AppLCC Species List
WG members -- I will attach a copy of the AppLCC species-habitat database we mentioned on the Jan 14/15 meeting, should that be helpful in your work. The following information was provided on how the data were assembled. (1.) Criteria used for assembling the species – i.e., SGCN, Listed/Proposed/Candidate etc. Criteria for assembling the original list were the SGNC species with the addition of federally listed species. (2) How was the habitat association was assigned (and if the habitat classification system was standardized when assigned). With the exception of mussels and fish (used Natureserve scheme for those) the habitat association is not based on any standard habitat classification scheme and is a very broad summary of the habitats listed in the source information. (3) How species were included (i.e., reference to the 75% range. All species that were found (even partially) within the AppLCC boundary were included in this list. Species listed on SWAPs, but not found within the LCC Boundary were deleted. If (by visual inspection of range maps found in the source material) more than 75% of a species range was found with the LCC Boundary, it was coded a YES in the LCC GLOBAL TRUST column - the thought behind this was that the LCC has a global responsibility to preserve those species. (4) Re: plants and what criteria was used to exclude species from the list).
• Plants were not included because only one state (Georgia) and the federal list had plants listed (so the ranking of plant species when you do your "how many states is the species found in" analysis would have been heavily skewed, making them seem much less important than they actually are. To be true to the process, I would suggest getting plant lists from each state (maybe S1-S2 species).
• Invertebrates were not included simply because I ran out of time cleaning up the list and range information for many of them is not easily available. I do believe they should be included in the final list of species. and would be happy to work on the invert list if you'd like...it would take some coordination with states to get range info.
• The fish list was almost finished (data is readily available on Natureserve Explorer)
(5) Re: migratory birds handled in assembling this data set. The original list of migratory birds was created using the same process as for all other species. The only difference is that they have two possible habitat associations - breeding habitat and wintering habitat (if applicable) because managing for both of these is important to their conservation.
(6) Final note - there may be a few (less than ten) duplicate species because some states had a subspecies listed, while others had the only species listed.
Publication Date: 2012
DOWNLOAD FILE — Octet Stream, 7,944 kB (8,134,656 bytes)
You have provided us with a TON of information in recent messages on subregions, watersheds, and species already selected to be of priority interest to the App LCC, as well as a very organized web-based shared workspace for our efforts on this report. Thank you so much! Lesley, how are you proposing to integrate this info from Jean into report - will you be trying to incorporate as best as possible into relevant sections of first draft?
Thank you - Healy