DOCSLIB.ORG

Biological Evaluation REACH 3MC II Fiber Optic Project Merit Network, Inc

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Biological Evaluation REACH 3MC II Fiber Optic Project Merit Network, Inc Biological Evaluation REACH 3MC II Fiber Optic Project Merit Network, Inc. United States Department of Agriculture Hiawatha National Forest April 2012 Forest Service Eastern Region Hiawatha National Forest 2 Biological Evaluation REACH 3MC II Fiber Optic Project Merit Network, Inc. Hiawatha National Forest April 2012 /s/ Andrea Kline Prepared By: ____________________________ Andrea Kline Merit Network , Inc. Date: ___5/3/12___ /s/ Derek Huebner /s/ Stephanie Blumer Reviewed By: ____________________________ Reviewed By: _______________________________ Derek Huebner Stephanie Blumer Wildlife Biologist Botanist Date: _____5/7/12___ Date: __5/7/12_______ The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or part of an individual's income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, DC 20250-9410, or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). The USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. This document was printed on recycled paper. 3 4 Table of Contents INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................ 7 Purpose and Decision ................................................................................................................................ 7 Background and Project Description ........................................................................................................ 8 Proposed Action .................................................................................................................................... 8 No Action Alternative ............................................................................................................................ 9 Species Considered and Evaluated ......................................................................................................... 13 Design Criteria ..................................................................................................................................... 17 FINDINGS BY SPECIES ................................................................................................................................. 21 Plants ....................................................................................................................................................... 21 RFSS Plants – Aquatic Habitats............................................................................................................ 21 RFSS Plants – Open / Wet Habitats ..................................................................................................... 21 RFSS Plants – Open / Dry and Beach Habitats .................................................................................... 22 RFSS Plants – Shaded Habitats ............................................................................................................ 23 Animals .................................................................................................................................................... 24 RFSS Birds ............................................................................................................................................ 24 RFSS Reptile......................................................................................................................................... 24 RFSS Mollusks ...................................................................................................................................... 25 RFSS Insects ......................................................................................................................................... 26 RFSS Mammals .................................................................................................................................... 26 SUMMARY OF DETERMINATIONS ............................................................................................................. 27 LITERATURE CITED ...................................................................................................................................... 30 5 6 INTRODUCTION Purpose and Decision The purpose of this biological evaluation (BE) is to document the likely effects of the activities proposed in the REACH 3MC II Project to Regional Forester sensitive species (RFSS) on the Hiawatha National Forest (HNF). Information on federally listed species on the HNF is summarized below (Table 1), but further analysis can be found in the Biological Assessment (BA) (5/26/11) and subsequent US Fish and Wildlife concurrence (6/23/2011 and 2/10/2012). The BA and BE are supplements to the Environmental Assessment (EA), and provides the Deciding Official with the information necessary to make an informed decision regarding the potential risks and benefits posed by the project to threatened, endangered, and sensitive (TES) plant and animal species and their habitats. Table 1: Summary of Federally Listed Species Federal HNF Project Habitat Proposed Species No Action Status Status Action WILDLIFE Canada lynx Threatened Unoccupied habitat NE NLAA Gray wolf** Endangered Occupied habitat NE NLAA Hine’s emerald dragonfly Endangered Occupied habitat NE NLAA Kirtland’s warbler Endangered Occupied habitat NE NE Piping plover Endangered No Habitat NE NE CRITICAL HABITAT Hine’s emerald dragonfly - Present NE NLAA Piping Plover - Not Present NE NE PLANTS Pitcher’s thistle Threatened No habitat NE NE Lakeside daisy Threatened No habitat NE NE Dwarf lake iris Threatened Unoccupied habitat NE NLAA Hart’s tongue fern Threatened No habitat NE NE Houghton’s goldenrod Threatened Unoccupied habitat* NE NLAA NE: No Effect NLAA: Not Likely to Adversely Affect *Houghton’s goldenrod occurs within one-quarter mile of the ROW. Although there is suitable habitat for Houghton’s goldenrod in the ROW, it does not occur directly within the ROW. ** Gray Wolf was delisted after the Programmatic BA and is now a Hiawatha RFSS This project is consistent with the standards and guidelines of the HNF Forest Plan, the Programmatic BA of August 2005, and the associated Programmatic BO of March 2006. We determined that this project- level analysis and project effects are consistent with those anticipated in the Programmatic BA and BO. Additionally, we determined that the implementation of the project is not likely to result in any additional effects to federally listed species that were disclosed and evaluated in the Merit Programmatic BA and subsequent USFWS concurrence. Because the risk of effects is so small as to be discountable, implementing the Proposed Action would not add to any effects of past, present, or reasonably foreseeable future activities. 7 This BE was prepared in compliance with the requirements of Forest Service Manual (FSM) Directives sections 2670.31, 2670.5, and 2672.4, the National Forest Management Act, and the National Environmental Policy Act. A determination is made as to whether the action would likely have no impact, beneficial impact, may impact individuals but not likely cause a trend to federal listing or loss of viability, or likely to result in a trend to federal listing or loss of viability. Background and Project Description Proposed Action In August 2010, Merit Network, Inc. (Merit) received a $69.6 million federal grant from the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) through its American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA, aka the federal stimulus package) funded Broadband Technology Opportunities Program (BTOP). Merit is a non-profit organization that has developed a statewide backbone fiber optic network that makes high-speed data networking available to all of Michigan's universities, and many of its colleges and community colleges, schools, libraries and research organizations. The purpose of the grant is to build the Rural, Education, Anchor, Community and Healthcare – Michigan Middle Mile Collaborative Project (REACH-3MC II) (the Project), a 1,263 mile long advanced fiber-optic network through underserved counties in Michigan’s Upper and Lower Peninsulas with diverse paths to Wisconsin and Minnesota. As a condition of this federal grant, Merit prepared an Environmental Assessment (EA) in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The NTIA issued a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) in July, 2011. Approximately 23.4 miles of the Project would cross lands within the HNF specifically in the following Ranger Districts: Rapid River (Delta County), Manistique (Schoolcraft County), Sault Ste. Marie (Chippewa County), and St. Ignace (Mackinac County). The entire project within the HNF would be installed using underground methods within the road rights-of-way (ROW’s) of I-75, M-123, H-40 and US-2 as shown in Figure 1a and b. No new access roads, woody vegetation clearing or above-ground structures are proposed. All of the plant and animal
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Natural Communities of Michigan: Classification and Description
    Natural Communities of Michigan: Classification and Description Prepared by: Michael A. Kost, Dennis A. Albert, Joshua G. Cohen, Bradford S. Slaughter, Rebecca K. Schillo, Christopher R. Weber, and Kim A. Chapman Michigan Natural Features Inventory P.O. Box 13036 Lansing, MI 48901-3036 For: Michigan Department of Natural Resources Wildlife Division and Forest, Mineral and Fire Management Division September 30, 2007 Report Number 2007-21 Version 1.2 Last Updated: July 9, 2010 Suggested Citation: Kost, M.A., D.A. Albert, J.G. Cohen, B.S. Slaughter, R.K. Schillo, C.R. Weber, and K.A. Chapman. 2007. Natural Communities of Michigan: Classification and Description. Michigan Natural Features Inventory, Report Number 2007-21, Lansing, MI. 314 pp. Copyright 2007 Michigan State University Board of Trustees. Michigan State University Extension programs and materials are open to all without regard to race, color, national origin, gender, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, marital status or family status. Cover photos: Top left, Dry Sand Prairie at Indian Lake, Newaygo County (M. Kost); top right, Limestone Bedrock Lakeshore, Summer Island, Delta County (J. Cohen); lower left, Muskeg, Luce County (J. Cohen); and lower right, Mesic Northern Forest as a matrix natural community, Porcupine Mountains Wilderness State Park, Ontonagon County (M. Kost). Acknowledgements We thank the Michigan Department of Natural Resources Wildlife Division and Forest, Mineral, and Fire Management Division for funding this effort to classify and describe the natural communities of Michigan. This work relied heavily on data collected by many present and former Michigan Natural Features Inventory (MNFI) field scientists and collaborators, including members of the Michigan Natural Areas Council.
    [Show full text]
  • Euconulus Alderi Gray a Land Snail
    Euconulus alderi, Page 1 Euconulus alderi Gray A land snail State Distribution Photo by Matthew Barthel and Jeffery C. Nekola Best Survey Period Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Status: State listed as Special Concern are smaller, have a more shiny luster, and a darker shell color. Also, the microscopic spiral lines on the base of Global and state ranks: G3Q/S2 the shell are stronger than the radial striations. This is reversed in E. fulvus (Nekola 1998). For more Family: Helicarionidae information on identifying land snails, see Burch and Jung (1988) pages 155-158 or Burch and Pearce (1990) Synonyms: none pages 211-218. Total range: The global range of Euconulus alderi Best survey time: Surveys for E. alderi are best includes Ireland, Sweden, the United Kingdom, and the performed after rain, when the soil and vegetation are United States. Within the U.S. it has been found in moist. During dry periods, a survey site can appear Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, and completely devoid of snails, while after a rain the same Wisconsin (Frest 1990, NatureServe 2007, Nekola site can be found to contain numerous individuals. 1998). This species was not known from North Temperatures should be warm enough that the ground is America until 1986 when it was discovered in Iowa and not frozen and there is no snow. Dry, hot periods during Wisconsin (Frest 1990, Nekola 1998). mid-summer should be avoided. The best time of day to survey is often in early morning when conditions are State distribution: E.
    [Show full text]
  • Shells of Maine: a Catalogue of the Land, Fresh-Water and Marine Mollusca of Maine
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by University of Maine The University of Maine DigitalCommons@UMaine Maine History Documents Special Collections 1908 Shells of Maine: a Catalogue of the Land, Fresh-water and Marine Mollusca of Maine Norman Wallace Lermond Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.library.umaine.edu/mainehistory Part of the History Commons This Monograph is brought to you for free and open access by DigitalCommons@UMaine. It has been accepted for inclusion in Maine History Documents by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@UMaine. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Pamp 353 c. 2 Vickery SHELLS OF MAINE Norman Wallace Lermond Thomaston SHELLS OF MAINE. A Catalogue of the Land, Fresh-water and Marine Mollusca of Maine, by Norman Wallace Lermond. INTRODUCTORY. No general list of Maine shells—including land, fresh-water and marine species—-has been published since 1843, when Dr. J. W. Mighels’ list was printed in the Boston Journal of Natural History. Dr. Mighels may be called the “Pioneer” conchologist of Maine. By profession a physician, in his leisure hours he was a most enthusiastic collector and student of all forms of molluscan life. Enthusiasm such as his was “contagious” and he soon had gathered about him a little band of active students and collectors. Of these Capt. Walden of the U. S. Revenue Cutter “Morris” was dredging in deep water and exploring the eastern shores and among the islands, and “by his zeal procured many rare species;” Dr.
    [Show full text]
  • Journal of the Portland Society of Natural History
    1 : .1 J <) U K N A L POET LAND SOCIETY NATURAL HISTORY Vol. 1. - - No. 1. PORTLAND STEPHEN I5EKRY, PRINTER. IStU. i^ \1 \ -_^ J52 JOURNAL PORTLAND SOCIETY OF NATURAL HISTORY, Art, I.— Ohservations on the Terrestrial Pulmonifera of Maine^ includmr/ a Catalogue of all the species of terrestrial and flu- viatile Mollusca known to inhabit the State. By Edward S. Morse. Twenty-one years ago, Dr. J. W. Mighels, then of Portland, presented to the Boston Society of Natural History a catalogue of the shells of Maine, which was accepted and published by them in the fourth volume of their Journal. Since that time the number of species of terrestrial and fluviatile Mollusca detected in the State has been nearly doubled. To make these additions known, I commenced the preparation of a simple catalogue. Such cata- logues, however brief, are of value in the study of geographical distribution, which is rapidly becoming an element of v^st import- ance in the study of Zoology. At the same time their value is greatly enhanced by observations concerning the relative scarcity or abundance, habits, etc., of each s^iecies. While making these brief notes, I was led to examine the subject still more closely. This paper, the result of that investigation, is offered as a first contribution to a more intimate knowledge of our native species. In the preparation of these pages I have received great assistance from W. G. Binney, Esq., of Burlington, New Jersey, to whom I feel under grateful obligations for aid, without which it Avould have been impossible to present certain species in the light recently thrown upon them by the labors of certain European writers.
    [Show full text]
  • Species of Greatest Conservation Need
    Appendix 1 - Species of Greatest Conservation Need Michigan’s Wildlife Action Plan 2015-2025 Cover Photos Credits Habitat – MNFI, Yu Man Lee Cerulean Warbler – Roger Eriksson MICHIGAN’S WILDLIFE ACTION PLAN 2015-2025 Species of Greatest Conservation Need List & Rationales SGCN List Mussels Snails A fingernail clam ( Pisidium simplex ) A land snail (no common name) ( Catinella gelida ) Black sandshell ( Ligumia recta ) A land snail (no common name) ( Catinella protracta ) Clubshell ( Pleurobema clava ) A land snail (no common name) ( Euconulus alderi ) Creek Heelsplitter ( Lasmigona compressa ) A land snail (no common name) ( Glyphyalinia solida ) Deertoe ( Truncilla truncata ) A land snail (no common name) ( Vallonia gracilicosta Eastern Elliptio ( Elliptio complanata ) albula ) Eastern pondmussel ( Ligumia nasuta ) A land snail (no common name) ( Vertigo modesta Elktoe ( Alasmidonta marginata ) modesta ) A land snail (no common name) ( Vertigo modesta Ellipse ( Venustaconcha ellipsiformis ) parietalis ) European pea clam ( Sphaerium corneum ) Acorn ramshorn ( Planorbella multivolvis ) Fawnsfoot ( Truncilla donaciformis ) An aquatic snail (no common name) ( Planorbella smithi ) Flutedshell ( Lasmigona costata ) Banded globe ( Anguispira kochi ) Giant northern pea clam ( Pisidium idahoense ) Boreal fossaria ( Fossaria galbana ) Greater European pea clam ( Pisidium amnicum ) Broadshoulder physa ( Physella parkeri ) Hickorynut ( Obovaria olivaria ) Brown walker ( Pomatiopsis cincinnatiensis ) Kidney shell ( Ptychobranchus fasciolaris ) Bugle
    [Show full text]
  • Jass, J.P. 2004. Distribution of Gastropods in Wisconsin
    ) Errata for MPM Contributions ...N.99 • The hydrobiid Cincinnatia integra occurs in Wisconsin but records for it were omitted in error. • Specimens upon which the Patera pennsylvanica records were based are not from Wisconsin. • Theler, LL. 1997. The modern terrestrial gastropod (land snail) fauna of western Wisconsin's hill prairies. The Nautilus 110(4):111-121.--this paper and its records were in error omitted from this compilation. N. 99 March 17, 2004 [ n Biology and Geology ~ ~ Distributions of Gastropods u in Wisconsin ~ •.......• By Joan P Jass Invertebrate Zoology Section .......J Milwaukee Public Museum 800 West Wells Street ~ ::J Milwaukee, WI 53233 ::J ~ p..... ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ::J -< Z ~ .......J 0 •.......• Milwaukee Public ~ U MUSEUM Milwaukee Public Museum Contributions in Biology and Geology Paul Mayer, Editor Reviewer for this Publication: R. T. Dillion, College of Charleston Funded by the Cooperative Agricultural Pest Survey program of the Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection. This publication is priced at $6.00 and may be obtained by writing to the Museum Shop, Milwaukee Public Museum, 800 West Wells Street, Milwaukee, WI 53233. Orders must include $3.00 for shipping and handling ($4.00 for foreign destinations) and must be accompanied by money order or check drawn on U.S. bank. Money orders or checks should be made payable to the Milwaukee Public Museum, Inc. Wisconsin residents please add 5% sales tax. ISBN 0-89326-212-9 ©2004 Milwaukee Public Museum, Inc. Abstract Wisconsin county records for freshwater and terrestrial gastropod mollusks are compiled, from the literature and from specimens in the Milwaukee Public Museum collection.
    [Show full text]
  • Michigan Islands National Wildlife Refuge (Lake Huron Islands Managed by Shiawassee NWR)
    U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Michigan Islands National Wildlife Refuge (Lake Huron islands managed by Shiawassee NWR) Habitat Management Plan October 2018 Little Charity Island 2013. (Photo credit: USFWS) Michigan Islands NWR: Shiawassee NWR Habitat Management Plan Habitat Management Plans provide long-term guidance for management decisions; set forth goals, objectives, and strategies needed to accomplish refuge purposes; and, identify the Fish and Wildlife Service’s best estimate of future needs. These plans detail program planning levels that are sometimes substantially above current budget allocations and as such, are primarily for Service strategic planning and program prioritization purposes. The plans do not constitute a commitment for staffing increases, operational and maintenance increases, or funding for future land acquisition. The National Wildlife Refuge System, managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, is the world's premier system of public lands and waters set aside to conserve America's fish, wildlife, and plants. Since the designation of the first wildlife refuge in 1903, the System has grown to encompass more than 150 million acres, 556 national wildlife refuges and other units of the Refuge System, plus 38 wetland management districts. Michigan Islands NWR: Shiawassee NWR Habitat Management Plan Table of Contents Signature Page .................................................................................................................................ii Chapter 1: Introduction .................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Introduction
    1 2 INTRODUCTION The terrestrial gastropod fauna of the Midwest includes a number of the rarest animal taxa in North America. This fact was recognized as early as the late 1800's when the Pleistocene Hendersonia occulta was discovered alive along the Upper Mississippi River valley (Pilsbry 1948). Since then, a number of Midwestern endemics or near endemics have been identified including Catinella exile, Catinella gelida, Discus macclintockii, Hawaiia n.sp., Stenotrema hubrichti, Vertigo hubrichti, Vertigo 'iowaensis , Vertigo mermacensis, and Vertigo morsei (Hubricht 1985, Frest 1990, Frest 1991). Previous investigations into terrestrial gastropod biodiversity in the upper Midwest have been largely limited to the Paleozoic Plateau ('Driftless Area') and the Iowan Erosional Surface in northeastern Iowa, and the Black Hills of South Dakota (Frest 1981, 1982, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1986a, 19866, 1987, 1990, 1991, Frest and Johannes 1991). As these areas were beyond the limit of Wisconsin glaciation, they were presumed to be the only potential refuges for glacial relict taxa However, investigations made from 1995-1998 from eastern Wisconsin to southern Ontario documented that these relicts were not as geographically restricted as previously believed. Four habitats were found to harbor the bulk of important land snail species in this area (Nekola et al. 1996; Nekola 19986). Carbonate cliffs support populations of at least seventeen rare Michigan and Wisconsin taxa, nine of which are likely glacial relicts. The fauna of these sites, while bearing marked similarity to algific talus slope and maderate cliff sites of the Paleozoic Plateau, are unique and support a higher frequency of northeastern species at (or beyond) their normal range limits (Nekola et al.
    [Show full text]
  • Biodiversity Refuges (Refugia)
    ••••• Biodiversity refuges (refugia) The Oxford English Dictionary defines the term refuge as a Environmental refugia “ ” shelter or protection from danger or trouble. In a biological The maintenance of unique climatic conditions underlies the context, a refuge represents a habitat, region, or landscape in existence of many refugia. For instance, variance in solar heat which populations are able to persist within an otherwise transfer stemming from slope angle, orientation, and shading unfavorable landscape. Except for those species that experience from local vegetation and additional impacts of cold-air drainage an instantaneous, catastrophic, range-wide reduction in popula- leads to almost 10F(4C) differences in daily maxima tion size, most will find final shelter for at least a limited time in temperatures and more than 5F(2C) differences in daily some form of refuge before becoming extinct. Others may persist minima temperatures between neighboring microsites in the for considerable periods at low numbers in these sites or may Great Smoky Mountains National Park of the southeastern expand both population and range size from the refuge to the United States (Fridley 2009), a region supporting many unique extent that extinction is no longer likely. It is also common for a species. This variation is of roughly the same scale (about 12For suite of rare species to use the same refuge, giving these sites 5C) as the regional temperature variation between full-glacial to particular importance from a conservation perspective. As a modern times in eastern North America. This impact accounts — result, understanding the types, scales, and history of refuges or for the persistence of plant and animal assemblages with lower- — what biologists term refugia is critical to understanding the temperature and higher-humidity demands on north-facing dynamics of extinctions and extinction near misses.
    [Show full text]
  • Distribution and Ecology of Terrestrial Gastropods in Northwestern Minnesota
    Distribution and Ecology of Terrestrial Gastropods in Northwestern Minnesota Final Report: 2001-2002 Natural Heritage and Nongame Jeffrey C. Nekola Research Program Department of Natural and Applied Sciences Division of Fish and Wildlife University of Wisconsin – Green Bay Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Green Bay, Wisconsin 54322 St. Paul, Minnesota July 10, 2002 1 2 INTRODUCTION Minnesota has one of the most poorly known land snail faunas in the eastern U.S. (Hubricht 1985). Prior to 1999, 60 terrestrial gastropod taxa had been reported from the state (Dawley 1955, Hubricht 1985, Ostlie 1991). Of these, only 23 had been recorded from northwestern Minnesota (Hubricht 1985). - Fully 22% of Minnesota's land snail species are rare throughout the eastern U.S. A number of these are restricted to algific slope and carbonate cliff habitats in the southeast (e.g., Hendersonia occulta, Vertigo hubrichti, Vertigo 'iowaensis', Vertigo mermacensis; Frest 1991). Mafic igneous outcrops and conifer wetlands in northeastern Minnesota also support a number of rarities (Planogyra asteriscus, Vertigo cristata, Vertigo modesta modesta, Vertigo modesta parietalis, Vertigo paradoxa, Zoogenetes harpa; Nekola et al 1999). During the summer of 1999, a preliminary survey for land snails was conducted in northwestern Minnesota by myself and Dr. Brian Coles. We encountered 41 taxa at 12 sites scattered across Beltrami, Clearwater, Itasca, Kittson, Polk, and Roseau Counties. 20 of these were previously unreported from the region and 5 were new to the state. Some of the taxa encountered are very rare, including Vertigo arthuri (previously known from ca. 2 dozen sites in the Black Hills), V. cristata (not known to occur in the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Invertebrates
    Pennsylvania’s Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy Invertebrates Version 1.1 Prepared by John E. Rawlins Carnegie Museum of Natural History Section of Invertebrate Zoology January 12, 2007 Cover photographs (top to bottom): Speyeria cybele, great spangled fritillary (Lepidoptera: Nymphalidae) (Rank: S5G5) Alaus oculatus., eyed elater (Coleoptera: Elateridae)(Rank: S5G5) Calosoma scrutator, fiery caterpillar hunter (Coleoptera: Carabidae) (Rank: S5G5) Brachionycha borealis, boreal sprawler moth (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae), last instar larva (Rank: SHG4) Metarranthis sp. near duaria, early metarranthis moth (Lepidoptera: Geometridae) (Rank: S3G4) Psaphida thaxteriana (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) (Rank: S4G4) Pennsylvania’s Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy Invertebrates Version 1.1 Prepared by John E. Rawlins Carnegie Museum of Natural History Section of Invertebrate Zoology January 12, 2007 This report was filed with the Pennsylvania Game Commission on October 31, 2006 as a product of a State Wildlife Grant (SWG) entitled: Rawlins, J.E. 2004-2006. Pennsylvania Invertebrates of Special Concern: Viability, Status, and Recommendations for a Statewide Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Plan in Pennsylvania. In collaboration with the Western Pennsylvania Conservancy (C.W. Bier) and The Nature Conservancy (A. Davis). A Proposal to the State Wildlife Grants Program, Pennsylvania Game Commission, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. Text portions of this report are an adaptation of an appendix to a statewide conservation strategy prepared as part of federal requirements for the Pennsylvania State Wildlife Grants Program, specifically: Rawlins, J.E. 2005. Pennsylvania Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy (CWCS)-Priority Invertebrates. Appendix 5 (iii + 227 pp) in Williams, L., et al. (eds.). Pennsylvania Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy. Pennsylvania Game Commission and Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission. Version 1.0 (October 1, 2005).
    [Show full text]
  • Xerox University Microfilms
    INFORMATION TO USERS This material was produced from a microfilm copy of the original document. While the most advanced technological means to photograph and reproduce this document have been used, the quality is heavily dependent upon the quality of die original submitted. The following explanation of techniques is provided to help you understand markings or patterns which may appear on this reproduction. 1.The sign or "target" for pages apparently lacking from the documant photographed is "Missing Page(s)". If it was possible to obtain the missing page(s} or section, they are spliced into the film along with adjacent pages. This may have necessitated cutting thru an image and duplicating adjacent pages to insure you complete continuity. 2. When an image on the film is obliterated with a large round black mark, it is an indication that the photographer suspected that the copy may have moved during exposure and thus cause a blurred image. You will find a good image of the page in the adjacent frame. 3. When a map, drawing or chart, etc., was part of the material being photographed the photographer followed a definite method in "sectioning" the material. It is customary to begin photoing at the upper left hand corner of a large sheet and to continue photoing from left to right in equal sections with a small overlap. If necessary, sectioning is continued again — beginning below the first row and continuing on until complete. 4. The majority of users indicate that the textual content is of greatest value, however, a somewhat higher quality reproduction could be made from "photographs" if essential to the understanding of the dissertation.
    [Show full text]