DOCSLIB.ORG

Resource Name (Heading 1)

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Resource Name (Heading 1) Invasive Plant Management United States Draft Environmental Impact Department of Agriculture Statement for the Bridger- Forest Service Teton National Forest Intermountain Region Bridger-Teton National Forest Bridger-Teton National Fremont, Lincoln, Park, Sublette and Teton Counties, Wyoming Forest March 2019 Cheatgrass infestation on the Bridger-Teton National Forest The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination against its customers, employees and applicants for employment on the bases of race, color, national origin, age, disability, sex, gender identity, religion, reprisal, and where applicable, political beliefs, marital status, familial or parental status, sexual orientation, or all or part of an individual's income is derived from any public assistance program, or protected genetic information in employment or in any program or activity conducted or funded by the Department. (Not all prohibited bases will apply to all programs and/or employment activities.) To File an Employment Complaint If you wish to file an employment complaint, you must contact your agency's EEO Counselor (PDF) within 45 days of the date of the alleged discriminatory act, event, or in the case of a personnel action. Additional information can be found online at www.ascr.usda.gov/complaint_filing_file.html. To File a Program Complaint If you wish to file a Civil Rights program complaint of discrimination, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form (PDF), found online at www.ascr.usda.gov/ complaint_filing_cust.html, or at any USDA office, or call (866) 632-9992 to request the form. You may also write a letter containing all of the information requested in the form. Send your completed complaint form or letter to us by mail at U.S. Department of Agriculture, Director, Office of Adjudication, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-9410, by fax (202) 690-7442 or email at [email protected]. Persons with Disabilities Individuals who are deaf, hard of hearing or have speech disabilities and you wish to file either an EEO or program complaint please contact USDA through the Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339 or (800) 845-6136 (in Spanish). Persons with disabilities, who wish to file a program complaint, please see information above on how to contact us by mail directly or by email. If you require alternative means of communication for program information (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) please contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). Reviewers Comments It is important that reviewers provide their comments at such times and in such a way that they are useful to the Agency’s preparation of the EIS. Therefore, comments should be provided prior to the close of the comment period and should clearly articulate the reviewer’s concerns and contentions. The submission of timely and specific comments can affect a reviewer’s ability to participate in subsequent administrative review or judicial review. Comments received in response to this solicitation, including names and addresses of those who comment, will be part of the public record for this proposed action. Comments submitted anonymously will be accepted and considered; however, anonymous comments will not provide the respondent with standing to participate in subsequent administrative review or judicial review. Pg. i Invasive Plant Management Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Bridger-Teton National Forest Fremont, Lincoln, Park, Sublette and Teton Counties, Wyoming Lead Agency: USDA Forest Service Responsible Official: Tricia O’Connor, Forest Supervisor P.O. Box 1880, 340 N. Cache Jackson, WY 83001 For Information Contact: Chad Hayward, Natural resource Manager Bridger-Teton National Forest P.O. Box 218, 10418 S US Hwy 189 Big Piney, WY 83113 Abstract: This Draft Environmental Impact Statement presents the analysis concerning three alternatives for treating invasive plant species on the Bridger-Teton National Forest. Alternative 1 is a continuation of current invasive species management. Alternative 2, the preferred alternative, would treat thousands of acres annually using a combination of manual, mechanical, biological, aerial and ground herbicide applications. Alternative 3 is similar to Alternative 2 but does not utilize aerial herbicide application. The proposed treatments would occur over the next 10-15 years and would utilize adaptive and integrated invasive plant treatment. Comments: The DEIS is available on the Bridger-Teton National Forest website. Use the link: https://www.fs.usda.gov/project/?project=52791 to download the document. Information concerning the deadline for comments and methods to submit those comments will be published in the Federal Register and posted at the website address listed above. It is important that reviewers provide their comments at such times and in such a way that they are useful to the Agency’s preparation of the EIS. Therefore, comments should be provided prior to the close of the comment period and should clearly articulate the reviewer’s concerns and contentions. The submission of timely and specific comments can affect a reviewer’s ability to participate in subsequent administrative review or judicial review. Comments received in response to this solicitation, including names and addresses of those who comment, will be part of the public record for this proposed action. Comments submitted anonymously will be accepted and considered; however, anonymous comments will not provide the respondent with standing to participate in subsequent administrative review or judicial review. Individuals and entities (non-governmental organizations, businesses, partnerships, state and local governments, Alaska Native Corporations and Indian Tribes) who submit timely, specific written comments regarding this project during this comment period or who have submitted timely, specific written comments during previous comment periods may subsequently file an objection when the draft record of decision is published. All timely, specific written comments that have been received during previous comment periods are filed in the project record, have been considered in the preparation of this document and will be considered again by the deciding officer before a decision is made. These previously submitted comments need not be resubmitted. Submit comments to: [email protected] Pg. ii Table of Contents Summary ...................................................................................................................................................................... 1 Chapter 1. Purpose of and Need for Invasive Plant Management on the Bridger-Teton National Forest.......... 5 Background ............................................................................................................................................................... 5 Purpose and Need for Invasive Plant Management on the Bridger-Teton National Forest ...................................... 7 Proposed Action ...................................................................................................................................................... 10 Decision Framework ................................................................................................................................................ 10 Public Involvement .................................................................................................................................................. 11 Issues ....................................................................................................................................................................... 12 Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action ........................................................................................ 14 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................................. 14 Alternatives Considered in Detail ............................................................................................................................ 14 Alternative 1 – No Action ........................................................................................................................................ 15 Alternative 2 – The Proposed Action ....................................................................................................................... 16 Alternative 3 – No Aerial Application of Herbicides ................................................................................................ 23 Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Study ................................................................................. 23 Comparison of Alternatives ..................................................................................................................................... 24 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences ................................................................. 28 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................................. 28 Issue #1 Native Vegetation and Invasive Species .................................................................................................... 28 Issue #2: Threatened, Endangered, or Sensitive Species and Their Habitats (Plants and Wildlife) ........................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Influence of Seed Head–Attacking Biological Control Agents
    BIOLOGICAL CONTROLÑWEEDS Influence of Seed Head–Attacking Biological Control Agents on Spotted Knapweed Reproductive Potential in Western Montana Over a 30-Year Period 1,2 3 1 1 JIM M. STORY, LINCOLN SMITH, JANELLE G. CORN, AND LINDA J. WHITE Environ. Entomol. 37(2): 510Ð519 (2008) ABSTRACT Five insect biological control agents that attack ßower heads of spotted knapweed, Centaurea stoebe L. subsp. micranthos (Gugler) Hayek, became established in western Montana between 1973 and 1992. In a controlled Þeld experiment in 2006, seed-head insects reduced spotted knapweed seed production per seed head by 84.4%. The seed production at two sites in western Montana where these biological control agents were well established was 91.6Ð93.8% lower in 2004Ð2005 than 1974Ð1975, whereas the number of seed heads per square meter was 70.7% lower, and the reproductive potential (seeds/m2) was 95.9Ð99.0% lower. The average seed bank in 2005 at four sites containing robust spotted knapweed populations was 281 seeds/m2 compared with 19 seeds/m2 at four sites where knapweed density has declined. Seed bank densities were much higher at sites in central Montana (4,218 seeds/m2), where the insects have been established for a shorter period. Urophora affinis Frauenfeld was the most abundant species at eight study sites, infesting 66.7% of the seed heads, followed by a 47.3% infestation by Larinus minutus Gyllenhal and L. obtusus Gyllenhal. From 1974 to 1985, Urophora spp. apparently reduced the number of seeds per seed head by 34.5Ð46.9%; the addition of Larinus spp. further reduced seed numbers 84.2Ð90.5% by 2005.
    [Show full text]
  • St. John's-Wort
    A Guide to Weeds in British Columbia ST. JOHN’S-WORT DISTRIBUTION Hypericum perforatum L. Family: Clusiaceae (St. John’s-wort). Other Scientific Names: None. Other Common Names: Klamath weed, goatweed. Legal Status: Not categorized. Growth form: Perennial forb. Leaves: Leaves are opposite, 1–3 cm long, oval- Flower: Flowers shaped, with prominent veins and covered with are 2 cm in transparent dots. diameter, bright yellow, Stems: Mature plants are numerous in flat-topped 0.1–1.0 m high. The stems are clusters. Flowers have 5 erect, 2-sided, rust coloured, separate petals that are twice with numerous branches. as long as the sepals. Stamens Roots: Short rhizomes. are numerous and paired into Seedling: No information 3 groups. available. Seeds/Fruit: Seed pods are 6 mm long, rust-brown, with 3- Similar Species celled capsules that contain Exotics: None known. numerous seeds (Whitson et al. Natives: None known. 1996). Impacts ____________________________________________ Agricultural: St. John’s-wort invades grazed and irritation and blistering in light-coloured livestock disturbed lands. In dense stands, it displaces native when they are exposed to sunlight (Powell et al. 1994). plant species and reduces livestock and wildlife forage. Ecological: No information available. The plant also contains a toxin that causes skin Human: Commercially available as an antidepressant. Habitat and Ecology __________________________________ General requirements: In BC, St. John’s-wort grows Historical: Introduced from Eurasia. at low- to mid-elevations in coastal, grassland, and Life cycle: St. John’s-wort grows early in spring when open forested regions. It is commonly found on soil moisture is available, and flowers from June to rangeland, pasture, and meadows and along roadsides September, depending on geographic location.
    [Show full text]
  • KEYSTONE XL PIPELINE PROJECT: Rare Plants and Rare Ecological
    KEYSTONE XL PIPELINE PROJECT Rare Plants and Rare Ecological Communities (Condition 8) KXL1399-STCE-EN-RP-0002 Rev C January 2019 Prepared for: TransCanada Keystone Pipeline Limited Partnership A Wholly Owned Subsidiary of TransCanada PipeLines Limited Calgary, Alberta Prepared by: Stantec Consulting Ltd. Calgary, Alberta KEYSTONE XL PIPELINE PROJECT RARE PLANTS AND RARE ECOLOGICAL COMMUNITIES (CONDITION 8) Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................... I ABBREVIATIONS ....................................................................................................................... III 1.0 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................ 1.1 2.0 SURVEY METHODS ..................................................................................................... 2.1 2.1 SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS SURVEYS ......................................................................... 2.1 2.1.1 Previous Rare Plants .................................................................................... 2.1 2.1.2 Previous Rare Ecological Communities ....................................................... 2.2 2.1.3 Other Data Sources ...................................................................................... 2.2 2.2 2017 SURVEYS ............................................................................................................. 2.2 2.2.1 Rare Plants ..................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Milk Thistle
    Forest Health Technology Enterprise Team TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER Biological Control BIOLOGY AND BIOLOGICAL CONTROL OF EXOTIC T RU E T HISTL E S RACHEL WINSTON , RICH HANSEN , MA R K SCH W A R ZLÄNDE R , ER IC COO M BS , CA R OL BELL RANDALL , AND RODNEY LY M FHTET-2007-05 U.S. Department Forest September 2008 of Agriculture Service FHTET he Forest Health Technology Enterprise Team (FHTET) was created in 1995 Tby the Deputy Chief for State and Private Forestry, USDA, Forest Service, to develop and deliver technologies to protect and improve the health of American forests. This book was published by FHTET as part of the technology transfer series. http://www.fs.fed.us/foresthealth/technology/ On the cover: Italian thistle. Photo: ©Saint Mary’s College of California. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, or marital or family status. (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, Room 326-W, Whitten Building, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, D.C. 20250-9410 or call 202-720-5964 (voice and TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. The use of trade, firm, or corporation names in this publication is for information only and does not constitute an endorsement by the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Multi-Trophic Level Interactions Between the Invasive Plant
    MULTI-TROPHIC LEVEL INTERACTIONS BETWEEN THE INVASIVE PLANT CENTAUREA STOEBE, INSECTS AND NATIVE PLANTS by Christina Rachel Herron-Sweet A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science in Land Resources and Environmental Sciences MONTANA STATE UNIVERSITY Bozeman, Montana May 2014 ©COPYRIGHT by Christina Rachel Herron-Sweet 2014 All Rights Reserved ii DEDICATION To my parents and grandparents, who instilled in me the value of education and have been my biggest supporters along the way. iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Special thanks go to my two advisers Drs. Jane Mangold and Erik Lehnhoff for all their tremendous support, advice and feedback during my graduate program. My two other committee members Drs. Laura Burkle and Jeff Littlefield also deserve a huge thank you for the time and effort they put into helping me with various aspects of my project. This research would not have been possible without the dedicated crew of field and lab helpers: Torrin Daniels, Darcy Goodson, Daniel France, James Collins, Ann de Meij, Noelle Orloff, Krista Ehlert, and Hally Berg. The following individuals deserve recognition for their patience in teaching me pollinator identification, and for providing parasitoid identifications: Casey Delphia, Mike Simanonok, Justin Runyon, Charles Hart, Stacy Davis, Mike Ivie, Roger Burks, Jim Woolley, David Wahl, Steve Heydon, and Gary Gibson. Hilary Parkinson and Matt Lavin also offered their expertise in plant identification. Statistical advice and R code was generously offered by Megan Higgs, Sean McKenzie, Pamela Santibanez, Dan Bachen, Michael Lerch, Michael Simanonok, Zach Miller and Dave Roberts. Bryce Christiaens, Lyn Huyser, Gil Gale and Craig Campbell provided instrumental consultation on locating field sites, and the Circle H Ranch, Flying D Ranch and the United States Forest Service graciously allowed this research to take place on their property.
    [Show full text]
  • Integrated Noxious Weed Management Plan: US Air Force Academy and Farish Recreation Area, El Paso County, CO
    Integrated Noxious Weed Management Plan US Air Force Academy and Farish Recreation Area August 2015 CNHP’s mission is to preserve the natural diversity of life by contributing the essential scientific foundation that leads to lasting conservation of Colorado's biological wealth. Colorado Natural Heritage Program Warner College of Natural Resources Colorado State University 1475 Campus Delivery Fort Collins, CO 80523 (970) 491-7331 Report Prepared for: United States Air Force Academy Department of Natural Resources Recommended Citation: Smith, P., S. S. Panjabi, and J. Handwerk. 2015. Integrated Noxious Weed Management Plan: US Air Force Academy and Farish Recreation Area, El Paso County, CO. Colorado Natural Heritage Program, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado. Front Cover: Documenting weeds at the US Air Force Academy. Photos courtesy of the Colorado Natural Heritage Program © Integrated Noxious Weed Management Plan US Air Force Academy and Farish Recreation Area El Paso County, CO Pam Smith, Susan Spackman Panjabi, and Jill Handwerk Colorado Natural Heritage Program Warner College of Natural Resources Colorado State University Fort Collins, Colorado 80523 August 2015 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Various federal, state, and local laws, ordinances, orders, and policies require land managers to control noxious weeds. The purpose of this plan is to provide a guide to manage, in the most efficient and effective manner, the noxious weeds on the US Air Force Academy (Academy) and Farish Recreation Area (Farish) over the next 10 years (through 2025), in accordance with their respective integrated natural resources management plans. This plan pertains to the “natural” portions of the Academy and excludes highly developed areas, such as around buildings, recreation fields, and lawns.
    [Show full text]
  • Impact of Biological Control on Two Knapweed Species in British Columbia
    Impact of Biological Control on Two Knapweed Research Report Species in British Columbia Don Gayton, FORREX & Val Miller, B.C. Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations Abstract Diffuse and spotted knapweed ( Centaurea diffusa Lam and C. stoebe L.) are two closely re - lated invasives found in many parts of British Columbia’s Southern Interior, causing sub - stantial economic losses in rangelands. Beginning in 1970, the provincial government initiated a long-term biological control effort against the knapweeds, introducing 10 dif - ferent insect agents from 1970 to 1987. In an effort to evaluate the efficacy of the program, archival (1983–2008) data was amassed from 19 vegetation monitoring sites that contained knapweed. In 2010, these sites were relocated and re-monitored and cover values were an - alyzed. Diffuse knapweed showed significant declines at 14 of 15 sites; spotted knapweed declined at three of four sites. Possible alternative explanations for the decline are dis - cussed. Evidence strongly points to a suite of biocontrol agents (seed feeders and root feed - ers) as the primary drivers of knapweed decline in British Columbia’s Southern Interior. KEYWORDS : biological control; British Columbia; Centaurea ; knapweed; monitoring Introduction iffuse knapweed ( Centaurea diffusa Lam.) and spotted knapweed ( Centaurea stoebe L.) are two introduced, closely related invasive forbs. These species are most com - Dmon in the northwestern United States and in western Canada. Centaurea stoebe (also referred to as C. maculosa Lam. and C. biebersteinii DC) is particularly widespread, reported in 45 US states and all provinces of Canada (Marshall 2004; Zouhar 2001). The drought-tolerant C. diffusa has an altitudinal range of 150–900 m, whereas C.
    [Show full text]
  • Biological Control of Yellow Starthistle
    Biological Control of Yellow Starthistle Lincoln Smith, USDA-ARS-WRRC, 800 Buchanan St, Albany CA 94710 Joe Balciunas, USDA-ARS-WRRC, 800 Buchanan St, Albany CA 94710 Michael J. Pitcairn, California Dept. of Food and Agriculture, 3288 Meadowview Road, Sacramento, CA 95832 Yellow starthistle (Centaurea solstitialis L.) is an alien plant that probably originated from the eastern Mediterranean. It was first collected in California in 1869, and now infests 42% of the state’s townships. It interferes with land use such as grazing and recreation, displaces native species, and is toxic to horses (Sheley, et al. 1999 and papers cited therein). This weed is much less invasive in its land of origin. This is presumably because natural enemies, such as insects, plant diseases, animals or competing plants help to keep it under natural control. We are exploring for insects and pathogens that attack this plant. They are tested for host specificity to make sure they do not attack other plants. After evaluation and approval by state and federal agencies, these agents will be released to try to reestablish the natural control that occurs in the land of origin. So far, six species of insect biological control agents have been introduced to control yellow starthistle (Turner et al. 1995; Rees et al. 1996; Jette, et al. 1999). All six attack the seedheads. The most promising agent is the hairy weevil (Eustenopus villosus), which is well established in California and occurs in high densities, attacking 25 to 80% of seedheads. Adults damage young flower buds by feeding on them, and lay eggs on later-developing flower buds.
    [Show full text]
  • Ecology and Management of Field Bindweed (Convolvulus Arvensis
    United States Department of Agriculture NATURAL RESOURCES CONSERVATION SERVICE Invasive Species Technical Note No. MT-9 February 2007 Ecology and Management of field bindweed [Convolvulus arvensis L.] by Jim Jacobs, NRCS Invasive Species Specialist, Bozeman, Montana Figure 1. Field bindweed forms mats of trailing, twining vines. Abstract Field bindweed is a persistent perennial weed in the Convolvulaceae taxonomic family found on cultivated fields, orchards, plantations, pastures, lawns, gardens, roadsides and along railways. It is listed as one of the ten most serious weed problems worldwide. Its extensive, competitive root system is capable of vegetative reproduction. This combined with long-lived seeds makes it difficult to manage. Dense tangled mats formed from the trailing vines, and vines climbing on crops, reduce crop yields and increase production costs. Over 500 seeds per plant can be produced from the funnel-shaped flowers. Field bindweed is native to the Mediterranean region and was first recorded in the United States in 1739. In Montana, it was first collected in 1891 from Missoula County near the University of Montana, and by 2001 it had been reported from all Montana Counties except Richland and Fallon (http://invader.dbs.umt.edu). Propagules of field bindweed migrate as contaminants of crop seed and hay, when attached to farming equipment, and they have been intentionally introduced as ornamental or medicinal plants. Once established, field bindweed will persist after most control applications. However, the leaves are not shade tolerant and competitive plants will suppress field bindweed and reduce its seed production. On croplands, frequent cultivations will reduce root reserves; however infestations can increase under no-till or reduced till management.
    [Show full text]
  • Status of Plant Species of Special Concern in US Forest Service
    Status of Plant Species of Special Concern In US Forest Service Region 4 In Wyoming Report prepared for the US Forest Service By Walter Fertig Wyoming Natural Diversity Database University of Wyoming PO Box 3381 Laramie, WY 82071 20 January 2000 INTRODUCTION The US Forest Service is directed by the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and internal policy (through the Forest Service Manual) to manage for listed and candidate Threatened and Endangered plant species on lands under its jurisdiction. The Intermountain Region of the Forest Service (USFS Region 4) has developed a Sensitive species policy to address the management needs of rare plants that might qualify for listing under the ESA (Joslin 1994). The objective of this policy is to prevent Forest Service actions from contributing to the further endangerment of Sensitive species and their subsequent listing under the ESA. In addition, the Forest Service is required to manage for other rare species and biological diversity under provisions of the National Forest Management Act. The current Sensitive plant species list for Region 4 (covering Ashley, Bridger-Teton, Caribou, Targhee, and Wasatch-Cache National Forests and Flaming Gorge National Recreation Area in Wyoming) was last revised in 1994 (Joslin 1994). Field studies by botanists with the Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Herbarium, Wyoming Natural Diversity Database (WYNDD), and private consulting firms since 1994 have shown that several currently listed species may no longer warrant Sensitive designation, while some new species should be considered for listing. Region 4 is currently reviewing its Sensitive plant list and criteria for listing. This report has been prepared to provide baseline information on the statewide distribution and abundance of 127 plants listed as “species of special concern” by WYNDD (Table 1) (Fertig and Beauvais 1999).
    [Show full text]
  • New DNA Markers Reveal Presence of Aphthona Species (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae) Believed to Have Failed to Establish After Release Into Leafy Spurge
    Biological Control 49 (2009) 1–5 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Biological Control journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ybcon New DNA markers reveal presence of Aphthona species (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae) believed to have failed to establish after release into leafy spurge R. Roehrdanz a,*, D. Olson b,1, G. Fauske b, R. Bourchier c, A. Cortilet d, S. Sears a a Biosciences Research Laboratory, Red River Valley Agricultural Research Center, Agricultural Research Service, US Department of Agriculture, 1605 Albrecht Blvd, Fargo, ND 58105, United States b Department of Entomology, North Dakota State University, Fargo, ND, United States c Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Lethbridge, AB, Canada d Agricultural Resources Management and Development Division - Weed Integrated Pest Management Unit, Minnesota Department of Agriculture, St. Paul, MN, United States article info abstract Article history: Six species of Aphthona flea beetles from Europe have been introduced in North America for the purpose Received 28 September 2007 of controlling a noxious weed, leafy spurge (Euphorbia esula). In the years following the releases, five of Accepted 10 December 2008 the species have been recorded as being established at various locations. There is no evidence that the Available online 31 December 2008 sixth species ever became established. A molecular marker key that can identify the DNA of the five established species is described. The key relies on restriction site differences found in PCR amplicons Keywords: of a portion of the mitochondrial cytochrome oxidase I gene. Three restriction enzymes are required to Flea beetles separate the immature specimens which are not visually separable. Adults which can be quickly sepa- Leafy spurge rated into the two black species and three brown species require only two restriction enzymes to resolve Euphorbia esula Aphthona the species.
    [Show full text]
  • Additions, Deletions and Corrections to An
    Bulletin of the Irish Biogeographical Society No. 36 (2012) ADDITIONS, DELETIONS AND CORRECTIONS TO AN ANNOTATED CHECKLIST OF THE IRISH BUTTERFLIES AND MOTHS (LEPIDOPTERA) WITH A CONCISE CHECKLIST OF IRISH SPECIES AND ELACHISTA BIATOMELLA (STAINTON, 1848) NEW TO IRELAND K. G. M. Bond1 and J. P. O’Connor2 1Department of Zoology and Animal Ecology, School of BEES, University College Cork, Distillery Fields, North Mall, Cork, Ireland. e-mail: <[email protected]> 2Emeritus Entomologist, National Museum of Ireland, Kildare Street, Dublin 2, Ireland. Abstract Additions, deletions and corrections are made to the Irish checklist of butterflies and moths (Lepidoptera). Elachista biatomella (Stainton, 1848) is added to the Irish list. The total number of confirmed Irish species of Lepidoptera now stands at 1480. Key words: Lepidoptera, additions, deletions, corrections, Irish list, Elachista biatomella Introduction Bond, Nash and O’Connor (2006) provided a checklist of the Irish Lepidoptera. Since its publication, many new discoveries have been made and are reported here. In addition, several deletions have been made. A concise and updated checklist is provided. The following abbreviations are used in the text: BM(NH) – The Natural History Museum, London; NMINH – National Museum of Ireland, Natural History, Dublin. The total number of confirmed Irish species now stands at 1480, an addition of 68 since Bond et al. (2006). Taxonomic arrangement As a result of recent systematic research, it has been necessary to replace the arrangement familiar to British and Irish Lepidopterists by the Fauna Europaea [FE] system used by Karsholt 60 Bulletin of the Irish Biogeographical Society No. 36 (2012) and Razowski, which is widely used in continental Europe.
    [Show full text]