DOCSLIB.ORG

KABAM Version 1.0

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
KABAM Version 1.0 User’s Guide and Technical Documentation KABAM version 1.0 (KOW (based) Aquatic BioAccumulation Model) April 7, 2009 Environmental Fate and Effects Division (EFED) Office of Pesticide Programs U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Washington, D.C. 1 of 123 Acknowledgements Author Kristina Garber Technical Reviewers Brian Anderson Lawrence Burkhard Paige Doelling Keith Sappington Thomas Steeger Editorial Reviewer Karen McCormack QA/QC Officer Nick Mastrota QC Testers Oak Ridge National Laboratories 2 of 123 Table of Contents 1. Introduction................................................................................................................................. 5 1.1. Model Description ............................................................................................................... 5 1.2. When to use this model........................................................................................................ 6 1.3. Conceptual model ................................................................................................................ 6 1.4. Model Application ............................................................................................................... 7 2. Input parameters.......................................................................................................................... 8 2.1. Chemical Specific Inputs ..................................................................................................... 8 2.2. Ecosystem Inputs ............................................................................................................... 13 3. Parameters & Calculations........................................................................................................ 17 4. Model Results ........................................................................................................................... 18 5. Assessing pesticide concentrations in fish tissues for human consumption............................. 24 6. Model assumptions, limitations, and uncertainties................................................................... 24 Appendix A. Description of bioaccumulation model ................................................................... 26 A.1. Calculation of fraction of chemical in the water column that is freely dissolved (Ф)...... 28 A.2. Calculation of chemical concentration in sediment .......................................................... 30 A.3. Calculation of respiration uptake (k1) and elimination (k2) rate constants ....................... 30 A.4. Calculation of growth rate constant .................................................................................. 37 A.5. Calculation of dietary uptake (kD) rate constant ............................................................... 38 A.6. Calculation of dietary elimination (kE) rate constant........................................................ 43 A.7. Overall sensitivity of body concentration of chemical (CB) to individual input parameters ................................................................................................................................................... 57 Appendix B. Explanation of defaults and alternative values representing abiotic characteristics of aquatic ecosystem ......................................................................................................................... 72 B.1. Particulate organic carbon (XPOC) and dissolved organic carbon (XDOC) ......................... 72 B.2. Concentration of dissolved oxygen (COX)......................................................................... 72 B.3. Water temperature (T)....................................................................................................... 73 B.4. Concentration of suspended solids (C SS).......................................................................... 74 B.5. Sediment organic carbon (OC).......................................................................................... 74 Appendix C. Explanation of default values representing biotic characteristics of aquatic ecosystem, including food web structure...................................................................................... 75 C.1. Phytoplankton.................................................................................................................... 75 C.2. Zooplankton ...................................................................................................................... 78 C.3. Benthic invertebrates......................................................................................................... 79 C.4. Filter feeders...................................................................................................................... 84 C.5. Fish (small, medium and large sizes)................................................................................ 86 3 of 123 Appendix D. Selection of mammal species of concern and corresponding biological parameters ....................................................................................................................................................... 91 D.1. Descriptions of mammal species....................................................................................... 91 D.2. Determination of mammalian default parameters for KABAM ....................................... 92 Appendix E. Selection of bird species of concern and corresponding biological parameters...... 97 E.1. Bird family descriptions .................................................................................................... 97 E.2. Detailed conceptual model .............................................................................................. 102 E.3. Determination of daily food intake.................................................................................. 103 E.4. Definition of default parameters to represent birds in KABAM..................................... 104 Appendix F. Description of equations used to calculate the BCF, BAF, BMF, and BSAF values. ..................................................................................................................................................... 107 F.1. Bioconcentration.............................................................................................................. 107 F.2. Bioaccumulation.............................................................................................................. 108 F.3. Biomagnification ............................................................................................................. 109 Appendix G. Description of equations used to calculate dietary-based and dose-based EECs, toxicity values, and RQs for mammals and birds consuming contaminated aquatic organisms 110 G.1. Food ingestion rates ........................................................................................................ 110 G.2. Drinking water intake rates............................................................................................. 110 G.3. Dose-based EECs............................................................................................................ 111 G.4. Dietary-based EECs ........................................................................................................ 111 G.5. Adjusted dose-based toxicity values............................................................................... 111 Appendix H. Methods for estimating metabolism rate constant (kM) ........................................ 113 H.1. Use of Equation A1......................................................................................................... 113 H.2. Use of Arnot et al. 2008.................................................................................................. 114 H.3. Assumptions and uncertainties........................................................................................ 114 Appendix I. References Cited..................................................................................................... 116 4 of 123 1. Introduction 1.1. Model Description KABAM (KOW (based) Aquatic BioAccumulation Model) is used to estimate potential bioaccumulation of hydrophobic organic pesticides in freshwater aquatic food webs and subsequent risks to mammals and birds via consumption of contaminated aquatic prey. This model can also be used to estimate pesticide concentrations in fish tissues consumed by humans. The model was designed for use by the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Pesticide Programs’ Environmental Fate and Effects Division (EFED) scientists. KABAM is composed of two parts: 1) a bioaccumulation model estimating pesticide concentrations in aquatic organisms and 2) a risk component translating exposure and toxicological effects of a pesticide into risk estimates for mammals and birds consuming contaminated aquatic prey. The bioaccumulation portion of KABAM is based on an aquatic food web bioaccumulation model published by Arnot and Gobas (2004). This model was originally published in 1993 by Gobas (Gobas 1993) and was modified by Arnot and Gobas (2004). The Arnot and Gobas (2004) model was selected for estimating pesticide bioaccumulation based on the following reasons: 1) the Gobas 1993 model underlying the Arnot and Gobas 2004 version is generally accepted by the scientific community as a reasonable approach for estimating bioaccumulation of persistent hydrophobic organic compounds in aquatic systems (Burkhard
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant Impact
    Appendix G: United States Deadwood Department of Agriculture Assessment Forest Service Indian Creek December 21, Landscape 2017 Management Project Draft Environmental Assessment Central Coast Ranger District-Oregon Dunes National Recreation Area, Siuslaw National Forest, Lane County, Oregon Introduction and Methods To provide support for project planning on the Siuslaw National Forest, we used information from the analytical tool DecAID (Mellen-McLean et al. 2012) to compare estimated current and reference quantities of deadwood (snags and down wood) by watershed. Interpretation of deadwood information from DecAID is most appropriately done at spatial scales large enough to include variability in stand structure and wildlife habitat, typically 5th-field watersheds or other areas of at least 20 square miles (Mellen-McLean et al. 2012). Thus, we carried out the analysis for all 5th-field watersheds on the Forest with at least 12,800 acres within one of the habitat types defined in DecAID. DecAID takes advantage of the spatially-comprehensive dataset of vegetation structure developed for Oregon and Washington by a team from the Pacific Northwest Research Station and Oregon State University using the statistical imputation method Gradient Nearest Neighbor (GNN) (LEMMA 2015). DecAID includes a process (“Distribution Analysis”) that allows use of GNN data to evaluate the current frequency distribution of different densities of snags and amounts of cover of down wood within geographic areas such as watersheds selected by users. By using inventory plot data from unharvested areas and information on historic disturbance regimes, the process also allows estimation of reference conditions for both snags and down wood (Mellen-McLean et al.
    [Show full text]
  • List of Species Included in ACE-II Native and Harvest Species Richness Counts (Appendix C)
    Appendix C. Species included in native and harvest species richness counts. Animal Species Included in the Range Analysis....... ............................ ................................. C-01 Animal Species with Range Models Not Included in the Analysis......................... ................. C-20 Animal Species without Range Models, therefore not Included in the Analysis......... ............ C-20 Fish Species Included in the Range Analysis.................................................................... ....... C-30 Fish with Ranges not Included in the Analysis because neither Native nor Harvest................ C-33 Native Plants Species Included in the Range Analysis............................................................. C-34 CWHR Species and ACEII hexagon analysis of ranges. Of the 1045 species in the current CWHR species list used in ACE-II, 694 had range models digitized for use. Of those, 688 are included in this hexagon analysis of the state of Cailfornia, with 660 of those classified as native to California. There were no additional species picked up offshore due to the use of hexagon centroid points. Animal species INCLUDED in this analysis. CODE COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME A001 CALIFORNIA TIGER SALAMANDER Ambystoma californiense NATIVE A002 NORTHWESTERN SALAMANDER Ambystoma gracile NATIVE A003 LONG-TOED SALAMANDER Ambystoma macrodactylum NATIVE A047 EASTERN TIGER SALAMANDER Ambystoma tigrinum INTROD A021 CLOUDED SALAMANDER Aneides ferreus NATIVE A020 SPECKLED BLACK SALAMANDER Aneides flavipunctatus NATIVE A022
    [Show full text]
  • Complete List of Amphibian, Reptile, Bird and Mammal Species in California
    Complete List of Amphibian, Reptile, Bird and Mammal Species in California California Department of Fish and Game Sept. 2008 (updated) This list represents all of the native or introduced amphibian, reptile, bird and mammal species known in California. Introduced species are marked with “I”, harvest species with “HA”, and vagrant species or species with extremely limited distributions with *. The term “introduced”, as used here, represents both accidental and intentional introductions. Subspecies are not included on this list. The most current list of species and subspecies with special management status is available from the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) Taxonomy and nomenclature used within the list are the same as those used within both the CNDDB and CWHR software programs and data sets. If a discrepancy exists between this list and the ones produced by CNDDB, the CNDDB list can be presumed to be more accurate as it is updated more frequently than the CWHR data set. ________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ AMPHIBIA (Amphibians) CAUDATA (Salamanders) AMBYSTOMATIDAE (Mole Salamanders and Relatives) Long-toed Salamander Ambystoma macrodactylum Tiger Salamander Ambystoma tigrinum I California Tiger Salamander Ambystoma californiense Northwestern Salamander Ambystoma gracile RHYACOTRITONIDAE (Torrent or Seep Salamanders) Southern Torrent Salamander Rhyacotriton
    [Show full text]
  • Small Mammal and Bird Responses to Restoration Thinning in Young Post-Logging Stands of Redwood National Park and California Redwood State Parks
    Small mammal and Bird Responses to Restoration Thinning in Young Post-Logging Stands of Redwood National Park and California Redwood State Parks Final Report Prepared for: Save The Redwoods League 3 December 2013 Keith M. Slauson, U.S. Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station, Arcata, CA 95521. [email protected] 1 Abstract The restoration of old forest characteristics where they have been significantly degraded is a conservation objective on public lands in the coastal forests of the Pacific States. The Redwood National Park and California Redwoods State Parks complex in coastal northwestern California contains approximately 30,000 hectares of dense young forest that have regenerated after intensive timber harvesting. Restoration thinning has emerged as an important tool to use to actively manage these un-naturally dense stands to restore natural species dominance patterns and hasten the development of old forest characteristics. I evaluated the responses of small vertebrates to restoration thinning using a blocked treatment (thinned)-control (not thinned)- reference (old growth) study design. Three blocks were selected representing restoration thinning that had occurred 5, 15, and 30 years prior. Passerine birds and diurnal Sciurids were sampled using modified area searches along fixed transects in each study stand. Forest floor small mammals were sampled using Sherman live traps in 10x10 trapping grids with 10m between each trap location on the grid. Area searches and live trapping occurred between 5 September to 25 October 2012. Overall abundances of Passerine birds, small mammals, and Sciurids were significantly higher in restoratively thinned versus not thinned stands. Diversity of Passerine birds was significantly higher in thinned versus not thinned stands and was largely due to the presence of species representing sub-canopy, shrub, and ground foraging guilds using thinned stands and not using not thinned stands.
    [Show full text]
  • SHREWS Robert H
    University of Nebraska - Lincoln DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln The aH ndbook: Prevention and Control of Wildlife Wildlife Damage Management, Internet Center for Damage 1-1-1994 SHREWS Robert H. Schmidt Utah State University, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/icwdmhandbook Part of the Environmental Sciences Commons Schmidt, Robert H., "SHREWS" (1994). The Handbook: Prevention and Control of Wildlife Damage. 55. http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/icwdmhandbook/55 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Wildlife Damage Management, Internet Center for at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. It has been accepted for inclusion in The aH ndbook: Prevention and Control of Wildlife Damage by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. Robert H. Schmidt Assistant Professor Department of Fisheries and Wildlife SHREWS Utah State University Logan, Utah 84322-5210 Fig. 1. A masked shrew, Sorex cinereus Identification Damage Prevention and Fumigants The shrew is a small, mouse-sized Control Methods None are registered. mammal with an elongated snout, a Trapping dense fur of uniform color, small eyes, Exclusion and five clawed toes on each foot (Fig. Mouse trap (snap trap). Rodent-proof structures also exclude 1). Its skull, compared to that of shrews. Small box trap. rodents, is long, narrow, and lacks the zygomatic arch on the lateral side Cultural Methods Pit trap. characteristic of rodents. The teeth are Mowing may decrease preferred Shooting small, sharp, and commonly dark- tipped. Pigmentation on the tips of the habitat and food. Not practical. teeth is caused by deposition of iron in Repellents Other Methods the outer enamel.
    [Show full text]
  • Little Sink Research Natural Area Guidebook Supplement 31
    United States Department of Agriculture Little Sink Research Forest Service Natural Area Pacific Northwest Research Station General Technical Report Guidebook Supplement 31 PNW-GTR-725 October 2007 Reid Schuller and Ronald L. Exeter D E E R P A U RT LT MENT OF AGRICU The Forest Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture is dedicated to the principle of multiple use management of the Nation’s forest resources for sustained yields of wood, water, forage, wildlife, and recreation. Through forestry research, cooperation with the States and private forest owners, and management of the National Forests and National Grasslands, it strives—as directed by Congress—to provide increasingly greater service to a growing Nation. 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 USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20250-9410 or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. Authors Reid Schuller is a consulting plant ecologist living in Bend, Oregon; Ronald L.
    [Show full text]
  • Mammal Inventory at Oregon Islands National Wildlife Refuge, Crook
    Mammal Inventory Report Crook Point, Oregon, 2009. Siskiyou Research Group Introduction and Study Area The Crook Point Unit of Oregon Islands National Wildlife Refuge is a 134-acre undeveloped coastal headland located approximately 12 miles south of Gold Beach, Oregon. Notwithstanding post-European settlement activities of livestock grazing and timber harvesting, Crook Point provides exceptional examples of coastal headland habitats, which have largely disappeared from Oregon as a result of development and conversion (Kagan 2002). Currently, Crook Point provides habitat for rare plant species such as Poa unilateralis, Lasthenia ornduffii, and Artemisia pycnocephala (Kagan 2002, Chan 2001, Bilderback 2008). Moreover, the associated offshore islands and rocks provide important nesting habitat for seabirds, haul-out and breeding areas for marine mammals, and suitable cliff habitat for nesting peregrine falcons (Ledig 2009). Saddle Rock, the largest island associated with Crook Point, provides nesting habitat for a large population of Leach’s storm petrels (PRBO 2004). There is evidence the Saddle Rock population is being decimated by mammalian predators (reference). In 2000 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) acquired this coastal headland making it the second mainland unit in the Oregon Islands National Wildlife Refuge system. Presently USFWS is focusing on site restoration, resource protection, and biological inventory, monitoring, and research. This mammal survey is part of an effort to document the biological diversity of Crook Point. Prior to this survey no systematic mammal inventory work has been conducted at Crook Point. Objectives The primary objective of this survey was to compile a mammalian species list for Crook Point using multiple detection methods of trapping, motion-triggered trail cameras, direct observation, and animal sign (prints, scat, excavations).
    [Show full text]
  • FEIS Citation Retrieval System Keywords
    FEIS Citation Retrieval System Keywords 29,958 entries as KEYWORD (PARENT) Descriptive phrase AB (CANADA) Alberta ABEESC (PLANTS) Abelmoschus esculentus, okra ABEGRA (PLANTS) Abelia × grandiflora [chinensis × uniflora], glossy abelia ABERT'S SQUIRREL (MAMMALS) Sciurus alberti ABERT'S TOWHEE (BIRDS) Pipilo aberti ABIABI (BRYOPHYTES) Abietinella abietina, abietinella moss ABIALB (PLANTS) Abies alba, European silver fir ABIAMA (PLANTS) Abies amabilis, Pacific silver fir ABIBAL (PLANTS) Abies balsamea, balsam fir ABIBIF (PLANTS) Abies bifolia, subalpine fir ABIBRA (PLANTS) Abies bracteata, bristlecone fir ABICON (PLANTS) Abies concolor, white fir ABICONC (ABICON) Abies concolor var. concolor, white fir ABICONL (ABICON) Abies concolor var. lowiana, Rocky Mountain white fir ABIDUR (PLANTS) Abies durangensis, Coahuila fir ABIES SPP. (PLANTS) firs ABIETINELLA SPP. (BRYOPHYTES) Abietinella spp., mosses ABIFIR (PLANTS) Abies firma, Japanese fir ABIFRA (PLANTS) Abies fraseri, Fraser fir ABIGRA (PLANTS) Abies grandis, grand fir ABIHOL (PLANTS) Abies holophylla, Manchurian fir ABIHOM (PLANTS) Abies homolepis, Nikko fir ABILAS (PLANTS) Abies lasiocarpa, subalpine fir ABILASA (ABILAS) Abies lasiocarpa var. arizonica, corkbark fir ABILASB (ABILAS) Abies lasiocarpa var. bifolia, subalpine fir ABILASL (ABILAS) Abies lasiocarpa var. lasiocarpa, subalpine fir ABILOW (PLANTS) Abies lowiana, Rocky Mountain white fir ABIMAG (PLANTS) Abies magnifica, California red fir ABIMAGM (ABIMAG) Abies magnifica var. magnifica, California red fir ABIMAGS (ABIMAG) Abies
    [Show full text]
  • Other Mammals Table of Contents
    OTHER MAMMALS D-1 Armadillos Donald W. Hawthorne D-5 Bats Arthur M. Greenhall and Stephen C. Frantz D-25 Deer Scott R. Craven and Scott E. Hygnstrom D-41 Elk David S. deCalesta and Gary W. Witmer D-51 Moles F. Robert Henderson D-59 Opossums Jeffrey J. Jackson D-65 Pigs, Wild Reginald H. Barrett D-71 Pronghorn Antelope Sanford D. Schemnitz D-75 Rabbits, Cottontail Scott R. Craven D-81 Jackrabbits James E. Knight D-87 Shrews Robert H. Schmidt Donald W. Hawthorne Associate Deputy Administrator USDA-APHIS- ARMADILLOS Animal Damage Control Washington, DC 20090-6464 Fig. 1. Armadillo, Dasypus novemcinctus Identification Damage Prevention and Fumigants The armadillo (Dasypus novemcinctus) is Control Methods None are registered. a rather interesting and unusual animal Exclusion Trapping that has a protective armor of “horny” material on its head, body, and tail. Fences or barriers are generally not Live traps (box traps). This bony armor has nine movable practical, but a possible option. Leghold traps (size No. 1 or 2). rings between the shoulder and hip Cultural Methods shield. The head is small with a long, Conibear® 220. narrow, piglike snout. Canine and inci- Clear brush and other cover to reduce Shooting sor teeth are absent. The peglike cheek habitat. One of the most commonly used teeth range in number from seven to Repellents methods. nine on each side of the upper and lower jaw. The long tapering tail is en- None are registered. Other Methods cased in 12 bony rings. The track usu- Toxicants Soil insecticides that remove food ally appears to be three-toed and shows sharp claw marks.
    [Show full text]
  • SHREWS Utah State University Logan, Utah 84322-5210
    Robert H. Schmidt Assistant Professor Department of Fisheries and Wildlife SHREWS Utah State University Logan, Utah 84322-5210 Fig. 1. A masked shrew, Sorex cinereus Identification Damage Prevention and Fumigants The shrew is a small, mouse-sized Control Methods None are registered. mammal with an elongated snout, a Trapping dense fur of uniform color, small eyes, Exclusion and five clawed toes on each foot (Fig. Mouse trap (snap trap). Rodent-proof structures also exclude 1). Its skull, compared to that of shrews. Small box trap. rodents, is long, narrow, and lacks the zygomatic arch on the lateral side Cultural Methods Pit trap. characteristic of rodents. The teeth are Mowing may decrease preferred Shooting small, sharp, and commonly dark- tipped. Pigmentation on the tips of the habitat and food. Not practical. teeth is caused by deposition of iron in Repellents Other Methods the outer enamel. This deposition may None are registered. Cats may reduce densities around increase the teeth’s resistance to wear, Toxicants structures. Owls consume large an obvious advantage for permanent numbers of shrews. Mowed grass teeth that do not continue to grow in None are registered. around structures may increase response to wear. The house shrew predation. (Suncus murinus) lacks the pigmented teeth. Shrew feces are often corkscrew- shaped, and some shrews (for PREVENTION AND CONTROL OF WILDLIFE DAMAGE — 1994 Cooperative Extension Division Institute of Agriculture and Natural Resources University of Nebraska - Lincoln United States Department of Agriculture Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service Animal Damage Control D-87 Great Plains Agricultural Council Wildlife Committee example, the desert shrew [Notiosorex Food Habits venom in their saliva that may help crawfordi]) use regular defecation them subdue small prey.
    [Show full text]
  • Mammal Species Native to the USA and Canada for Which the MIL Has No Image (170) 31 July 2021
    Mammal species native to the USA and Canada for which the MIL has no image (170) 31 July 2021 ARTIODACTYLA (includes CETACEA) (25) BALAENIDAE - bowheads and right whales 1. Eubalaena japonica - Northern Pacific Right Whale 2. Eubalaena glacialis – North Atlantic Right Whale BALAENOPTERIDAE - rorqual whales Balaenoptera ricei - Rice’s Whale DELPHINIDAE - ocean dolphins 1. Feresa attenuata - Pygmy Killer Whale 2. Globicephala melas - Long-finned Pilot Whale 3. Lagenodelphis hosei - Fraser’s Dolphin 4. Leucopleurus acutus - Atlantic White-sided Dolphin 5. Stenella attenuata - Pantropical Spotted Dolphin 6. Stenella clymene - Clymene Dolphin 7. Stenella longirostris - Spinner Dolphin KOGIIDAE - pygmy sperm whales 1. Kogia breviceps - Pygmy Sperm Whale 2. Kogia sima - Dwarf Sperm Whale ZIPHIIDAE - beaked whales 1. Berardius bairdii - Baird’s Beaked Whale 2. Berardius minimus - Least Beaked Whale 3. Hyperoodon ampullatus - Northen Bottlenose Whale 4. Indopacetus pacificus - Tropical Beaked Whale 5. Mesoplodon bidens - Sowerby’s Beaked Whale 6. Mesoplodon carlhubbsi – Hubbs’s Beaked Whale 7. Mesoplodon densirostris - Blainville’s Beaked Whale 8. Mesoplodon europaeus - Gervais’s Beaked Whale 9. Mesoplodon ginkgodens - Ginkgo-toothed Beaked Whale 10. Mesoplodon mirus - True’s Beaked Whale 11. Mesoplodon perrini - Perrin’s Beaked Whale 12. Mesoplodon stejnegeri - Stejneger’s Beaked Whale 13. Ziphius cavirostris - Cuvier’s Beaked Whale CARNIVORA (8) CANIDAE - dogs Canis lycaon - Eastern Wolf MEPHITIDAE - skunks 1. Conepatus leuconotus - American Hog-nosed Skunk 2. Spilogale gracilis - Western Spotted Skunk MUSTELIDAE - weasels and relatives Martes americana - American Marten OTARIIDAE - eared seals Arctocephalus townsendi - Guadalupe Fur Seal PHOCIDAE - earless seals 1. Cystophora cristata - Hooded Seal 2. Histriophoca fasciata - Ribbon Seal 3. Phoca largha - Spotted Seal CHIROPTERA (20) MOLOSSIDAE - free-tailed bats 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Complete List of Amphibian, Reptile, Bird and Mammal Species in California
    Complete List of Amphibian, Reptile, Bird and Mammal Species in California California Department of Fish and Wildlife May, 2016 This list represents all of the native or introduced amphibian, reptile, bird and mammal species known in California. Introduced species are marked with “I”, harvest species with “HA”, and vagrant species or species with extremely limited distributions with *. The term “introduced”, as used here, represents both accidental and intentional introductions. Subspecies are not included on this list. The most current list of species and subspecies with special management status is available from the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB). Taxonomy and nomenclature used within the list are the same as those used within the California Wildlife Habitat Relationships (CWHR) software programs and data sets. ________________________________________________________________________ Contributors to the preparation of this list (in alphabetical order): Melanie Gogol-Prokurat Stacie Hooper Darlene McGriff Anne Miller Monica Parisi Kiffanie Stahle Nomenclature Amphibians and Reptiles: We have adopted nomenclature of the Center for North American Herpetology (CNAH) and Society for the Study of Amphibians and Reptiles Names Database (SSAR), but see footnote (2) below. Stebbins (2003) and CNAH were used as sources for species found in California. CaliforniaHerps.com was used as a source for introduced species established in California. Birds: A list of birds found in California is provided by the California Bird Records Committee (CBRC). CBRC has synchronized their organization and nomenclature with the work of the American Ornithologists' Union (AOU) Committee on Classification and Nomenclature (54th supplement, 2013). Our list differs slightly from CBRC because we include species introduced to California that may or may not have stable populations (Garrett 1997, Jurek 2002).
    [Show full text]