DOCSLIB.ORG

This Document Is Made Available Electronically by the Minnesota Legislative Reference Library As Part of an Ongoing Digital Archiving Project

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
This Document Is Made Available Electronically by the Minnesota Legislative Reference Library As Part of an Ongoing Digital Archiving Project This document is made available electronically by the Minnesota Legislative Reference Library as part of an ongoing digital archiving project. http://www.leg.state.mn.us/lrl/lrl.asp Cover photography: Blanding’s turtle (Emys blandingii) hatchling, Camp Ripley Training Center, August 2018. Photography by Camp Ripley Envrionmental staff. Minnesota Army National Guard Camp Ripley Training Center and Arden Hills Army Training Site 2018 Conservation Program Report January 1 – December 31, 2018 Division of Ecological and Water Resources Minnesota Department of Natural Resources for the Minnesota Army National Guard MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES CAMP RIPLEY SERIES REPORT NO. 28 ©2019, State of Minnesota Contact Information: MNDNR Information Center 500 Lafayette Road Saint Paul, MN 55155-4040 (651) 296-6157 Toll Free 1-888-MINNDNR (646-6367) TYY (Hearing Impaired) (651) 296-5484 1-800-657-3929 www.dnr.state.mn.us This report should be cited as follows: Minnesota Department of Natural Resources and Minnesota Army National Guard. 2019. Minnesota Army National Guard, Camp Ripley Training Center and Arden Hills Army Training Site, 2018 Conservation Program Report, January 1 – December 31, 2018. Compiled by Katie Retka, Camp Ripley Series Report No. 28, Little Falls, MN, USA. 234 pp. Table of Contents Executive Summary .................................................................................................................................................... 1 Camp Ripley Training Center ...................................................................................................................................... 1 Arden Hills Army Training Site ................................................................................................................................... 2 Figure 1. Location of Camp Ripley Training Center and Arden Hills Army Training Site ............................................ 4 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................................... 5 Responsibilities .......................................................................................................................................................... 5 Partnerships ............................................................................................................................................................... 5 Program Areas............................................................................................................................................................ 6 Camp Ripley Training Center ...................................................................................................................................... 6 Cultural Resources ..................................................................................................................................................... 6 Program Overview ..................................................................................................................................................... 6 Field Survey ................................................................................................................................................................ 7 Partnerships ............................................................................................................................................................... 8 Submittals .................................................................................................................................................................. 8 American Indian Tribal Consultations ........................................................................................................................ 8 State Historic Preservation Office Visit ...................................................................................................................... 9 Secretary of Defense Environmental Awards – Cultural Resources .......................................................................... 9 Natural Resources .................................................................................................................................................... 10 Forestry .................................................................................................................................................................... 10 Reforestation ........................................................................................................................................................... 10 Timber Sales ............................................................................................................................................................. 11 Figure 2. Location of timber sales ............................................................................................................................ 12 Table 1. Auction timber sales ................................................................................................................................... 13 Table 2. Timber sales................................................................................................................................................ 14 Land Fund ................................................................................................................................................................. 15 Table 3. Land fund timber sales receipts ................................................................................................................. 16 Table 4. Scope of work for forest development ...................................................................................................... 20 Table 5. Land fund encumbrances ........................................................................................................................... 21 Fuelwood Permits .................................................................................................................................................... 21 Insects and Diseases ................................................................................................................................................ 22 Vegetation Management ......................................................................................................................................... 22 Prescribed Fire ......................................................................................................................................................... 22 Table 6. Hazard reduction burns .............................................................................................................................. 23 Page i Figure 3. Fire management units burned ................................................................................................................. 24 Table 7. Training enhancement burns ..................................................................................................................... 26 Invasive Species ....................................................................................................................................................... 26 Figure 4. Terrestrial invasive plant species .............................................................................................................. 28 Table 8. Invasive plant species ................................................................................................................................. 29 Figure 5. Buckthorn treatment locations ................................................................................................................. 31 Water Resources ...................................................................................................................................................... 32 Figure 6. Water resources ........................................................................................................................................ 33 Miller Lake ................................................................................................................................................................ 34 Mississippi River ....................................................................................................................................................... 34 Lake Alott ................................................................................................................................................................. 34 Fosdick Lake ............................................................................................................................................................. 34 Round Lake ............................................................................................................................................................... 34 Rapoon Lake ............................................................................................................................................................. 35 Ferrell Lake ............................................................................................................................................................... 35 Wildlife ..................................................................................................................................................................... 35 Species in Greatest Conservation Need ..................................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Male and Female Bees Show Large Differences in Floral Preference
    bioRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/432518; this version posted November 16, 2018. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made available under aCC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 International license. 1 Male and female bees show large differences in floral preference 2 3 Michael Roswell [email protected] 4 Graduate program in ecology and evolution, Rutgers University 5 14 College Farm Road, New Brunswick, NJ 08904 6 7 Jonathan Dushoff 8 Department of biology, McMaster University 9 1280 Main St. West, Hamilton, Ontario ON L8S 4K1 10 11 Rachael Winfree 12 Department of ecology, evolution, and natural resources, Rutgers University 13 14 College Farm Road, New Brunswick, NJ 08904 1 bioRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/432518; this version posted November 16, 2018. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made available under aCC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 International license. 14 Abstract 15 16 1. Intraspecific variation in foraging niche can drive food web dynamics and 17 ecosystem processes. Field studies and theoretical analysis of plant-pollinator 18 interaction networks typically focus on the partitioning of the floral community 19 between pollinator species, with little attention paid to intraspecific variation 20 among plants or foraging bees. In other systems, male and female animals 21 exhibit different, cascading, impacts on interaction partners.
    [Show full text]
  • Statement of Need and Reasonableness: August 10, 2012
    CADDISFLIES ONLY Notations Used E Endangered T Threatened SC Special Concern N None (location records maintained by DNR, in most cases) N (X) None, and probably extirpated from Minnesota (location records maintained by DNR, in most cases) -- None (location records not yet maintained by DNR) * Change in scientific name accompanies change in status CHANGE IN STATUS; STATUS SHEET PROVIDED Common Name Scientific Name Current Proposed Status Status A Species of Northern Caddisfly Anabolia ozburni -- SC * A Species of Northern Caddisfly Asynarchus rossi SC T A Species of Long Horned Caddisfly Ceraclea brevis SC N Vertrees's Ceraclean Caddisfly Ceraclea vertreesi SC N Headwaters Chilostigman Caddisfly Chilostigma itascae E T A Species of Caddisfly Goera stylata -- T A Species of Purse Casemaker Caddisfly Hydroptila novicola SC N A Species of Purse Casemaker Caddisfly Hydroptila quinola -- SC A Species of Purse Casemaker Caddisfly Hydroptila rono -- T A Species of Purse Casemaker Caddisfly Hydroptila waskesia -- E A Species of Northern Caddisfly Ironoquia punctatissima -- T A Species of Caddisfly Lepidostoma libum -- T A Species of Northern Caddisfly Limnephilus janus -- E A Species of Northern Caddisfly Limnephilus secludens -- E A Species of Purse Casemaker Caddisfly Ochrotrichia spinosa -- E A Species of Long Horned Caddisfly Oecetis ditissa -- T A Species of Purse Casemaker Caddisfly Oxyethira ecornuta SC T A Species of Netspinning Caddisfly Parapsyche apicalis -- T A Species of Tube Casemaker Caddisfly Polycentropus glacialis -- T A Species
    [Show full text]
  • Ants As Prey for the Endemic and Endangered Spanish Tiger Beetle Cephalota Dulcinea (Coleoptera: Carabidae) Carlo Polidori A*, Paula C
    Annales de la Société entomologique de France (N.S.), 2020 https://doi.org/10.1080/00379271.2020.1791252 Ants as prey for the endemic and endangered Spanish tiger beetle Cephalota dulcinea (Coleoptera: Carabidae) Carlo Polidori a*, Paula C. Rodríguez-Flores b,c & Mario García-París b aInstituto de Ciencias Ambientales (ICAM), Universidad de Castilla-La Mancha, Avenida Carlos III, S/n, 45071, Toledo, Spain; bDepartamento de Biodiversidad y Biología Evolutiva, Museo Nacional de Ciencias Naturales (MNCN-CSIC), Madrid, 28006, Spain; cCentre d’Estudis Avançats de Blanes (CEAB-CSIC), C. d’Accés Cala Sant Francesc, 14, 17300, Blanes, Spain (Accepté le 29 juin 2020) Summary. Among the insects inhabiting endorheic, temporary and highly saline small lakes of central Spain during dry periods, tiger beetles (Coleoptera: Carabidae: Cicindelinae) form particularly rich assemblages including unique endemic species. Cephalota dulcinea López, De la Rosa & Baena, 2006 is an endemic, regionally protected species that occurs only in saline marshes in Castilla-La Mancha (Central Spain). Here, we report that C. dulcinea suffers potential risks associated with counter-attacks by ants (Hymenoptera: Formicidae), while using them as prey at one of these marshes. Through mark–recapture methods, we estimated the population size of C. dulcinea at the study marsh as of 1352 individuals, with a sex ratio slightly biased towards males. Evident signs of ant defensive attack by the seed-harvesting ant Messor barbarus (Forel, 1905) were detected in 14% of marked individuals, sometimes with cut ant heads still grasped with their mandibles to the beetle body parts. Ant injuries have been more frequently recorded at the end of adult C.
    [Show full text]
  • Wild Species 2010 the GENERAL STATUS of SPECIES in CANADA
    Wild Species 2010 THE GENERAL STATUS OF SPECIES IN CANADA Canadian Endangered Species Conservation Council National General Status Working Group This report is a product from the collaboration of all provincial and territorial governments in Canada, and of the federal government. Canadian Endangered Species Conservation Council (CESCC). 2011. Wild Species 2010: The General Status of Species in Canada. National General Status Working Group: 302 pp. Available in French under title: Espèces sauvages 2010: La situation générale des espèces au Canada. ii Abstract Wild Species 2010 is the third report of the series after 2000 and 2005. The aim of the Wild Species series is to provide an overview on which species occur in Canada, in which provinces, territories or ocean regions they occur, and what is their status. Each species assessed in this report received a rank among the following categories: Extinct (0.2), Extirpated (0.1), At Risk (1), May Be At Risk (2), Sensitive (3), Secure (4), Undetermined (5), Not Assessed (6), Exotic (7) or Accidental (8). In the 2010 report, 11 950 species were assessed. Many taxonomic groups that were first assessed in the previous Wild Species reports were reassessed, such as vascular plants, freshwater mussels, odonates, butterflies, crayfishes, amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals. Other taxonomic groups are assessed for the first time in the Wild Species 2010 report, namely lichens, mosses, spiders, predaceous diving beetles, ground beetles (including the reassessment of tiger beetles), lady beetles, bumblebees, black flies, horse flies, mosquitoes, and some selected macromoths. The overall results of this report show that the majority of Canada’s wild species are ranked Secure.
    [Show full text]
  • Insects of Western North America 4. Survey of Selected Insect Taxa of Fort Sill, Comanche County, Oklahoma 2
    Insects of Western North America 4. Survey of Selected Insect Taxa of Fort Sill, Comanche County, Oklahoma 2. Dragonflies (Odonata), Stoneflies (Plecoptera) and selected Moths (Lepidoptera) Contributions of the C.P. Gillette Museum of Arthropod Diversity Colorado State University Survey of Selected Insect Taxa of Fort Sill, Comanche County, Oklahoma 2. Dragonflies (Odonata), Stoneflies (Plecoptera) and selected Moths (Lepidoptera) by Boris C. Kondratieff, Paul A. Opler, Matthew C. Garhart, and Jason P. Schmidt C.P. Gillette Museum of Arthropod Diversity Department of Bioagricultural Sciences and Pest Management Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado 80523 March 15, 2004 Contributions of the C.P. Gillette Museum of Arthropod Diversity Colorado State University Cover illustration (top to bottom): Widow Skimmer (Libellula luctuosa) [photo ©Robert Behrstock], Stonefly (Perlesta species) [photo © David H. Funk, White- lined Sphinx (Hyles lineata) [photo © Matthew C. Garhart] ISBN 1084-8819 This publication and others in the series may be ordered from the C.P. Gillette Museum of Arthropod Diversity, Department of Bioagricultural Sciences, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado 80523 Copyrighted 2004 Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY……………………………………………………………………………….…1 INTRODUCTION…………………………………………..…………………………………………….…3 OBJECTIVE………………………………………………………………………………………….………5 Site Descriptions………………………………………….. METHODS AND MATERIALS…………………………………………………………………………….5 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION………………………………………………………………………..…...11 Dragonflies………………………………………………………………………………….……..11
    [Show full text]
  • Biological Evaluation for US Trunk Highway 2 Passing Lane and Turn Lane Improvements
    Draft Biological Evaluation for US Trunk Highway 2 Passing Lane and Turn Lane Improvements Prepared by: Minnesota Department of Transportation Prepared for: US Forest Service, Chippewa National Forest Minnesota Department of Natural Resources May 2014 US Highwy 2 Passing Lane and Turn Lane Improvements Biological Evaluation This Biological Evaluation was prepared pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act, National Forest Management Act, and other applicable laws and regulations. For additional information, please contact the team leader for the US Trunk Highway 2 Passing Lane and Turn Lane Improvements Project. Ms. Christine Brown Chippewa National Forest Address: 200 Ash Avenue NW Cass Lake, MN 56633 Phone: (218) 335-8600 TTY: (218) 335-8632 FAX: (218)335-8637 Prepared by: ______________________________________ _______________ Antony Randazzo, HDR Engineering, Inc. Date Reviewed by: ______________________________________ _______________ Kirk W. Larson, U.S. Forest Service Date Chippewa National Forest Reviewed by: ______________________________________ _______________ Cory Mlodik, U.S. Forest Service Date Chippewa National Forest May 2014 Signature Page Page i US Highwy 2 Passing Lane and Turn Lane Improvements Biological Evaluation Table of Contents 1.0 Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 1-1 1.1 Purpose of this Report ..............................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • SPIDERS of WASHINGTON COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI Orrey P. Young Southern Field Crop Insect Management Laboratory USDA-ARS, P.O. Box
    Young, O . P., T. C . Lockley and G . B . Edwards . 1989 . Spiders of Washington County, Mississippi . J . Arachnol ., 17 :27-41 . SPIDERS OF WASHINGTON COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI Orrey P. Young Southern Field Crop Insect Management Laboratory USDA-ARS, P.O. Box 346 Stoneville, Mississippi 38776 USA Timothy C. Lockley Imported Fire Ant Station USDA-APHIS-PPQ 3505 25th Avenue Gulfport, Mississippi 39501 USA and G. B. Edwards Florida State Collection of Arthropods Division of Plant Industry Florida Dept. Agric. & Cons . Serv. P.O. Box 1269 Gainesville, Florida 32602 USA ABSTRACT Over a seven-year period, approximately 35,000 spiders representing 26 families, 133 genera, and 234 species were captured in Washington County, Mississippi, by pitfall, sweepnet, vacuum, bag, and hand. Specimens were collected in 10 different habitat types and in four vegetational strata . Old-field habitats yielded the most species (152) and residential lawns the fewest (14) . Considering all habitats sampled, the ground layer produced 111 species, the herbaceous strata 133, the shrub layer 49, and the tree strata 30 species . The sweepnet method of capture obtained 128 species, pitfall 95, hand 61, vacuum 53, and bagging 19 species. The largest number of species were obtained in spring and early summer (maximum of 125 in May), with the fewest in mid-winter (Jan . = 24) . Twenty-one species were considered abundant, 51 common, 67 uncommon, and 95 rare . Additions to the state list of Dorris (1972) number 102 species, for a new state total of 364 species . A comparison with the North American fauna and with other surveys indicates that Washington County is underrepresented both in cursorial forms active on the soil surface and web-spinning forms typical of undisturbed habitats .
    [Show full text]
  • The Maryland Entomologist
    THE MARYLAND ENTOMOLOGIST Insect and related-arthropod studies in the Mid-Atlantic region Volume 7, Number 2 September 2018 September 2018 The Maryland Entomologist Volume 7, Number 2 MARYLAND ENTOMOLOGICAL SOCIETY www.mdentsoc.org Executive Committee: President Frederick Paras Vice President Philip J. Kean Secretary Janet A. Lydon Treasurer Edgar A. Cohen, Jr. Historian (vacant) Journal Editor Eugene J. Scarpulla E-newsletter Editors Aditi Dubey The Maryland Entomological Society (MES) was founded in November 1971, to promote the science of entomology in all its sub-disciplines; to provide a common meeting venue for professional and amateur entomologists residing in Maryland, the District of Columbia, and nearby areas; to issue a periodical and other publications dealing with entomology; and to facilitate the exchange of ideas and information through its meetings and publications. The MES was incorporated in April 1982 and is a 501(c)(3) non-profit, scientific organization. The MES logo features an illustration of Euphydryas phaëton (Drury) (Lepidoptera: Nymphalidae), the Baltimore Checkerspot, with its generic name above and its specific epithet below (both in capital letters), all on a pale green field; all these are within a yellow ring double-bordered by red, bearing the message “● Maryland Entomological Society ● 1971 ●”. All of this is positioned above the Shield of the State of Maryland. In 1973, the Baltimore Checkerspot was named the official insect of the State of Maryland through the efforts of many MES members. Membership in the MES is open to all persons interested in the study of entomology. All members receive the annual journal, The Maryland Entomologist, and the monthly e-newsletter, Phaëton.
    [Show full text]
  • Working List of Prairie Restricted (Specialist) Insects in Wisconsin (11/26/2015)
    Working List of Prairie Restricted (Specialist) Insects in Wisconsin (11/26/2015) By Richard Henderson Research Ecologist, WI DNR Bureau of Science Services Summary This is a preliminary list of insects that are either well known, or likely, to be closely associated with Wisconsin’s original native prairie. These species are mostly dependent upon remnants of original prairie, or plantings/restorations of prairie where their hosts have been re-established (see discussion below), and thus are rarely found outside of these settings. The list also includes some species tied to native ecosystems that grade into prairie, such as savannas, sand barrens, fens, sedge meadow, and shallow marsh. The list is annotated with known host(s) of each insect, and the likelihood of its presence in the state (see key at end of list for specifics). This working list is a byproduct of a prairie invertebrate study I coordinated from1995-2005 that covered 6 Midwestern states and included 14 cooperators. The project surveyed insects on prairie remnants and investigated the effects of fire on those insects. It was funded in part by a series of grants from the US Fish and Wildlife Service. So far, the list has 475 species. However, this is a partial list at best, representing approximately only ¼ of the prairie-specialist insects likely present in the region (see discussion below). Significant input to this list is needed, as there are major taxa groups missing or greatly under represented. Such absence is not necessarily due to few or no prairie-specialists in those groups, but due more to lack of knowledge about life histories (at least published knowledge), unsettled taxonomy, and lack of taxonomic specialists currently working in those groups.
    [Show full text]
  • 2009 Land Management Plan
    2009 LAND MANAGEMENT PLAN (Updated Annual Harvest Plan -2014) Itasca County Land Department 1177 LaPrairie Avenue Grand Rapids, MN 55744-3322 218-327-2855 ● Fax: 218-327-4160 LAND MANAGEMENT PLAN Itasca County Land Department Acknowledgements This Land Management Plan was produced by Itasca County Land Department employees Garrett Ous, Dave Marshall, Michael Gibbons, Adam Olson, Bob Scheierl, Roger Clark, Kory Cease, Steve Aysta, Tim Stocker, Perry Leone, Wayne Perreault, Blair Carlson, Loren Eide, Bob Rother, Andrew Brown, Del Inkman, Darlene Brown and Meg Muller. Thank you to all the citizens for their sincere input and review during the public involvement process. And thank you to Itasca County Commissioners Lori Dowling, Karen Burthwick, Rusty Eichorn, Catherine McLynn and Mark Mandich for their vision and final approval of this document. Foreword This land management plan is designed for providing vision and direction to guide strategic and operational programs of the Land Department. That vision and direction reflects a long standing connection with local economic, educational and social programs. The Land Department is committed to ensuring that economic benefits and environmental integrity are available to both present and future generations. That will be accomplished through actively managing county land and forests for a balance of benefits to the citizens and for providing them with a sustained supply of quality products and services. The Department will apply quality forestland stewardship practices, employ modern technology and information, and partner with other forest organizations to provide citizens with those quality products and services. ________________________________ Garrett Ous September, 2009 Itasca County Land Commissioner 1177 LaPrairie Avenue Grand Rapids, MN 55744-3322 218-327-2855 ● Fax: 218-327-4160 ICLD - LMP Section i., page 1 of 3 Itasca County Land Department Land Management Plan Table of Contents i.
    [Show full text]
  • List of Insect Species Which May Be Tallgrass Prairie Specialists
    Conservation Biology Research Grants Program Division of Ecological Services © Minnesota Department of Natural Resources List of Insect Species which May Be Tallgrass Prairie Specialists Final Report to the USFWS Cooperating Agencies July 1, 1996 Catherine Reed Entomology Department 219 Hodson Hall University of Minnesota St. Paul MN 55108 phone 612-624-3423 e-mail [email protected] This study was funded in part by a grant from the USFWS and Cooperating Agencies. Table of Contents Summary.................................................................................................. 2 Introduction...............................................................................................2 Methods.....................................................................................................3 Results.....................................................................................................4 Discussion and Evaluation................................................................................................26 Recommendations....................................................................................29 References..............................................................................................33 Summary Approximately 728 insect and allied species and subspecies were considered to be possible prairie specialists based on any of the following criteria: defined as prairie specialists by authorities; required prairie plant species or genera as their adult or larval food; were obligate predators, parasites
    [Show full text]
  • Wild Bee Declines and Changes in Plant-Pollinator Networks Over 125 Years Revealed Through Museum Collections
    University of New Hampshire University of New Hampshire Scholars' Repository Master's Theses and Capstones Student Scholarship Spring 2018 WILD BEE DECLINES AND CHANGES IN PLANT-POLLINATOR NETWORKS OVER 125 YEARS REVEALED THROUGH MUSEUM COLLECTIONS Minna Mathiasson University of New Hampshire, Durham Follow this and additional works at: https://scholars.unh.edu/thesis Recommended Citation Mathiasson, Minna, "WILD BEE DECLINES AND CHANGES IN PLANT-POLLINATOR NETWORKS OVER 125 YEARS REVEALED THROUGH MUSEUM COLLECTIONS" (2018). Master's Theses and Capstones. 1192. https://scholars.unh.edu/thesis/1192 This Thesis 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 Master's Theses and Capstones by an authorized administrator of University of New Hampshire Scholars' Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. WILD BEE DECLINES AND CHANGES IN PLANT-POLLINATOR NETWORKS OVER 125 YEARS REVEALED THROUGH MUSEUM COLLECTIONS BY MINNA ELIZABETH MATHIASSON BS Botany, University of Maine, 2013 THESIS Submitted to the University of New Hampshire in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science in Biological Sciences: Integrative and Organismal Biology May, 2018 This thesis has been examined and approved in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science in Biological Sciences: Integrative and Organismal Biology by: Dr. Sandra M. Rehan, Assistant Professor of Biology Dr. Carrie Hall, Assistant Professor of Biology Dr. Janet Sullivan, Adjunct Associate Professor of Biology On April 18, 2018 Original approval signatures are on file with the University of New Hampshire Graduate School.
    [Show full text]