle Beetle Life History Study LITERATURE REVIEW and YEAR ONE METHODOLOGY PREPARED FOR: Edwards Aquifer Authority HCP Science Committee PREPARED BY: BIO-WEST PROJECT TEAM February 26, 2016 1 Riffle Beetle Life History Study BACKGROUND Riffle beetles (Family Elmidae) are small aquatic beetles that occupy larger substrates in swift habitats of high quality, low temperature, streams and rivers. They respire through a plastron (Brown 1987, White and Roughley 2008, Elliott 2008a) and are typically sensitive to pollutants and environmental change. The Comal Springs riffle beetle (Heterelmis comalensis) was Federally listed as endangered in 1997 due to threats caused by potential decreases in spring discharge attributed to drought or excessive groundwater extraction. It is also vulnerable to groundwater contamination from urban runoff, agricultural waste and toxicants, and leaking storage facilities and pipelines. Heterelmis comalensis are flightless, non-vagile, and associated with gravel substrates near spring sources. Adults are approximately 2 mm long, females are slightly larger than males, and it is thought that they feed on decaying organic matter and awfuchs. Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) applied research conducted over the first three years of the program has demonstrated that aquatic vegetation as fountain darter habitat, and fountain darters themselves are quite tolerant to environmental changes tested thus far. This finding suggests that H. comalensis may in fact be a more appropriate sentinel species for the Comal system. This is extremely important in that the adopted HCP flow regime exhibits periods of extended drying of the spring runs, and areas along the western shoreline and Spring Island (these areas are the presumed strong hold for the riffle beetle in the Comal system).
  • An Improved Biotic Index of Organic Stream Pollution

    An Improved Biotic Index of Organic Stream Pollution

    The Great Lakes Entomologist Volume 20 Number 1 - Spring 1987 Number 1 - Spring 1987 Article 7 April 1987 An Improved Biotic Index of Organic Stream Pollution William L. Hilsenhoff University of Wisconsin Follow this and additional works at: https://scholar.valpo.edu/tgle Part of the Entomology Commons Recommended Citation Hilsenhoff, William L. 1987. "An Improved Biotic Index of Organic Stream Pollution," The Great Lakes Entomologist, vol 20 (1) Available at: https://scholar.valpo.edu/tgle/vol20/iss1/7 This Peer-Review Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Department of Biology at ValpoScholar. It has been accepted for inclusion in The Great Lakes Entomologist by an authorized administrator of ValpoScholar. For more information, please contact a ValpoScholar staff member at [email protected]. Hilsenhoff: An Improved Biotic Index of Organic Stream Pollution 1987 THE GREAT LAKES ENTOMOLOGIST 31 AN IMPROVED BIOTIC INDEX OF ORGANIC STREAM POLLUTIONl William L. Hilsenhoff2 ABSTRACT Major improvements were made in using a biotic index of the arthropod fauna to evaluate organic stream pollution. All tolerance values were reevaluated, many were changed, and the scale for tolerance values was expanded to 0-10 to provide greatcr precision. Keys to larvae of Ceratopsyche have been developed and tolerance values for species in this important genus are provided. Sorting of samples in the laboratory instead of in the field is recommended, and directions for processing and evaluating samples are included. A "saprobic index" (Pantel and Buck 1955) and a "biotic indcx" (Chutter 1972) werc proposed for evaluating the water quality of streams through a study of their fauna.
  • Department of the Interior

    Department of the Interior

    Friday J uary 6, 1989 MEN Part IV Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service 50 CFR Part 17 Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Animal Notice of Review • 554 Federal Register / Vol. 54, No. 4 / Friday, January 6, 1989 / Proposed Rules DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Regional Director (FWE/SE), U.S. Fish least at times, to merit conSideration for and Wildlife Service, P.O. Box 1306, addition to the List of Endangered and Fish and Wildlife Service Albuquerque, New Mexico 87103 (505/ Threatened Wildlife. The accompanying 766-2321 or FTS 474-2321). table identifies many of these taxa 50 CFR Part 17 Region 3. Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, (including, by definition, biological Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Ohio, subspecies and certain populations of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Wisconsin. vertebrate animals) and assigns each to and Plants; Animal Notice of Review Regional Director (AE/SE), U.S. Fish one of the three categories described AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, and Wildlife Service, Federal Building, below. Unless it is the subject of a Interior. Fort Snelling, Twin Cities, Minnesota current published proposed or final rule 55111 (612/725-3276 or FTS 725-3276). determining endangered or threatened Notice of review. ACTION: Region 4. Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, status, none of these taxa receives Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, SUMMARY: The Service issues a revised substantive or procedural protection notice identifying vertebrate and Mississippi, North Carolina, South pursuant to the Act (those species that invertebrate animal taxa, native to the Carolina, Tennessee, Puerto Rico, and are the subject of a proposed or final the Virgin Islands.
  • Wildlife Damage Control Training Manual

    Wildlife Damage Control Training Manual

    WILDLIFE DAMAGE CONTROL TRAINING MATERIALS LAWS CONCERNING NUISANCE ANIMAL CONTROL Wildlife management is governed by a complex group of federal, state, and local laws. Anyone engaged in the control of nuisance wildlife must become familiar with the basic provisions of the laws. Failure to comply with such laws or regulations can result in fines or the suspension of your wildlife control permit. Most all species of birds, reptiles, and amphibians in Kansas are protected by Federal or state law. The federal statutes include the Migratory Bird Treat Act and the Endangered Species Act. In addition to complying with federal laws, persons with a wildlife control permit must follow applicable state statutes and local ordinances. The state regulations concerning your wildlife control permit are attached. However you should be familiar with the other regulations governing the management of fish and wildlife. MIGRATORY BIRD TREATY ACT The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) applies to all migratory birds. The legal citation for this international treaty can be found in the Code of Federal Regulations, title 50, Part 21, Subpart D, Sections 21.41 through 21.46. They are available for download at http://permits.fws.gov/mbpermits/birdbasics.html. A permit is required before anyone can take, possess or transport migratory birds. A permit is not required to scare or herd migratory birds except for endangered species. The term migratory birds applies to all species of birds that are permanent or seasonal residents of the United States, as well as individual vagrants whose range does not commonly extend into this country. Currently there are more than 800 species of birds covered by the MBTA.
  • Checklist of Kansas Insects

    Checklist of Kansas Insects

    CHECKLIST OF KANSAS INSECTS REFERENCE: Insects in Kansas, 3rd edition, 2000 By Stephan White and Glenn Salsbury, Kansas Department of Agriculture Order of Springtails (Collembola) Three-banded Grasshopper – Hadrotettix Family Poduridae trifasciatus Water Springtail – Podura aquatica Toothpick Grasshopper – Leptysma Family Sminthuridae marginicollis Alfalfa Springtail – Sminthurus medialis Differential Grasshopper – Melanoplus differentialis Order of Bristletails and Silverfish Pictured Grasshopper – Dactylotum bicolor (Thysanura) pictum Family Machilidae Family Tridactylidae Machilid – Machilis variabilis Large Sand Cricket – Neotridactylus apicalis Family Lepismatidae Family Tettigoniidae Silverfish – Lepisma saccharina Broad-winged Katydid – Microcentrum rhombifolium Order of Mayflies (Ephemeroptera) Swordbearing Katydid – Neoconocephalus spp. Family Ephemeridae Gladiator Katydid – Orchelimum spp. Giant Mayfly – Hexagenia limbata Family Gryllacrididae Cave Cricket – Ceuthophilis spp. Order of Dragonflies and Damselflies Camel Cricket – Udeopsylla robusta (Odonata) Family Gryllidae Family Aeschnidae Field Cricket – Gryllus spp. Common Green Darner – Anax junius House Cricket – Acheta domesticus Family Libellulidae Snowy Tree Cricket – Oecanthus fultoni Green Clearwing – Erythemis simplicicollis Family Gryllotalpidae Widow – Libellula luctuosa Mole Crickets Ten Spot – Libellula pulchella Amberwing – Perithemis tenera Order of Earwigs (Dermaptera) Whitetail – Plathemis lydia Family Carcinophoridae Family Calopterygidae Earwigs Blackwinged