DOCSLIB.ORG

Appendix G Final SCR Panther Grove 05152020

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Appendix G Final SCR Panther Grove 05152020 LWEG Tiers 1 and 2 Site Characterization Report Panther Grove Wind Energy Project Woodford County, Illinois May 15, 2020 Prepared for: Panther Grove Wind, LLC 17300 N. Dallas Parkway, Ste. 2020 Dallas Texas 75248 Prepared by: Stantec Consulting Services Inc. 2300 Swan Lake Blvd., Suite 202 Independence, IA 50644 Phone: (319) 334-3755 Fax: (319) 334-3780 Project #193706902 Table of Contents 1.0 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................ 1 1.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ............................................................................................. 1 1.2 REGULATORY BACKGROUND .................................................................................... 1 1.3 PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVES ...................................................................................... 2 2.0 METHODS ..................................................................................................................... 4 2.1 PRELIMINARY SITE EVALUATION (TIER 1) ................................................................. 4 2.1.1 Land Cover and Use ...................................................................................... 4 2.1.2 Wetlands and Waterways ............................................................................... 4 2.1.3 Migratory Birds ...............................................................................................4 2.1.4 Eagles and Other Raptors .............................................................................. 5 2.1.5 Bats ................................................................................................................5 2.1.6 Prairie and Sage-Grouse ................................................................................ 5 2.2 SITE CHARACTERIZATION (TIER 2) ............................................................................ 5 2.2.1 Federal- and State-Listed Species and Protected Lands ................................ 5 3.0 RESULTS ...................................................................................................................... 7 3.1 PRELIMINARY SITE EVALUATION (TIER 1) ................................................................. 7 3.1.1 Land Cover and Use ...................................................................................... 7 3.1.2 Wetlands and Waterways ............................................................................... 9 3.1.3 Migratory Birds ............................................................................................. 11 3.1.4 Eagles and Other Raptors ............................................................................ 15 3.1.5 Bats .............................................................................................................. 17 3.1.6 Prairie and Sage Grouse .............................................................................. 18 3.2 SITE CHARACTERIZATION (TIER 2) ...........................................................................18 3.2.1 Protected Lands ........................................................................................... 18 3.2.2 Federal-Listed Wildlife Species .................................................................... 20 3.2.3 State-Listed Wildlife Species ........................................................................ 26 3.2.4 Federal-listed Plant Species ......................................................................... 27 3.2.5 State-Listed Plant Species ........................................................................... 28 4.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS ................................................................................29 4.1 LAND COVER AND USE (FIGURE 2) ...........................................................................29 4.2 WETLANDS (FIGURE 3) ...............................................................................................29 4.3 MIGRATORY BIRDS (FIGURE 4) .................................................................................29 4.4 EAGLES AND OTHER RAPTORS ................................................................................29 4.5 BATS (FIGURES 6 & 7) ................................................................................................30 4.6 PRAIRIE AND SAGE GROUSE ....................................................................................30 4.7 PROTECTED LANDS (FIGURE 5) ................................................................................30 4.8 FEDERAL-LISTED SPECIES ........................................................................................30 4.8.1 Indiana Bat and Northern Long-eared Bat (Figures 6 & 7) ............................ 31 4.8.2 Decurrent False Aster .................................................................................. 31 4.8.3 Eastern Prairie Fringed Orchid ..................................................................... 31 4.9 STATE-LISTED SPECIES (TABLES 7 & 8) ...................................................................31 4.9.1 Upland Sandpiper ........................................................................................ 31 5.0 LITERATURE CITED ....................................................................................................32 LIST OF TABLES Table 1. USFWS Land-Based Wind Energy Guidelines Tiers .................................................... 2 Table 2. Land cover type and amount within the study area of the Panther Grove Wind Energy Project determined through analysis of land cover data. .................................. 7 Table 3. Wetland and deep-water habitat types present within study area of the Panther Grove Wind Energy Project through analysis of the National Wetlands Inventory. ..................................................................................................................... 9 Table 4. Birds of Conservation Concern, Bird Conservation Region 22 - Eastern Tallgrass Prairie Region..............................................................................................11 Table 5. Illinois bat species and their potential to occur within the study area of the Panther Grove Wind Energy Project. ..........................................................................17 Table 6. Illinois State-listed wildlife species with known occurrences within Woodford county, state status, habitat preferences, and habitat availability ................................26 Table 7. Illinois state-listed plant species, state status, habitat preferences (INHS 2018), and habitat availability ................................................................................................28 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Project Location and Topography ................................................................................ 3 Figure 2. National Land Cover Dataset ...................................................................................... 8 Figure 3. National Wetlands Inventory ......................................................................................10 Figure 4. Publicly Available Bird Sighting Data ..........................................................................16 Figure 5. National Conservation Easement and Protected Areas Databases ............................19 Figure 6. Bat Habitat Assessment .............................................................................................24 Figure 7. GAP Analysis Program Predicted Northern Long-eared Bat Habitat ..........................25 LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix A – EcoCAT Report Panther Grove Wind Energy Project Site Characterization Report 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Stantec Consulting Services Inc. (Stantec) performed a site characterization study, including a threatened and endangered species habitat assessment, within the study area (Figure 1), which includes the project boundary (project area) of the proposed Panther Grove Wind Energy Project (project) in Woodford County, Illinois. The study area is approximately 82,720 acres in size and is located south of the town of Minonk and west of the town of Roanoke and north of the town of El Paso in Woodford County, Illinois (Figure 1). Panther Creek, East Branch Panther Creek, Little Panther Creek, South Branch Crow Creek, West Branch Panther Creek, Olive Branch, Hallenback Creek, and Snag Creek run through the study area. The study area is dominated by pastureland and agricultural fields in row crop production. Small and medium sized tracts of forest associated with waterways, rural residences, and farmsteads are scattered throughout the study area. 1.2 REGULATORY BACKGROUND The federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973 (16 U.S.C. §§1531 et seq.) provides for the listing, conservation, and recovery of endangered species. Section 9 of the ESA prohibits the take of any endangered or threatened species listed under the ESA. In reference to fish and wildlife, the ESA defines “take” as “…to harass, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect: species listed as endangered or threatened, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct.” In reference to plants, the ESA defines “take” as “…to collect, pick, cut, dig up, or destroy in any manner.” The no-take provisions under the act, which prohibit landowners from causing harm to listed species, apply only to animals. Plant species on private lands are, in general, protected only where a federal action (e.g., regulatory permit) is involved. In contrast, listed plants occurring on federal
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Do We Need to Use Bats As Bioindicators?
    biology Perspective Do We Need to Use Bats as Bioindicators? Danilo Russo * , Valeria B. Salinas-Ramos , Luca Cistrone, Sonia Smeraldo, Luciano Bosso * and Leonardo Ancillotto Wildlife Research Unit, Dipartimento di Agraria, Università degli Studi di Napoli Federico II, Via Università, 100, 80055 Portici, Italy; [email protected] (V.B.S.-R.); [email protected] (L.C.); [email protected] (S.S.); [email protected] (L.A.) * Correspondence: [email protected] (D.R.); [email protected] (L.B.) Simple Summary: Bioindicators are organisms that react to the quality or characteristics of the environment and their changes. They are vitally important to track environmental alterations and take action to mitigate them. As choosing the right bioindicators has important policy implications, it is crucial to select them to tackle clear goals rather than selling specific organisms as bioindicators for other reasons, such as for improving their public profile and encourage species conservation. Bats are a species-rich mammal group that provide key services such as pest suppression, pollination of plants of economic importance or seed dispersal. Bats show clear reactions to environmental alterations and as such have been proposed as potentially useful bioindicators. Based on the rel- atively limited number of studies available, bats are likely excellent indicators in habitats such as rivers, forests, and urban sites. However, more testing across broad geographic areas is needed, and establishing research networks is fundamental to reach this goal. Some limitations to using bats as bioindicators exist, such as difficulties in separating cryptic species and identifying bats in flight from their calls.
    [Show full text]
  • On the Distribution, Taxonomy and Karyology of the Genus Plecotus
    TurkJZool 27(2003)293-300 ©TÜB‹TAK OntheDistribution,TaxonomyandKaryologyoftheGenus Plecotus (Chiroptera:Vespertilionidae)inTurkey AhmetKARATAfi DepartmentofBiology,FacultyofScience-Art,Ni¤deUniversity,Ni¤de–TURKEY NuriY‹⁄‹T,ErcümentÇOLAK,TolgaKANKILIÇ DepartmentofBiology,FacultyofScience,AnkaraUniversity,Ankara-TURKEY Received:12.04.2002 Abstract: Plecotusauritus andPlecotusaustriacus wererecordedfrom8and3localitiesintheAsiaticpartofTurkey,respectively. Itwasdeterminedthatthelengthofthefirstpremolar,theshapeofthezygomaticarchesandbaculumdistinguishthesetaxaf rom eachother.Apartfromthesemorphologicalcharacteristics,thetibialengthof P.austriacus wasfoundtobesignificantlygreater thanthatof P.austriacus (P<0.05).Thediploidchromosomenumberswereidenticalinbothtaxa(2n=32).Thenumberof chromosomalarms(FN=54)andthenumberofautosomalchromosomalarms(FNa=50)werethesameasinpreviouslypublished papersonP.austriacus. KeyWords: Plecotusauritus,Plecotusaustriacus,Karyology,Turkey Türkiye’deYay›l›flGösterenPlecotus (Chiroptera:Vespertilionidae)CinsininYay›l›fl›, TaksonomisiveKaryolojisiÜzerineBirÇal›flma Özet: Plecotusauritus sekizvePlecotusaustriacus üçlokalitedenolmaküzereAnadolu’dankaydedildi.‹lkpremolarlar›nuzunlu¤u, zygomatikyay›nvebakulumunfleklininbutaksonlar›birbirindenay›rd›¤›saptand›.Bumorfolojikkarakterlerdenbaflka, P. autriacus’untibiauzunlu¤ununP.austriacus’tanistatistikiolarakdahabüyükoldu¤ubelirlendi(P<0.05).Diploidkromozomsay›s› herikitaksondabenzerbirflekilde2n=32dir. P.austriacus’unkromozomkolsay›lar›n›n(FN=54)veotosomalkromozomkol say›lar›n›n(FNa=50)literatüreuygunoldu¤ubulundu.
    [Show full text]
  • BAT FIELD TECH WORKSHOP.Pmd
    Gathering evidence of the utility of bats: Training in Field Techniques for Ecological Studies of Chiroptera C. Srinivasulu* and Sally Walker** The Chiroptera Conservation and Information Network of South Asia (CCINSA) and the IUCN SSC Chiroptera Threatened bats of India Specialist Group joined with the College of Forestry, Kerala Agricultural University, Thrissur to conduct its second field Fruit bats (Megachiroptera) -- total 5 techniques training workshop, from 28 July – 1 August 2003 Latidens salimalii Thonglongya, 1972 -- EN sponsored by Chester Zoo and Marwell Zoo, U.K at Thrissur. Pteropus faunulus Miller, 1902 -- EN Pteropus hypomelanus Temminck, 1853 -- EN The first such workshop was conducted at Madurai Pteropus melanotus Blyth, 1863 -- VU Kamaraj University, School of Biological Sciences almost Pteropus vampyrus (Linnaeus, 1758) -- EN two years ago, ably led by Dr. Paul Bates from U.K. and author of the definitive book on bats of this region Bats of Insectivorous bats (Microchiroptera) -- total 24 the Indian Subcontinent, (1997). He was assisted by Dr. M. Hipposideros diadema (E. Geoffroy, 1813) -- VU S. Pradhan and Dr. Y. P. Sinha from the Zoological Survey of Hipposideros durgadasi Khajuria, 1970 -- EN India. This workshop focused on general field techniques Hipposideros hypophyllus Kock & Bhat, 1994 -- EN and taxonomy with a day spent on the IUCN Red List Ia io Thomas, 1902 -- EN Criteria and Categories and the C.A.M.P. Workshop Process Miniopterus pusillus Dobson, 1876 -- VU in order to prepare CCINSA members for the impending Murina grisea Peters, 1872 -- CR Chiroptera C.A.M.P. which was held last year in January. Myotis annectans (Dobson, 1871) -- VU Myotis blythii (Tomes, 1857) -- VU The South Asian Chiroptera C.A.M.P.
    [Show full text]
  • Index of Handbook of the Mammals of the World. Vol. 9. Bats
    Index of Handbook of the Mammals of the World. Vol. 9. Bats A agnella, Kerivoula 901 Anchieta’s Bat 814 aquilus, Glischropus 763 Aba Leaf-nosed Bat 247 aladdin, Pipistrellus pipistrellus 771 Anchieta’s Broad-faced Fruit Bat 94 aquilus, Platyrrhinus 567 Aba Roundleaf Bat 247 alascensis, Myotis lucifugus 927 Anchieta’s Pipistrelle 814 Arabian Barbastelle 861 abae, Hipposideros 247 alaschanicus, Hypsugo 810 anchietae, Plerotes 94 Arabian Horseshoe Bat 296 abae, Rhinolophus fumigatus 290 Alashanian Pipistrelle 810 ancricola, Myotis 957 Arabian Mouse-tailed Bat 164, 170, 176 abbotti, Myotis hasseltii 970 alba, Ectophylla 466, 480, 569 Andaman Horseshoe Bat 314 Arabian Pipistrelle 810 abditum, Megaderma spasma 191 albatus, Myopterus daubentonii 663 Andaman Intermediate Horseshoe Arabian Trident Bat 229 Abo Bat 725, 832 Alberico’s Broad-nosed Bat 565 Bat 321 Arabian Trident Leaf-nosed Bat 229 Abo Butterfly Bat 725, 832 albericoi, Platyrrhinus 565 andamanensis, Rhinolophus 321 arabica, Asellia 229 abramus, Pipistrellus 777 albescens, Myotis 940 Andean Fruit Bat 547 arabicus, Hypsugo 810 abrasus, Cynomops 604, 640 albicollis, Megaerops 64 Andersen’s Bare-backed Fruit Bat 109 arabicus, Rousettus aegyptiacus 87 Abruzzi’s Wrinkle-lipped Bat 645 albipinnis, Taphozous longimanus 353 Andersen’s Flying Fox 158 arabium, Rhinopoma cystops 176 Abyssinian Horseshoe Bat 290 albiventer, Nyctimene 36, 118 Andersen’s Fruit-eating Bat 578 Arafura Large-footed Bat 969 Acerodon albiventris, Noctilio 405, 411 Andersen’s Leaf-nosed Bat 254 Arata Yellow-shouldered Bat 543 Sulawesi 134 albofuscus, Scotoecus 762 Andersen’s Little Fruit-eating Bat 578 Arata-Thomas Yellow-shouldered Talaud 134 alboguttata, Glauconycteris 833 Andersen’s Naked-backed Fruit Bat 109 Bat 543 Acerodon 134 albus, Diclidurus 339, 367 Andersen’s Roundleaf Bat 254 aratathomasi, Sturnira 543 Acerodon mackloti (see A.
    [Show full text]
  • Listeria Monocytogenes Infection of Bat Pipistrellus Nathusii Epithelial Cells Depends on the Invasion Factors Inla and Inlb
    pathogens Article Listeria monocytogenes Infection of Bat Pipistrellus nathusii Epithelial Cells Depends on the Invasion Factors InlA and InlB Olga Povolyaeva 1, Yaroslava Chalenko 2,3,* , Egor Kalinin 3, Olga Kolbasova 1, Elena Pivova 1, Denis Kolbasov 1 , Sergey Yurkov 1 and Svetlana Ermolaeva 2,3 1 Federal Research Center for Virology and Microbiology (FRCVM), 601125 Volginsky, Russia; [email protected] (O.P.); [email protected] (O.K.); [email protected] (E.P.); [email protected] (D.K.); [email protected] (S.Y.) 2 Federal Research Center for Virology and Microbiology (FRCVM), Nizhny Novgorod Research Veterinary Institute Branch, Laboratory of Molecular Microbiology, 603022 Nizhny Novgorod, Russia; [email protected] 3 Gamaleya Research Center of Epidemiology and Microbiology, Laboratory of Ecology of Pathogenic Bacteria, 123098 Moscow, Russia; [email protected] * Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +7-92-5936-7317 Received: 13 September 2020; Accepted: 21 October 2020; Published: 22 October 2020 Abstract: L. monocytogenes is a widespread facultative intracellular pathogen. The range of natural hosts that supporting L. monocytogenes persistence in the environment has not been fully established yet. In this study, we were interested in the potential of L. monocytogenes to infect cells of bats, which are being increasingly recognized as a reservoir for microorganisms that are pathogenic to humans and domestic animals. A stable epithelial cell line was developed from the kidneys of Pipistrellus nathusii, a small bat widely distributed across Europe. The wild-type L. monocytogenes strain EGDe infected this cell line with an invasion efficiency of 0.0078 0.0009%. Once it entered bat cells, L.
    [Show full text]
  • Per-Species Spatial-Block Cross-Validation
    Ecography ECOG-03149 El-Gabbas, A. and Dormann, C. F. 2017. Improved species-occurrence predictions in data-poor regions: using large-scale data and bias correction with down- weighted Poisson regression and Maxent. – Ecography doi: 10.1111/ecog.03149 Supplementary material Appendix 1: Supplementary figures and tables Table A1: The estimated optimum combination of Maxent’s feature classes (FC) and Regularization Multiplier (RM) for each species and bias model type. Combinations with highest mean testing-AUC on 5-folds spatial-block cross-validation were selected. All the analyses were performed using modified code from the ENMeval package in R (Muscarella et al., 2014). See main text for more information. Environment-only Accessibility Effort Species FC a RM b FC RM FC RM 1 Asellia tridens LQ 0.5 LQ 3 LQHPT 3 2 Barbastella leucomelas LQ 0.5 LQ 0.5 LQHPT 3.5 3 Eptesicus bottae LQ 0.5 LQHP 2 LQHP 4 4 Hypsugo ariel LQHPT 2 LQHP 2 L 1 5 Nycteris thebaica LQ 4 LQ 3.5 LQ 4 6 Nycticeinops schlieffeni LQ 1 LQ 0.5 LQ 1.5 7 Otonycteris hemprichii LQ 0.5 LQ 1 LQHPT 0.5 8 Pipistrellus deserti L 2.5 LQ 0.5 L 3 9 Pipistrellus kuhlii LQ 0.5 LQ 0.5 LQ 0.5 10 Pipistrellus rueppellii LQ 4 LQ 0.5 LQ 4 11 Plecotus christii LQ 0.5 LQHPT 0.5 LQHPT 0.5 12 Rhinolophus clivosus LQHP 2.5 LQHPT 2 LQHPT 2.5 13 Rhinolophus hipposideros LQ 0.5 LQ 0.5 LQ 0.5 14 Rhinolophus mehelyi LQ 0.5 LQ 0.5 LQ 2.5 15 Rhinopoma cystops LQ 1 LQ 1.5 LQHPT 1 16 Rhinopoma microphyllum LQ 1.5 LQ 2 LQHPT 4 17 Rousettus aegyptiacus LQHPT 2.5 LQ 3 LQ 4 18 Tadarida aegyptiaca LQ 3 LQ 4 LQ 3 19 Tadarida teniotis LQ 0.5 LQ 0.5 LQ 0.5 20 Taphozous nudiventris LQ 1 L 2 LQHPT 2.5 21 Taphozous perforatus LQ 1.5 LQ 1 LQ 1.5 a Feature classes (FC): L linear; Q quadratic; H hinge; P product; and T threshold.
    [Show full text]
  • Bat Community Structure, Foraging Activity, and Evening Bat Roost
    BAT COMMUNITY STRUCTURE, FORAGING ACTIVITY, AND EVENING BAT ROOST SITE SELECTION IN LOBLOLLY PINE AND LONGLEAF PINE FORESTS OF GEORGIA by ADAM CARL MILES (Under the Direction of Steven Castleberry) ABSTRACT During summers 2002 and 2003, I used mist nets, bat detectors, and radio-telemetry to investigate bat community structure, activity, and the day-roost selection of evening bats (Nycticeius humeralis) on mature longleaf and managed loblolly study sites in southwestern Georgia. The Seminole bat (Lasiurus seminolus), red bat (L. borealis), and evening bat were captured most frequently on each site. Bat activity was greater in mature pine than other habitats on the longleaf site, and activity was lesser in the hardwood habitat type on the managed site. Evening bats on the longleaf pine landscape selected roosts based on tree, plot, and landscape scale characteristics, while bats on the managed landscape selected roosts based on only the tree and plot characteristics. I hypothesized that the greater availability of roosting structures (abundant large trees and snags) on the longleaf site allowed evening bats to select roost sites that had more favorable landscape characteristics (i.e. closer to water and foraging sites). INDEX WORDS: Anabat, bat activity, bat community, bat detector, evening bat, habitat use, Nycticeius humeralis, radiotelemetry, roost selection, Southeast BAT COMMUNITY STRUCTURE, FORAGING ACTIVITY, AND EVENING BAT ROOST SITE SELECTION IN LOBLOLLY PINE AND LONGLEAF PINE FORESTS OF GEORGIA by ADAM C MILES B.S. Wildlife, Humboldt State University, 2001 A Thesis Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of The University of Georgia in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree MASTER OF SCIENCE ATHENS, GEORGIA 2005 © 2005 ADAM CARL MILES All Rights Reserved BAT COMMUNITY STRUCTURE, FORAGING ACTIVITY, AND EVENING BAT ROOST SITE SELECTION IN LOBLOLLY PINE AND LONGLEAF PINE FORESTS OF GEORGIA by ADAM CARL MILES Major Professor: Steven B.
    [Show full text]
  • Random Sampling of the Central European Bat Fauna Reveals the Existence of Numerous Hitherto Unknown Adenoviruses+
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Repository of the Academy's Library Acta Veterinaria Hungarica 63 (4), pp. 508–525 (2015) DOI: 10.1556/004.2015.047 RANDOM SAMPLING OF THE CENTRAL EUROPEAN BAT FAUNA REVEALS THE EXISTENCE OF NUMEROUS + HITHERTO UNKNOWN ADENOVIRUSES 1* 2 3 1,4 Márton Z. VIDOVSZKY , Claudia KOHL , Sándor BOLDOGH , Tamás GÖRFÖL , 5 2 1 Gudrun WIBBELT , Andreas KURTH and Balázs HARRACH 1Institute for Veterinary Medical Research, Centre for Agricultural Research, Hungarian Academy of Sciences, Hungária krt. 21, H-1143 Budapest, Hungary; 2Robert Koch Institute, Centre for Biological Threats and Special Pathogens, Berlin, Germany; 3Aggtelek National Park Directorate, Jósvafő, Hungary; 4Department of Zoology, Hungarian Natural History Museum, Budapest, Hungary; 5Leibniz Institute for Zoo and Wildlife Research, Berlin, Germany (Received 16 September 2015; accepted 28 October 2015) From over 1250 extant species of the order Chiroptera, 25 and 28 are known to occur in Germany and Hungary, respectively. Close to 350 samples originating from 28 bat species (17 from Germany, 27 from Hungary) were screened for the presence of adenoviruses (AdVs) using a nested PCR that targets the DNA polymerase gene of AdVs. An additional PCR was designed and applied to amplify a fragment from the gene encoding the IVa2 protein of mastadenovi- ruses. All German samples originated from organs of bats found moribund or dead. The Hungarian samples were excrements collected from colonies of known bat species, throat or rectal swab samples, taken from live individuals that had been captured for faunistic surveys and migration studies, as well as internal or- gans of dead specimens.
    [Show full text]
  • Table of Contents
    XIII. SPECIES ACCOUNTS The majority of the following species accounts were originally written by various members of the Western Bat Working Group in preparation for the WBWG workshop in Reno, Nevada, February 9-18, 1998. They have been reviewed and updated by various members of the Colorado Bat Working Group for the 2018 revision of the Colorado Bat Conservation Plan. Several species accounts were newly developed for the second edition of the plan and authorship reflects this difference. The status of Colorado bat species as ranked by NatureServe and the Colorado Natural Heritage Program (NatureServ/CNHP), The Colorado Parks and Wildlife State Wildlife Action Plan (SWAP) rankings and state threatened and endangered list, Colorado Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Region 2 of the US Forest Service (USFS), and the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) as of December 2017 is included in each species account. Conservation status of bat species, as defined by NatureServe, is ranked on a scale of 1–5 as follows: critically imperiled (G1), imperiled (G2), vulnerable (G3), apparently secure (G4), and demonstrably secure (G5). Assessment and documentation of status occurs at 3 geographic scales: global (G), national (N), and state/province (S). The CPW State Wildlife Action Plan ranks include Tier 1 for species of highest conservation priority and Tier 2 for species whose listing status is of concern but the urgency of action is deemed to be less. BLM and USFS rankings are given for sensitive species (SS) only as no threatened or endangered bat species currently exist in their management boundaries. Colorado Bat Conservation Plan 3/28/2018 Western Bat Working Group, Colorado Committee Page 126 of 204 ALLEN’S BIG-EARED BAT (IDIONYCTERIS PHYLLOTIS) Prepared by Michael J.
    [Show full text]
  • Bat Aggregational Response to Pest Caterpillar Emergence Ján Blažek*, Adam Konečný & Tomáš Bartonička
    www.nature.com/scientificreports OPEN Bat aggregational response to pest caterpillar emergence Ján Blažek*, Adam Konečný & Tomáš Bartonička Moths (Lepidoptera) are major agricultural and forest pests in many parts of the world, including Europe, with many causing great economic damage to crops, horticultural plants, stored items, and wool products. Here, we focus on two ecologically similar inchworms, Operophtera brumata and Erannis defoliaria, known for their high foliage consumption during the spring emergence of caterpillars. We hypothesise that bats could play a role in reducing pests such as caterpillars by switching to this abundant emerging prey. At two infested and one control forest sites, caterpillars were sampled during spring to determine levels of infestation. At the same time, bat fight activity was monitored during the peak in caterpillar abundance. During the spring caterpillar outbreak, we collected faecal samples of forest-dwelling bats capable of using gleaning. The majority of samples were positive for our focus species, being 51.85% for O. brumata and 29.63% for E. defoliaria faecal samples. The foraging activity of two gleaning bats, Myotis nattereri and Myotis bechsteinii, increased at both infested sites, but not at the control site, during caterpillar emergence, as did foraging of Plecotus auritus/austriacus, which used both gleaning and aerial hawking. We conclude that both specialists and occasional gleaners, which prefer diferent prey but are able to switch their foraging strategies, aggregate at sites during pest emergence and, as such, our results confrm the high potential of bats to reduce numbers of pest species such as caterpillars. A predator’s efect on prey populations is generally studied using numerical responses 1,2 driven by two mecha- nisms, migration of predators to sites with high prey concentrations (aggregational response) and predator reproduction, which results in a delayed increase in the density of predators3.
    [Show full text]
  • A Checklist of Valid Indian Bat Species (Chiroptera: Mammalia)
    A Checklist of Valid Indian Bat Species (Chiroptera: Mammalia) S. S. Talmale and M. S. Pradhan* Zoological Survey of India, Western Regional Centre, Vidyanagar, Sector-29, Rawet Road, PCNTDA Post, Pune-411 044, Maharashtra, India E-mail : [email protected] * Present Address : Kalpanamati Housing Society, Flat No. B-2, Aundhgaon, Pune-411 007, Maharashtra, India E-mail : [email protected] Updated till November, 2009 Online Version Zoological Survey of India Talmale & Pradhan : A Checklist of Valid Indian Bat Species (Chiroptera : Mammalia) Table of Contents Introduction---------------------------------------- 03 List of Families------------------------------------- 05 List of Genera-------------------------------------- 05 List of Species-------------------------------------- 06 Notes and Comments----------------------------- 14 References------------------------------------------ 16 Cover Photo : Wroughton's Free-Tailed bat, Otomops wroughtoni (Thomas), from Barapede Cave in Belgaon Dist, Karnataka (Photograph by M. S. Pradhan) Zoological Survey of India Page 2 Talmale & Pradhan : A Checklist of Valid Indian Bat Species (Chiroptera : Mammalia) Introduction : Chiropterans are commonly known as bats. They are the only true flying mammals, comprising altogether globally 1116 species in 202 genera under 18 families (Wilson & Reeder, 2005). They constitute about quarter of the entire mammal species. Bats are characteristic as their forelimbs are modified into membranous wings (patagium), supported by long digits. Membrane called uropatagium (interfemoral membrane) is also present between the hind limbs. Most of the bats live in colonies. They are nocturnal, and usually hide in dark places during daytime. They chiefly consume fruits and insects. Ellerman and Morrison-Scott (1951, 1966 (2nd edition) enlisted mammal species (Including Chiroptera) reported till 1946 from India in their exhaustive account “Checklist of Palaearctic and Indian mammals”.
    [Show full text]
  • FAX Cvr Sheet
    CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE - 5 ILCS 140/7(1)(g) CONTAINS SENSITIVE BIOLOGICAL DATA – NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION OR DISCLOSURE PLEASANT RIDGE EXHIBIT 105 PN 1664.017-001 February 2009 CHIROPTERAN RISK ASSESSMENT PROPOSED PLEASANT RIDGE WIND ENERGY GENERATION FACILITY LIVINGSTON COUNTY, ILLINOIS Prepared for: Invenergy Wind Development LLC 1 South Wacker Drive, Suite 2020 Chicago, IL 60606 Prepared by: BHE Environmental, Inc. 11733 Chesterdale Road Cincinnati, OH 45246-3405 www.bheenvironmental.com Notice: This report has been prepared by BHE Environmental, Inc., solely for the benefit of its client in accordance with an approved scope of work. BHE assumes no liability for the unauthorized use of this report or the information contained in it by a third party. Copyright © 2009 BHE Environmental, Inc. CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE - 5 ILCS 140/7(1)(g) CONTAINS SENSITIVE BIOLOGICAL DATA – NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION OR DISCLOSURE TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................ 1 2.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT AREA ................................................. 3 2.1 Regional Conditions................................................................... 3 2.2 Site-specific Conditions .............................................................. 3 2.3 Bats ..................................................................................... 4 2.3.1 Indiana Bat (Myotis sodalis) .................................................
    [Show full text]