DOCSLIB.ORG

Environmental Assessment

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Environmental Assessment United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service March 2014 Environmental Assessment Post-Harvest Vine Control Project Nantahala Ranger District, Nantahala National Forest Macon and Jackson Counties, North Carolina For Information Contact: Joan Brown 90 Sloan Road, Franklin, NC 28734 (828) 524-6441 ext 426 www.fs.usda.gov/nfsnc 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, D.C. 20250-9410, or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. Table of Contents Summary ............................................................................................................................................................... i Chapter 1 – Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 2 1.1 Document Structure .................................................................................................................................... 2 1.2 Purpose of and Need for Action .................................................................................................................. 3 1.2.1 Vicinity Map ....................................................................................................................................... 3 1.2.2 Description of the Project Proposal ..................................................................................................... 5 1.2.3 Description of the Project Area ........................................................................................................... 5 1.2.4 Description of Additional Alternatives ............................................................................................... 8 1.3 Project Objectives ....................................................................................................................................... 8 1.3.1 Project Objectives ............................................................................................................................... 8 1.3.2. Decision to be Made ......................................................................................................................... 10 1.4 Scoping ...................................................................................................................................................... 10 1.5. Issues to be Addressed in the Analysis ..................................................................................................... 10 1.6. Issues Not Addressed in the Analysis ....................................................................................................... 11 2. Comparison of Alternatives ........................................................................................................................... 11 2.1 Alternatives Considered ............................................................................................................................ 11 2.2 Alternatives Considered but Not Analyzed in Detail…………………………………………………… ……...11 3 Environmental Consequences ......................................................................................................................... 11 3.1 Introduction............................................................................................................................................... 11 3.2 Communities, Special Habitats, and Management Indicator Species (MIS) ............................................. 12 3.1.1 Aquatic Communties, Special Habitats and MIS……………………………………………… 13 3.2.2 Botanical Communities, Special Habitats and MIS .......................................................................... 17 3.2.3 Terrestrial Wildlife Communities, Special Habitats and MIS ........................................................... 21 3.2.4 Summary of Effects for all Species …………… ……………………………………………. 25 3.3. Proposed, Endangered, and Threatened Species ..................................................................................... 26 3.3.1 Aquatic Proposed, Endangered, and Threatened Species .................................................................. 26 3.3.2 Botanical, Proposed, Endangered, and Threatened Species .............................................................. 27 3.3.3 Terrestrial Wildlife Proposed, Endangered, and Threatened Species................................................ 28 3.3.4.Determination of Effects for all Species………………………………………………………… ..32 3.4. Forest Sensitive Species ........................................................................................................................... 32 3.4.1 Aquatic Forest Sensitive Species....................................................................................................... 32 3.4.2 Botanical Forest Sensitive Species .................................................................................................... 33 3.4.3 Terrestrial Wildlife Forest Sensitive Species .................................................................................... 34 3.4.4.Effects Determination for all Sensitive Species………… ……………………… ………..……….38 3.5. Forest Concern Species .......................................................................................................... …………...38 3.5.1.Aquatic Forest Concern Species………………………………………………………………………………...39 3.5.2 Botanical Forest Concern Species ......................................................................................................... 41 3.5.3 Terrestrial Wildlife Forest Concern Species ..................................................................................... 41 3.5.4.Effects Determination for all Forest Concern Species………… …………………………………..46 3.6. Additional Habitats and Biological Issues ............................................................................................... 46 ii Environmental Assessment Post-harvest Vine Control Project 3.6.1 Non-native and Invasive Species .......................................................................................................46 3.7. Soil and Water Resources .........................................................................................................................47 3.8 Air Resources .............................................................................................................................................48 3.9. Vegetation Management and Silviculture .................................................................................................49 3.10 Heritage Resources ..................................................................................................................................51 3.11 Recreation Resources...............................................................................................................................52 3.12 Scenery .....................................................................................................................................................53 3.13 Social and Economic Considerations ......................................................................................................54 3.14 Road Management ...................................................................................................................................55 3.15 Climate Change .......................................................................................................................................55 4 Agencies and Persons Consulted ..................................................................................................................... 57 4.1. Preparers ..................................................................................................................................................57 4.2 Agencies and Persons Consulted ...............................................................................................................57 4.3 Literature Cited ..........................................................................................................................................58 5 Appendices ....................................................................................................................................................... 60 5.1.Appendix A - Biological Evaluation…………………………………………………………………………… .61 5.2 Appendix B – Area Maps ....................................................................................................................... 111 Environmental Assessment Post-harvest Vine Control Project SUMMARY Proposed Action: Conduct grape and smoke vine control work in 17 Nantahala Ranger District compartments in Macon and Jackson counties near Franklin, North Carolina to provide for timber stand improvement in 38 young forest stands.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • H3.3 Macaronesian Inland Cliff
    European Red List of Habitats - Screes Habitat Group H3.3 Macaronesian inland cliff Summary The perennial vegetation of crevices and ledges of cliff faces in Macaronesia away from coastal salt-spray is of very diverse character - some, for example, dominated by succulents, others rich in ferns and bryophytes characteristic of shaded situations - and it includes several hundreds of taxa endemic to the archipelagoes. The main threats are mountaineering and rock climbing, outdoor sports and leisure activities, and construction of infrastructures such as roads and motorways. Synthesis There is no evidence of significant past reductions, either in the last 50 years or historically, and also future prospects are good, as no serious threats are envisaged, besides touristic/leisure activities and putative faulty environmental impact assessments that may overlook this habitat as valuable. Reduction in quantity, reduction in quality and criteria of geographic distribution yield the Least Concern (LC) category. In spite of the LC category, conservation policy and management should restrict to the maximum any threat to or reduction of the habitat, as it has a very high conservation value, because of high endemism of species and communities with many local and regional variaties. Overall Category & Criteria EU 28 EU 28+ Red List Category Red List Criteria Red List Category Red List Criteria Least Concern - Least Concern - Sub-habitat types that may require further examination Four general subtypes can be distinguished based on species composition and different ecological conditions. However, at present, no data are available to carry out an individual assessment of each of them. In the future, if detailed plot sampling has been carried out, such an evaluation may be possible.
    [Show full text]
  • Biological Evaluation
    United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service March 2018 Biological Evaluation Prospect Hamby Project Tusquitee Ranger District, Nantahala National Forest Cherokee County, North Carolina For Additional Information Contact: Tusquitee Ranger District 123 Woodland Drive Murphy, North Carolina 28906 (828) 837-5152 2-1 Table of Contents 1.0 INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 2 1.1 Proposed Action ......................................................................................................................... 2 1.2 Species Considered ..................................................................................................................... 2 2.0 PROPOSED, ENDANGERED, and THREATENED SPECIES ................................................... 3 2.1 Aquatic Resources ...................................................................................................................... 3 2.2 Botanical Resources ................................................................................................................... 6 2.3 Wildlife Resources ..................................................................................................................... 8 2.4 Effects Determinations for Proposed, Endangered, and Threatened Species ........................... 14 3.0 SENSITIVE SPECIES ................................................................................................................. 14 3.1 Aquatic
    [Show full text]
  • Trail Finished in Hickory Nut Gorge!
    FOURTH QUARTER 2014 Quarterly News Bulletin and Hike Schedule P.O. Box 68, Asheville, NC 28802 • www.carolinamountainclub.org • e-mail: [email protected] COUNCIL Trail finished in Hickory Nut Gorge! CORNER CMC trail crews and other vol- Why join unteers have worked for two years CMC? Let constructing and improving the access me count the trail from the trailhead up into the ways. There Florence Nature Preserve – a half are too many mile section. to count. A ceremony was held to formally But maybe celebrate the trailhead and this trail the best is (which has a new kiosk sign that has the way that maps and trail info, as well as the it will enrich CMC logo) and recognized all those your life. When you join and that played a role in making it pos- are active, you will find yourself sible, including CMC. doing all kinds of things with The ceremony included a ribbon- all kinds of interesting people cutting for first phase of the Little Bearwallow which was built by the CMC Thursday, that share many of your inter- Trail across the street – a one-mile section Friday, and DRAFT crews the past two ests and joie de vivre. Over the constructed this spring and summer by a Youth winters, construction of the trail is now years, you develop friendships Conservation Corps crew. The trailhead will complete and a handsome new stile (built with these people and find your also serve that trail, which ascends up to Little by Howard McDonald & Tom Weaver) is world is a much bigger, brighter Bearwallow Falls.
    [Show full text]
  • 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]
  • Phylogenetic Relationships and Historical Biogeography of Tribes and Genera in the Subfamily Nymphalinae (Lepidoptera: Nymphalidae)
    Blackwell Science, LtdOxford, UKBIJBiological Journal of the Linnean Society 0024-4066The Linnean Society of London, 2005? 2005 862 227251 Original Article PHYLOGENY OF NYMPHALINAE N. WAHLBERG ET AL Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 2005, 86, 227–251. With 5 figures . Phylogenetic relationships and historical biogeography of tribes and genera in the subfamily Nymphalinae (Lepidoptera: Nymphalidae) NIKLAS WAHLBERG1*, ANDREW V. Z. BROWER2 and SÖREN NYLIN1 1Department of Zoology, Stockholm University, S-106 91 Stockholm, Sweden 2Department of Zoology, Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon 97331–2907, USA Received 10 January 2004; accepted for publication 12 November 2004 We infer for the first time the phylogenetic relationships of genera and tribes in the ecologically and evolutionarily well-studied subfamily Nymphalinae using DNA sequence data from three genes: 1450 bp of cytochrome oxidase subunit I (COI) (in the mitochondrial genome), 1077 bp of elongation factor 1-alpha (EF1-a) and 400–403 bp of wing- less (both in the nuclear genome). We explore the influence of each gene region on the support given to each node of the most parsimonious tree derived from a combined analysis of all three genes using Partitioned Bremer Support. We also explore the influence of assuming equal weights for all characters in the combined analysis by investigating the stability of clades to different transition/transversion weighting schemes. We find many strongly supported and stable clades in the Nymphalinae. We are also able to identify ‘rogue’
    [Show full text]
  • <I>Monanthes Subrosulata</I>, a New Species of <I>M.</I> Sect. <I
    Willdenowia 43 – 2013 25 ÁNGEL BAÑARES BAUDET1*, AURELIO ACEVEDO RODRÍGUEZ2 & ÁNGEL REBOLÉ BEAUMONT3 Monanthes subrosulata, a new species of M. sect. Sedoidea (Crassulaceae) from La Palma, Canary Islands, Spain Abstract Bañares Baudet Á., Acevedo Rodríguez A. & Rebolé Beaumont Á.: Monanthes subrosulata, a new species of M. sect. Sedoidea (Crassulaceae) from La Palma, Canary Islands, Spain. – Willdenowia 43: 25 – 31. June 2013. – Online ISSN 1868-6397; © 2013 BGBM Berlin-Dahlem. Stable URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.3372/wi.43.43103 Monanthes subrosulata (M. sect. Sedoidea) from La Palma, Canary Islands, Spain, is described as a species new to science and illustrated. Special attention is paid to the morphological characteristics that differentiate it from the other species of the section (M. anagensis and M. laxiflora), as well as from M. muralis (M. sect. Monanthes). Additional key words: Monanthes anagensis, M. laxiflora, M. muralis, taxonomy, chorology Introduction branched habit, never forming rosettes, and with their inflorescences arising from the tips of the axes. Monan­ After the recent treatment of the Moroccan species thes subrosulata, located in the south and south-eastern Monanthes atlantica Ball as Sedum surculosum Coss. parts of La Palma island, shares the above characters and (Mes & ’t Hart 1994; ’t Hart & Bleij 2003), the genus unequivocally belongs to M. sect. Sedoidea. The most Monanthes Haw. is confined to the Canary Islands and striking character to separate it from the other species of Ilhas Selvagens, two archipelagos that biogeographically the section is the presence of conspicuous bladder-cell comprise the Canarian Province in the Mediterranean idioblasts (papillae), especially on the leaves (usually in- Region (Rivas-Martínez 2009), previously known as part conspicuous and not protruding in M.
    [Show full text]
  • Barcoding Chrysomelidae: a Resource for Taxonomy and Biodiversity Conservation in the Mediterranean Region
    A peer-reviewed open-access journal ZooKeys 597:Barcoding 27–38 (2016) Chrysomelidae: a resource for taxonomy and biodiversity conservation... 27 doi: 10.3897/zookeys.597.7241 RESEARCH ARTICLE http://zookeys.pensoft.net Launched to accelerate biodiversity research Barcoding Chrysomelidae: a resource for taxonomy and biodiversity conservation in the Mediterranean Region Giulia Magoga1,*, Davide Sassi2, Mauro Daccordi3, Carlo Leonardi4, Mostafa Mirzaei5, Renato Regalin6, Giuseppe Lozzia7, Matteo Montagna7,* 1 Via Ronche di Sopra 21, 31046 Oderzo, Italy 2 Centro di Entomologia Alpina–Università degli Studi di Milano, Via Celoria 2, 20133 Milano, Italy 3 Museo Civico di Storia Naturale di Verona, lungadige Porta Vittoria 9, 37129 Verona, Italy 4 Museo di Storia Naturale di Milano, Corso Venezia 55, 20121 Milano, Italy 5 Department of Plant Protection, College of Agriculture and Natural Resources–University of Tehran, Karaj, Iran 6 Dipartimento di Scienze per gli Alimenti, la Nutrizione e l’Ambiente–Università degli Studi di Milano, Via Celoria 2, 20133 Milano, Italy 7 Dipartimento di Scienze Agrarie e Ambientali–Università degli Studi di Milano, Via Celoria 2, 20133 Milano, Italy Corresponding authors: Matteo Montagna ([email protected]) Academic editor: J. Santiago-Blay | Received 20 November 2015 | Accepted 30 January 2016 | Published 9 June 2016 http://zoobank.org/4D7CCA18-26C4-47B0-9239-42C5F75E5F42 Citation: Magoga G, Sassi D, Daccordi M, Leonardi C, Mirzaei M, Regalin R, Lozzia G, Montagna M (2016) Barcoding Chrysomelidae: a resource for taxonomy and biodiversity conservation in the Mediterranean Region. In: Jolivet P, Santiago-Blay J, Schmitt M (Eds) Research on Chrysomelidae 6. ZooKeys 597: 27–38. doi: 10.3897/ zookeys.597.7241 Abstract The Mediterranean Region is one of the world’s biodiversity hot-spots, which is also characterized by high level of endemism.
    [Show full text]
  • Of the LEPIDOPTERISTS' SOCIETY
    Number 6 (1974) 1 Feb. 1975 of the LEPIDOPTERISTS' SOCIETY Editorial Committee of the NEWS ..... EDITOR: Ron Leuschner, 1900 John St., Manhattan Beach, CA. 90266, USA ASSOC. EDITOR: Dr. Paul A. Opler, Office of Endangered Species, Fish & Wildlife, Dept. of Interior, Washington, D.C. 20240, USA Jo Brewer H. A. Freeman M. C. Nielsen C. V. Covell, Jr. L. Paul Grey K. W. Philip J. Donald Eff Robert L. Langston Jon H. Shepard Thomas C. Emmel F. Bryant Mather E. C. Welling M. A RECENT TRAGEDY There have been a number of incidents that have caused described in one account as "dense jungle" and in the other attention recently, regarding problems or mishaps on collecting as "heavily wooded land bordered by farm land". Mr. Cowper trips. Ed Giesbert entertained the local Lorquin Society with was alone on this trip as he was well familiar with the region. a story of beetle collecting in Baja, California, where a threat­ He had even purchased a pair of heavy boots as an extra pre-, ening stranger blocked his exit on a lonely, isolated road. That caution against snakes. story, however, had a happy (even humorous) ending as Ed's When it became apparent that he was missing, an intensive Citroen vehicle with its hydraulic ,Suspension was able to sud­ search of the area was organized by Mrs. Cowper, assisted denly raise its undercarriage and clear the boulders that were by Mr. Bailey, one of his law partners. Senator Montoya of New supposed to block the road. In another incident, Fred Rindge Mexico contacted Mexican authorities to gain their full coop­ wrote that Bill Howe had "a harrowing experience in Tama­ eration in the search effort.
    [Show full text]
  • Butterfly Gardening Stephen M
    ® ® University of Nebraska–Lincoln Extension, Institute of Agriculture and Natural Resources Know how. Know now. G1183 (Revised November 2012 Butterfly Gardening Stephen M. Spomer, Research Technologist, Entomology; and Kim Todd, Extension Horticulturist Life Cycle This NebGuide discusses butterflies and their rela- tives and the plants that will help attract them to a garden. Egg — Eggs are laid singly or in clusters, usually on the host plant, but sometimes in organic matter, weeds, or soil. Eggs hatch in a few days to a couple of weeks, depending on the Butterflies can be found throughout Nebraska, from the species. However, some copper and hairstreak butterflies spend coniferous forests of the Pine Ridge, through the grasslands the winter in the egg stage. The larva eats its way out of the egg of the Sandhills, to the deciduous forests along the Missouri and is soon ready to feast on its host plant. Fritillaries are one River. Like bird watching or observing wildflowers, watching exception, spending the winter as newly-hatched unfed larvae. butterflies is a popular and enjoyable pastime. Although many Larva — The larva continues to eat many times its own natural butterfly habitats have been lost to urbanization and weight until its cuticle (skin) stretches to capacity. A hormone agricultural development, conservation of these beautiful insects in the larva signals when it is time to shed its skin, or molt. has been incorporated into numerous programs and projects. Butterfly caterpillars go through three to five molts and are Many individuals also are taking a personal interest in attracting therefore found in various sizes before they are ready to pupate.
    [Show full text]
  • Vulnerability of At-Risk Species to Climate Change in New York (PDF
    Vulnerability of At-risk Species to Climate Change in New York Matthew D. Schlesinger, Jeffrey D. Corser, Kelly A. Perkins, and Erin L. White New York Natural Heritage Program A Partnership between The Nature Conservancy and the NYS Department of Environmental Conservation New York Natural Heritage Program i 625 Broadway, 5th Floor Albany, NY 12233-4757 (518) 402-8935 Fax (518) 402-8925 www.nynhp.org Vulnerability of At-risk Species to Climate Change in New York Matthew D. Schlesinger Jeffrey D. Corser Kelly A. Perkins Erin L. White New York Natural Heritage Program 625 Broadway, 5th Floor, Albany, NY 12233-4757 March 2011 Please cite this document as follows: Schlesinger, M.D., J.D. Corser, K.A. Perkins, and E.L. White. 2011. Vulnerability of at-risk species to climate change in New York. New York Natural Heritage Program, Albany, NY. Cover photos: Brook floater (Alismodonta varicosa) by E. Gordon, Spadefoot toad (Scaphiopus holbrookii) by Jesse Jaycox, and Black Skimmers (Rynchops niger) by Steve Young. Climate predictions are from www.climatewizard.org. New York Natural Heritage Program ii Executive summary Vulnerability assessments are rapidly becoming an essential tool in climate change adaptation planning. As states revise their Wildlife Action Plans, the need to integrate climate change considerations drives the adoption of vulnerability assessments as critical components. To help meet this need for New York, we calculated the relative vulnerability of 119 of New York’s Species of Greatest Conservation Need (SGCN) using NatureServe’s Climate Change Vulnerability Index (CCVI). Funding was provided to the New York Natural Heritage Program by New York State Wildlife Grants in cooperation with the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • 9780521118088 Index.Pdf
    Cambridge University Press 978-0-521-11808-8 — The Biology of Island Floras Edited by David Bramwell , Juli Caujapé-Castells Index More Information I n d e x Abutilon , 248 , 257 , 261 Alyxia , 255 Acacia , 128 , 214 , 229 , 396 Amaranthaceae, 94 , 220 , 372 Acaena , 42 Amaranthus , 94 , 98 Acalypha , 94 , 128 , 373 , 458 , 465 Amborella , 231 Acanthaceae, 200 , 207 , 368 , 370 , 377 , 429 Amborellaceae, 230 , 231 Acantholimon , 326 Ampeloziziphus , 157 Achyranthes , 255 , 483 Amphisbaena , 156 Acidocroton , 157 Amphorogyne , 232 Acnistus , 93 , 140 , 400 , 401 , 402 Anacardiaceae, 211 , 371 , 432 Acoelorraphe , 162 anacladogenesis, 213, 220 Acrocomia , 162 Anagenesis, 212 Adansonia , 427 Anagyris , 481 , 485 adaptation, 2 , 7 , 211 , 233 , 293 , 307 , 444 , 445 , 447 , Anas , 379 493 , 504 ancient lineages, 6 , 156 adaptive radiation, 4 , 67 , 75 , 76 , 79 , 212 , 220 , 234 , Andaman, 495 445 Androcymbium , 306 , 310 , 312 , 333 Adenium , 207 aneuploidy, 5 , 278 Adiantum , 346 , 400 , 401 Angiopteris , 254 Aegialitis , 326, 329 angiosperms, 5 , 7, 18 , 19 , 158 , 160 , 161 , 228, 229, Aeonium , 286 , 309 , 342 , 494 231 , 252 , 267 , 269 , 270 , 273 , 275 , 338, 339 , 340 , Aerva , 220 342 , 344 , 346 , 348 , 349, 350 , 351 , 353 , 355 , 426 AFLPs, 93 , 136 , 284 , 288 , 302 , 309 Anisocarpus , 76 Afrolimon , 327 Annona , 131 agamospermous species, 328 Antilles, 154 , 155 , 157 , 160 , 162 , 349 Agathis , 228 , 267 Antillia , 161 Ageratum , 95 Apiaceae, 103 , 291 , 298 agriculture, 154 , 164 , 234 , 244 , 398 , 400 , 433 , 436 , Apocynaceae,
    [Show full text]
  • Butterflies of High Park
    BUTTERFLIES OF HIGH PARK This list includes 83 species and 1 subspecies of butterfly known to have occurred in High Park up to the end of August 2019 – nearly half the species listed for Ontario. All species listed are known to or assumed to breed, or have bred, in High Park unless otherwise noted. Common Name Scientific Name Status in High Park Status in Ontario Host Plant Comments SKIPPERS HESPERIIDAE Silver-spotted Skipper Epargyreus clarus fairly common locally fairly common, black locust, hog peanut, closely associated with black locust in our area mainly in the south showy tick trefoil Long-tailed Skipper Urbanus proteus very rare southern very rare immigrant in the legume family vines, a striking species from the southern U.S., not known to breed immigrant south; one record each at including beans at this latitude; on October 4, 2012 one was photographed by Point Pelee and Windsor in B. Yukich as it nectared on Buddleia at the Hillside Gardens 1994, and two seen near in High Park; this is the most northerly record for Ontario Hamilton and one in (2012 was a spectacular year for southern immigrants in the Toronto in 2012 province) Southern Cloudywing Thorybes bathyllus historical record locally rare to common in legumes one of two old specimens from Toronto in the ROM has been (hypothetical) the southwest attributed to High Park; likely a rare breeder in our area historically Northern Cloudywing Thorybes pylades common common and widespread legumes including tick High Park’s population density may be the highest in the trefoil and vetch province with one-day tallies of 100+ in recent years Dreamy Duskywing Erynnis icelus historical record common and widespread poplar, aspen, willow, birch old specimens from High Park in the ROM throughout Juvenal’s Duskywing Erynnis juvenalis uncommon common and widespread, oaks previously known only from historical records, but on May 10, mainly in the southern part 2006 B.
    [Show full text]