DOCSLIB.ORG

Biotic Inventory and Analysis of the Kettle Moraine State Forest a Baseline Inventory and Analysis of Natural Communities, Rare Plants, and Animals

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Biotic Inventory and Analysis of the Kettle Moraine State Forest a Baseline Inventory and Analysis of Natural Communities, Rare Plants, and Animals Biotic Inventory and Analysis of the Kettle Moraine State Forest A Baseline Inventory and Analysis of Natural Communities, Rare Plants, and Animals June 2010 Natural Heritage Inventory Program Bureau of Endangered Resources Department of Natural Resources P.O. Box 7921 PUBL ER-821 2010 Kettle Moraine State Forest - 1 - Cover Photos (Clockwise from top left): Oak Woodland at Kettle Moraine Oak Opening SNA. Photo by Drew Feldkirchner, WDNR; prairie milkweed (Asclepias sullivantii). Photo by Ryan O’Connor, WDNR; Ephemeral Pond on the KMSF. Photo by Ryan O’Connor, WDNR; Northern Ribbon Snake (Thamnophis sauritus). Ohio DNR. Copies of this report can be obtained by writing to the Bureau of Endangered Resources at the address on the front cover. This publication is available in alternative format (large print, Braille, audio tape, etc) upon request. Please call (608-266-7012) for more information. The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources provides equal opportunity in its employment, programs, services, and functions under an Affirmative Action Plan. If you have any questions, please write to Equal Opportunity Office, Department of Interior, Washington, D.C. 20240. Kettle Moraine State Forest - 2 - Biotic Inventory and Analysis of the Kettle Moraine State Forest A Baseline Inventory and Analysis of Natural Communities, Rare Plants, and Animals Primary Authors: Terrell Hyde, Christina Isenring, Ryan O’Connor, Amy Staffen, Richard Staffen Natural Heritage Inventory Program Bureau of Endangered Resources Department of Natural Resources P.O. Box 7921 Madison, WI 53707-7921 - 3 - Biotic Inventory and Analysis Acknowledgments We extend our appreciation to Jerry Leiterman, Kettle Moraine State Forest – Northern Unit Superintendent and Paul Sandgren, Kettle Moraine State Forest – Southern Unit Superintendent; Terry Jensen, Pike Lake Unit Property Supervisor, Ed Muzik, Lapham Peak Unit Property Manager, and Tom Isaac, Loew Lake Unit Property Manager; Dale Katsma, Area Wildlife Supervisor; Tim Beyer, KMSF- NU Forester and Mike Sieger, KMSF-SU Forester; Jackie Scharfenberg, KMSF-NU Naturalist and Ron Kurowski, KMSF-SU Naturalist; Brian Glenzinski and Dan Weidert, Wildlife Biologists; and, Chuck Gatling, Wildlife Technician. We also thank those individuals who reviewed this document and provided valuable input. Funding was provided by the Endangered Resources Fund, the Division of Lands, and the Division of Forestry. Primary Authors: Terrell Hyde, Christina Isenring, Ryan O’Connor, Amy Staffen, Richard Staffen Contributors: This project would not have been possible without the efforts and expertise of many people, including the following: Craig Anderson – botany, rare plants Jeff Baughman – birds Richard Bautz – mammals Matthew Berg – mussels John Bielefeldt – birds Julie Bleser – data management, graphics Susan Borkin – terrestrial invertebrates Owen Boyle – community ecology, report editing Gary Casper – herpetology and fishes Eric Epstein – community ecology, botany, birds Randy Hoffman – community ecology, botany, ornithology Terrell Hyde – zoology, data processing, GIS Christina Isenring – community ecology, botany, data processing, planning Katharine Lund – report editing Ryan O’Connor – botany, community ecology, data processing Kurt Schmude – aquatic invertebrates Thomas Slawski – rare fish William Smith – zoology, planning, aquatic invertebrates Amy Staffen – data processing Rich Staffen – zoology, planning, data processing, birds, forest raptors Andrea Szymczak – birds Paul White – bats Kettle Moraine State Forest - 4 - Table of Contents Table of Contents .................................................................................................................... 5 Executive Summary ................................................................................................................ 8 Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 14 Project Purpose and Objectives .................................................................................. 14 Overview of Methods ................................................................................................. 16 Background on Previous Efforts ................................................................................. 18 Special Management Designations ............................................................................. 20 Regional Ecological Context ................................................................................................ 22 Southeast Glacial Plains Ecological Landscape ......................................................... 22 Regional Biodiversity Needs and Opportunities ......................................................... 23 Rare Species of the Southeast Glacial Plains Ecological Landscape ......................... 24 Description of the Study Area .............................................................................................. 25 Location and Size ........................................................................................................ 25 Ecoregion .................................................................................................................... 25 Physical Environment ................................................................................................. 28 Vegetation ................................................................................................................... 29 Natural Communities of the Study Area ..................................................................... 36 Rare Vascular Plants of the Study Area ...................................................................... 37 Rare Animals of the Study Area ................................................................................. 40 Threats to the Biodiversity of the KMSF ............................................................................ 45 Management Considerations and Opportunities for Biodiversity Conservation for the Kettle Moraine State Forest ................................................................................................. 50 Landscape Level Priorities .......................................................................................... 50 Community Level Priorities and Restoration Opportunities ...................................... 52 Wisconsin’s Statewide Forest Strategy ....................................................................... 57 Management Opportunities for Rare Species ............................................................. 58 Primary Sites: Significance and Summaries ...................................................................... 64 - 5 - Biotic Inventory and Analysis Future Inventory, Monitoring and Research Needs .......................................................... 68 Glossary ................................................................................................................................. 69 Species List ............................................................................................................................ 71 References .............................................................................................................................. 75 Additional Resources ............................................................................................................ 81 Appendices A. Natural Heritage Inventory Methods Overview B. Map of Southeast Glacial Plains Ecological Landscape Conservation Opportunity Areas C. Summary Descriptions for Species and Natural Communities Documented on the Kettle Moraine State Forest D. Wisconsin Natural Heritage Working List Explanation E. Kettle Moraine State Forest Species of Greatest Conservation Need List of Tables Table 1. Field surveys conducted during 2005-2009 .................................................................................. 17 Table 2. Major Natural Community Management Opportunities in the Southeast Glacial Plains Ecological Landscape (EMPT 2007 and WDNR 2006b) ........................................................................... 23 Table 3. Listing Status for rare species in the Southeast Glacial Plains Ecological Landscape as of November 2009 (WDNR In Prep.) ............................................................................................................. 24 Table 4. NHI natural community types, with last observed dates, documented within the study area.. ..... 36 Table 5. Rare plants documented within the study area........................................................ ......................39 Table 6. Rare animals documented within the study area............................................................................41 Table 7. Known widespread invasive species on the KMSF. ..................................................................... 47 Table 8. New or not-widespread invasive species on the KMSF. .............................................................. 48 Table 9. Invasive species that are within the area, but not currently known from the KMSF. ................... 48 Table 10. Rare plant species associated with Calcareous Fens and Wet-mesic Prairies............................. 59 Table 11. Bird Species of Conservation Concern found in grassland habitats in the Southern Unit. .........60 Table 12. Forest Interior Breeding Birds of the KMSF...............................................................................63 List of
Load more

Recommended publications
  • A Linguistic Study: “Soda” and “Pop” in Wisconsin and Minnesota
    A Linguistic Study: “Soda” and “Pop” in Wisconsin and Minnesota A Linguistic Study: “Soda” and “Pop” in Wisconsin and Minnesota Heidi Sleep and Katie Thiel Undergraduate Students, Technical Communication Keywords: Linguistics, Pop, Soda, Isogloss, Coke Abstract The following linguistic research study was performed to discover language patterns in association with the terms “pop” and “soda.” Research was conducted through guided conversation with the subjects. Findings revealed that much of the research conducted in the past coincides with the findings we have tabulated with this project. Research confirmed that the information in the 2002 isogloss developed by Campbell and Plumb was accurate. There has not been a significant shift in the isogloss since 2002, and findings suggest that there may be relevant data for future studies regarding the use of brand specific names being used in place of the terms “pop” and “soda.” Introduction The purpose of this study was to determine the use of the terms “pop” and “soda” and develop an isogloss1 based on where the interviewed subjects were originally from. Previous linguistic studies have shown that the use of the terms “pop” and “soda,” in reference to soft drinks, varies tremendously in the upper Midwest, especially as one travels from southeastern Wisconsin to the northwest and into Minnesota. According to the map in Appendix A, the term “pop” is used more frequently in Minnesota, but in Wisconsin, the usage of the term seems to be more prevalent in the western side of the state, whereas the usage of the term “soda” remains dominant in the eastern side of Wisconsin.
    [Show full text]
  • Bwsr Featured Plant Minnesota's Milkweeds
    BWSR FEATURED PLANT MINNESOTA’S MILKWEEDS Publication Date: 6‐1‐13 Milkweeds play a key role in wetlands, prairies, savannas and forests in Minnesota. The genus (Asclepias) is particularly important as a nectar and larval food source for a wide range of insect species. The best known example is the monarch butterfly whose larvae appear to feed only on milkweeds. Milkweeds have a unique pollination mechanism where pollen grains are enclosed in waxy sacs called “pollina” that attach to the legs of butterflies, moths, bees, ants and wasps and are then deposited in another milkweed flower if they step into a specialized anther opening. Most milkweeds are toxic to vertebrate herbivores due to cardiac glycosides that are in their plant cells. In addition to supporting insect populations, Butterfly Milkweed milkweeds also provide other landscape benefits due to their extensive root systems (sometimes deep roots, sometimes horizontal) that Photos by Dave Hanson decrease compaction, add organic material to the soil and improve unless otherwise stated water infiltration. Common milkweed is probably the best known milkweed species as it is found in all counties of the state and was included on some county prohibited noxious weed lists. The species was considered a common agricultural weed as its extensive root network made it difficult to remove from agricultural fields with cultivators. Now the species is effectively removed from genetically modified corn and soybean fields that are sprayed with herbicide. This practice has contributed to significant declines in milkweed species, with an estimated 58% decline in the Midwest between 1999 and 2010 and a corresponding 81% decline in monarch butterfly production (Pleasants & Oberhauser, 2013).
    [Show full text]
  • Checklist of the Coleoptera of New Brunswick, Canada
    A peer-reviewed open-access journal ZooKeys 573: 387–512 (2016)Checklist of the Coleoptera of New Brunswick, Canada 387 doi: 10.3897/zookeys.573.8022 CHECKLIST http://zookeys.pensoft.net Launched to accelerate biodiversity research Checklist of the Coleoptera of New Brunswick, Canada Reginald P. Webster1 1 24 Mill Stream Drive, Charters Settlement, NB, Canada E3C 1X1 Corresponding author: Reginald P. Webster ([email protected]) Academic editor: P. Bouchard | Received 3 February 2016 | Accepted 29 February 2016 | Published 24 March 2016 http://zoobank.org/34473062-17C2-4122-8109-3F4D47BB5699 Citation: Webster RP (2016) Checklist of the Coleoptera of New Brunswick, Canada. In: Webster RP, Bouchard P, Klimaszewski J (Eds) The Coleoptera of New Brunswick and Canada: providing baseline biodiversity and natural history data. ZooKeys 573: 387–512. doi: 10.3897/zookeys.573.8022 Abstract All 3,062 species of Coleoptera from 92 families known to occur in New Brunswick, Canada, are re- corded, along with their author(s) and year of publication using the most recent classification framework. Adventive and Holarctic species are indicated. There are 366 adventive species in the province, 12.0% of the total fauna. Keywords Checklist, Coleoptera, New Brunswick, Canada Introduction The first checklist of the beetles of Canada by Bousquet (1991) listed 1,365 species from the province of New Brunswick, Canada. Since that publication, many species have been added to the faunal list of the province, primarily from increased collection efforts and
    [Show full text]
  • Bioindicators of Water Quality
    Ephemeroptera | Mayflies ACE-11 Coleoptera | Beetles Using this guide Coleoptera with the data sheets Bioindicators of Water Quality Beetles Quick–Reference Guide Coleoptera (Beetles) Authors: Julie Speelman and Natalie Carroll | Photographer (unless otherwise noted): Julie Speelman | Design and Layout: Purdue Agricultural Communication Family Tolerance Number Family Tolerance 4 3 7 Value Found Score 5 5 5 Dryopidae 5 0 0 Dryopidae (larvae) Baetidae Baetiscidae Dytiscidae Dytiscidae (adult) Caenidae Dytiscidae 5 2 10 This publication shows aquatic insects that can be used as Long-toed Water Beetle Predaceous Diving Beetle Predaceous Diving Beetle Small Minnow Mayfly Armored Mayfly Small Square-gill Mayfly Biotic Water Quality Degree of Organic Elmidae 5 0 0 bioindicators of water quality in Indiana waterways. Bioindicators 5 are biological systems that are sensitive to environmental changes Index Rating Pollution Gyrinidae 4 0 0 organic pollution Dryopidae and, therefore, can indicate when pollution is present in the water. 0.00–3.75 excellent Long-toed Water Beetle Haliplidae 7 0 0 unlikely A tolerance score is included for each insect in this publication. Hydrophilidae 5 3 15 slight organic The tolerance score, ranging from 0–10, represents the insect’s 3.76–4.25 very good Psephenidae 4 0 0 sensitivity to pollution and can be used to estimate the quality of pollution possible the water in which the insect was found. Insects with a score of some organic Order Total 5 25 4.26–5.00 good 0 are intolerant to pollution, meaning they cannot tolerate any pollution probable water pollution, while insects with a score of 10 are very tolerant of fairly substantial 5 5 4 1 polluted water.
    [Show full text]
  • Inventory of Aquatic and Semiaquatic Coleoptera from the Grand Portage Indian Reservation, Cook County, Minnesota
    The Great Lakes Entomologist Volume 46 Numbers 1 & 2 - Spring/Summer 2013 Numbers Article 7 1 & 2 - Spring/Summer 2013 April 2013 Inventory of Aquatic and Semiaquatic Coleoptera from the Grand Portage Indian Reservation, Cook County, Minnesota David B. MacLean Youngstown State University Follow this and additional works at: https://scholar.valpo.edu/tgle Part of the Entomology Commons Recommended Citation MacLean, David B. 2013. "Inventory of Aquatic and Semiaquatic Coleoptera from the Grand Portage Indian Reservation, Cook County, Minnesota," The Great Lakes Entomologist, vol 46 (1) Available at: https://scholar.valpo.edu/tgle/vol46/iss1/7 This Peer-Review Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Department of Biology at ValpoScholar. It has been accepted for inclusion in The Great Lakes Entomologist by an authorized administrator of ValpoScholar. For more information, please contact a ValpoScholar staff member at [email protected]. MacLean: Inventory of Aquatic and Semiaquatic Coleoptera from the Grand Po 104 THE GREAT LAKES ENTOMOLOGIST Vol. 46, Nos. 1 - 2 Inventory of Aquatic and Semiaquatic Coleoptera from the Grand Portage Indian Reservation, Cook County, Minnesota David B. MacLean1 Abstract Collections of aquatic invertebrates from the Grand Portage Indian Res- ervation (Cook County, Minnesota) during 2001 – 2012 resulted in 9 families, 43 genera and 112 species of aquatic and semiaquatic Coleoptera. The Dytisci- dae had the most species (53), followed by Hydrophilidae (20), Gyrinidae (14), Haliplidae (8), Chrysomelidae (7), Elmidae (3) and Curculionidae (5). The families Helodidae and Heteroceridae were each represented by a single spe- cies. Seventy seven percent of species were considered rare or uncommon (1 - 10 records), twenty percent common (11 - 100 records) and only three percent abundant (more than 100 records).
    [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]
  • Heteroptera: Coreidae: Coreinae: Leptoscelini)
    Brailovsky: A Revision of the Genus Amblyomia 475 A REVISION OF THE GENUS AMBLYOMIA STÅL (HETEROPTERA: COREIDAE: COREINAE: LEPTOSCELINI) HARRY BRAILOVSKY Instituto de Biología, UNAM, Departamento de Zoología, Apdo Postal 70153 México 04510 D.F. México ABSTRACT The genus Amblyomia Stål is revised and two new species, A. foreroi and A. prome- ceops from Colombia, are described. New host plant and distributional records of A. bifasciata Stål are given; habitus illustrations and drawings of male and female gen- italia are included as well as a key to the known species. The group feeds on bromeli- ads. Key Words: Insecta, Heteroptera, Coreidae, Leptoscelini, Amblyomia, Bromeliaceae RESUMEN El género Amblyomia Stål es revisado y dos nuevas especies, A. foreroi y A. prome- ceops, recolectadas en Colombia, son descritas. Plantas hospederas y nuevas local- idades para A. bifasciata Stål son incluidas; se ofrece una clave para la separación de las especies conocidas, las cuales son ilustradas incluyendo los genitales de ambos sexos. Las preferencias tróficas del grupo están orientadas hacia bromelias. Palabras clave: Insecta, Heteroptera, Coreidae, Leptoscelini, Amblyomia, Bromeli- aceae The neotropical genus Amblyomia Stål was previously known from a single Mexi- can species, A. bifasciata Stål 1870. In the present paper the genus is redefined to in- clude two new species collected in Colombia. This genus apparently is restricted to feeding on members of the Bromeliaceae, and specimens were collected on the heart of Ananas comosus and Aechmea bracteata.
    [Show full text]
  • Epidemiology of Canine Blastomycosis in Wisconsin
    EPIDEMIOLOGY OF CANINE BLASTOMYCOSIS IN WISCONSIN by John R. Archer A Thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree MASTER OF SCIENCE College of Natural Resources . UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN Stevens Point, Wisconsin 1985 APPROVED BY THE GRADUATE COMMITTEE OF: Dr. Daniel 0. Trainer, Committee Chairman Dean, College of Natural Resources Dr. Aga Razv i Professor of Soils Dr. Robert Simpson Professor of Biology i ABSTRACT An epidemiologic study was designed to investigate the increasing number of canine blastomycosis cases being reported in Wisconsin. From January 1980 through July 1982, 200 cases of canine blastomycosis from 39 Wisconsin counties were examined to assess epidemiologic and environmental aspects of this disease. Based on a survey of 176 dog owners, principal disease characteristics for canine blastomycosis were anorexia, lethargy, shortness of breath, chronic cough, and weight loss. High incidence areas of canine blastomycosis occurred in the southeast, central, northwest, north central and northeast regions of Wisconsin. The central and northeast regions are new enzootic areas defined in this study. Sporting breeds accounted for the largest percentage of cases among the various breeds of dogs in Wisconsin. The majority of cases occurred among dogs three years of age and under. There did not appear to be a sexual predilection of dogs with blastomycosis in this study. Canine blastomycosis cases occurred from late spring through late fall. Enzootic areas, except for the southeast region of Wisconsin, occurred in sandy, acid soils. Results of this study suggest a possible association of enzootic areas with waterways, especially impoundments. Serum sampling resulted in the identification of a positive serologic reactor to blastomycosis in an adult timber wolf (Canis lupis).
    [Show full text]
  • Research Report110
    ~ ~ WISCONSIN DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES A Survey of Rare and Endangered Mayflies of Selected RESEARCH Rivers of Wisconsin by Richard A. Lillie REPORT110 Bureau of Research, Monona December 1995 ~ Abstract The mayfly fauna of 25 rivers and streams in Wisconsin were surveyed during 1991-93 to document the temporal and spatial occurrence patterns of two state endangered mayflies, Acantha­ metropus pecatonica and Anepeorus simplex. Both species are candidates under review for addition to the federal List of Endang­ ered and Threatened Wildlife. Based on previous records of occur­ rence in Wisconsin, sampling was conducted during the period May-July using a combination of sampling methods, including dredges, air-lift pumps, kick-nets, and hand-picking of substrates. No specimens of Anepeorus simplex were collected. Three specimens (nymphs or larvae) of Acanthametropus pecatonica were found in the Black River, one nymph was collected from the lower Wisconsin River, and a partial exuviae was collected from the Chippewa River. Homoeoneuria ammophila was recorded from Wisconsin waters for the first time from the Black River and Sugar River. New site distribution records for the following Wiscon­ sin special concern species include: Macdunnoa persimplex, Metretopus borealis, Paracloeodes minutus, Parameletus chelifer, Pentagenia vittigera, Cercobrachys sp., and Pseudiron centra/is. Collection of many of the aforementioned species from large rivers appears to be dependent upon sampling sand-bottomed substrates at frequent intervals, as several species were relatively abundant during only very short time spans. Most species were associated with sand substrates in water < 2 m deep. Acantha­ metropus pecatonica and Anepeorus simplex should continue to be listed as endangered for state purposes and receive a biological rarity ranking of critically imperiled (S1 ranking), and both species should be considered as candidates proposed for listing as endangered or threatened as defined by the Endangered Species Act.
    [Show full text]
  • Newsletter of the Biological Survey of Canada
    Newsletter of the Biological Survey of Canada Vol. 40(1) Summer 2021 The Newsletter of the BSC is published twice a year by the In this issue Biological Survey of Canada, an incorporated not-for-profit From the editor’s desk............2 group devoted to promoting biodiversity science in Canada. Membership..........................3 President’s report...................4 BSC Facebook & Twitter...........5 Reminder: 2021 AGM Contributing to the BSC The Annual General Meeting will be held on June 23, 2021 Newsletter............................5 Reminder: 2021 AGM..............6 Request for specimens: ........6 Feature Articles: Student Corner 1. City Nature Challenge Bioblitz Shawn Abraham: New Student 2021-The view from 53.5 °N, Liaison for the BSC..........................7 by Greg Pohl......................14 Mayflies (mainlyHexagenia sp., Ephemeroptera: Ephemeridae): an 2. Arthropod Survey at Fort Ellice, MB important food source for adult by Robert E. Wrigley & colleagues walleye in NW Ontario lakes, by A. ................................................18 Ricker-Held & D.Beresford................8 Project Updates New book on Staphylinids published Student Corner by J. Klimaszewski & colleagues......11 New Student Liaison: Assessment of Chironomidae (Dip- Shawn Abraham .............................7 tera) of Far Northern Ontario by A. Namayandeh & D. Beresford.......11 Mayflies (mainlyHexagenia sp., Ephemerop- New Project tera: Ephemeridae): an important food source Help GloWorm document the distribu- for adult walleye in NW Ontario lakes, tion & status of native earthworms in by A. Ricker-Held & D.Beresford................8 Canada, by H.Proctor & colleagues...12 Feature Articles 1. City Nature Challenge Bioblitz Tales from the Field: Take me to the River, by Todd Lawton ............................26 2021-The view from 53.5 °N, by Greg Pohl..............................14 2.
    [Show full text]
  • Old Woman Creek National Estuarine Research Reserve Management Plan 2011-2016
    Old Woman Creek National Estuarine Research Reserve Management Plan 2011-2016 April 1981 Revised, May 1982 2nd revision, April 1983 3rd revision, December 1999 4th revision, May 2011 Prepared for U.S. Department of Commerce Ohio Department of Natural Resources National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Division of Wildlife Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management 2045 Morse Road, Bldg. G Estuarine Reserves Division Columbus, Ohio 1305 East West Highway 43229-6693 Silver Spring, MD 20910 This management plan has been developed in accordance with NOAA regulations, including all provisions for public involvement. It is consistent with the congressional intent of Section 315 of the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as amended, and the provisions of the Ohio Coastal Management Program. OWC NERR Management Plan, 2011 - 2016 Acknowledgements This management plan was prepared by the staff and Advisory Council of the Old Woman Creek National Estuarine Research Reserve (OWC NERR), in collaboration with the Ohio Department of Natural Resources-Division of Wildlife. Participants in the planning process included: Manager, Frank Lopez; Research Coordinator, Dr. David Klarer; Coastal Training Program Coordinator, Heather Elmer; Education Coordinator, Ann Keefe; Education Specialist Phoebe Van Zoest; and Office Assistant, Gloria Pasterak. Other Reserve staff including Dick Boyer and Marje Bernhardt contributed their expertise to numerous planning meetings. The Reserve is grateful for the input and recommendations provided by members of the Old Woman Creek NERR Advisory Council. The Reserve is appreciative of the review, guidance, and council of Division of Wildlife Executive Administrator Dave Scott and the mapping expertise of Keith Lott and the late Steve Barry.
    [Show full text]
  • Ecology of Two Tidal Marsh Insects, Trichocorixa Verticalis (Hemiptera) and Erythrodiplax Berenice (Odonata), in New Hampshire Larry Jim Kelts
    University of New Hampshire University of New Hampshire Scholars' Repository Doctoral Dissertations Student Scholarship Fall 1977 ECOLOGY OF TWO TIDAL MARSH INSECTS, TRICHOCORIXA VERTICALIS (HEMIPTERA) AND ERYTHRODIPLAX BERENICE (ODONATA), IN NEW HAMPSHIRE LARRY JIM KELTS Follow this and additional works at: https://scholars.unh.edu/dissertation Recommended Citation KELTS, LARRY JIM, "ECOLOGY OF TWO TIDAL MARSH INSECTS, TRICHOCORIXA VERTICALIS (HEMIPTERA) AND ERYTHRODIPLAX BERENICE (ODONATA), IN NEW HAMPSHIRE" (1977). Doctoral Dissertations. 1168. https://scholars.unh.edu/dissertation/1168 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Student Scholarship at University of New Hampshire Scholars' Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Doctoral Dissertations by an authorized administrator of University of New Hampshire Scholars' Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. INFORMATION TO USERS This material was produced from a microfilm copy of the original document. While the most advanced technological means to photograph and reproduce this document have been used, the quality is heavily dependent upon the quality of the original submitted. The following explanation of techniques is provided to help you understand markings or patterns which may appear on this reproduction. 1. The sign or "target" for pages apparently lacking from the document photographed is "Missing Page(s)". If it was possible to obtain the missing page(s) or section, they are spliced into the film along with edjacent pages. This may have necessitated cutting thru an image and duplicating adjacent pages to insure you complete continuity. 2. When an image on the film is obliterated with a large round black mark, it is an indication that the photographer suspected teat the copy may have moved during exposure and thus cause a blurred image.
    [Show full text]