DOCSLIB.ORG

Big Stone National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Big Stone National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment Big Stone National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment The mission of the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service is working with others to conserve, protect, and enhance fish and wildlife and their habitats for the continuing benefit of the American people. The mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System is to administer a national network of lands and waters for the conservation, management and, where appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife and plant resources and their habitats within the United States for the benefit of present and future generations of Americans. Comprehensive Conservation Plans provide long‐term guidance for management decisions; set forth goals, objectives and strategies needed to accomplish refuge purposes; and, identify the Fish and Wildlife Service's best estimate of future needs. These plans detail program planning levels that are sometimes substantially above current budget allocations and, as such, are primarily for Service strategic planning and program prioritization purposes. The plans do not constitute a commitment for staffing increases, operational and maintenance increases, or funding for future land acquisition. Big Stone National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment Table of Contents Chapter 1: Purpose of and Need for Action .................................................................................................. 1 1.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 1 1.2 Purpose of and Need for the Proposed Action ............................................................................. 3 1.3 Decisions Needed .......................................................................................................................... 4 1.4 Overview of the Planning Process................................................................................................. 4 1.5 Refuge Management Guidance .................................................................................................... 5 1.6 Ecological Context and Landscape Goals ...................................................................................... 8 1.7 Brief History of Refuge Establishment and Acquisition .............................................................. 16 1.8 Refuge Vision and Goals .............................................................................................................. 17 1.9 Planning Issues ............................................................................................................................ 17 1.10 Other Issues Considered ............................................................................................................. 19 Chapter 2: Alternatives ............................................................................................................................... 21 2.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 21 2.2 Development of Alternatives ...................................................................................................... 22 2.3 Focal Species ............................................................................................................................... 22 2.4 Selecting the Preferred Alternative ............................................................................................ 22 2.5 Alternatives Considered but not Analyzed in Detail ................................................................... 22 2.6 Summary of Alternatives ............................................................................................................ 23 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Current Management .................................................................... 42 3.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 42 3.2 Physical Environment .................................................................................................................. 42 3.3 Biological Environment ............................................................................................................... 47 Big Stone NWR / Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment i 3.4 Socioeconomic Environment ...................................................................................................... 57 Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences ................................................................................................... 64 4.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 64 4.2 Effects Common to all Alternatives ............................................................................................ 64 4.3 Physical Environment .................................................................................................................. 67 4.4 Biological Environment ............................................................................................................... 70 4.5 Social Environment ..................................................................................................................... 81 Appendix A: Implementation of the Preferred Alternative (Draft CCP) ..................................................... 82 Appendix B: Glossary .................................................................................................................................. 96 Appendix C: Species Lists ............................................................................................................................ 99 Appendix D: Focal Species ........................................................................................................................ 119 Appendix E: Literature Cited ..................................................................................................................... 130 Appendix F: Priority Projects ..................................................................................................................... 135 Appendix G: Compliance Requirements ................................................................................................... 136 Appendix H: Mailing List ........................................................................................................................... 144 Appendix I: Draft Compatibility Determinations ..................................................................................... 146 Appendix J: Finding of Appropriateness of a Refuge Use ......................................................................... 208 Appendix K: List of Preparers and Contributors ....................................................................................... 223 Big Stone NWR / Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment ii Chapter 1: Purpose of and Need for Action Chapter 1: Purpose of and Need for Action In this chapter 1.1 Introduction 1.2 Purpose of and Need for the Proposed Action 1.3 Decisions Needed 1.4 Overview of the Planning Process 1.5 Refuge Management Guidance 1.6 Ecological Context and Landscape Goals 1.7 Brief History of Refuge Establishment and Acquisition 1.8 Refuge Vision and Goals 1.9 Planning Issues 1.10 Other Issues Considered 1.1 Introduction This document presents an Environmental Assessment (EA) that evaluates alternatives for, and expected consequences of, managing Big Stone National Wildlife Refuge (NWR, Refuge). Alternative 6 is the preferred action of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS, Service) and is presented in Appendix A: Implementation of the Preferred Alternative (Draft CCP) as the draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) for the Refuge. This chapter provides an introduction to the CCP process including the purpose and need for the planning effort. It also describes: the history of the Refuge; existing laws and policies that guide management; involvement of the Service, the State of Minnesota, the public, and others; and conservation issues and plans that affect the Refuge. The remaining chapters provide more specific information on the alternatives (Chapter 2: Alternatives), Refuge resources (Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Current Management), and consequences associated with each alternative considered (Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences). Appendix A provides objectives and rationale for the preferred alternative, which is also considered the Draft CCP. When finalized, the CCP will serve as a working guide for management programs and actions over the next 15 years. The Refuge is located along the Minnesota River in west‐central Minnesota near Odessa and Ortonville and includes portions of the river and its floodplain (figure 1‐1 Location of Big Stone NWR). Present Refuge management is focused on maintaining and restoring native Big Stone NWR / Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 1 Chapter 1: Purpose of and Need for Action prairie, wetland management, and providing a variety of wildlife‐dependent recreation. A unique visual and geological feature of the Refuge is the red, lichen covered granite outcrops for which the Refuge was named. Most of the granite outcrops are highly visible from the entrance to and along the Auto Tour Route
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Lepidoptera of North America 5
    Lepidoptera of North America 5. Contributions to the Knowledge of Southern West Virginia Lepidoptera Contributions of the C.P. Gillette Museum of Arthropod Diversity Colorado State University Lepidoptera of North America 5. Contributions to the Knowledge of Southern West Virginia Lepidoptera by Valerio Albu, 1411 E. Sweetbriar Drive Fresno, CA 93720 and Eric Metzler, 1241 Kildale Square North Columbus, OH 43229 April 30, 2004 Contributions of the C.P. Gillette Museum of Arthropod Diversity Colorado State University Cover illustration: Blueberry Sphinx (Paonias astylus (Drury)], an eastern endemic. Photo by Valeriu Albu. 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 and Pest Management Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80523 Abstract A list of 1531 species ofLepidoptera is presented, collected over 15 years (1988 to 2002), in eleven southern West Virginia counties. A variety of collecting methods was used, including netting, light attracting, light trapping and pheromone trapping. The specimens were identified by the currently available pictorial sources and determination keys. Many were also sent to specialists for confirmation or identification. The majority of the data was from Kanawha County, reflecting the area of more intensive sampling effort by the senior author. This imbalance of data between Kanawha County and other counties should even out with further sampling of the area. Key Words: Appalachian Mountains,
    [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]
  • Bioblitz! OK 2019 - Cherokee County Moth List
    BioBlitz! OK 2019 - Cherokee County Moth List Sort Family Species 00366 Tineidae Acrolophus mortipennella 00372 Tineidae Acrolophus plumifrontella Eastern Grass Tubeworm Moth 00373 Tineidae Acrolophus popeanella 00383 Tineidae Acrolophus texanella 00457 Psychidae Thyridopteryx ephemeraeformis Evergreen Bagworm Moth 01011 Oecophoridae Antaeotricha schlaegeri Schlaeger's Fruitworm 01014 Oecophoridae Antaeotricha leucillana 02047 Gelechiidae Keiferia lycopersicella Tomato Pinworm 02204 Gelechiidae Fascista cercerisella 02301.2 Gelechiidae Dichomeris isa 02401 Yponomeutidae Atteva aurea 02401 Yponomeutidae Atteva aurea Ailanthus Webworm Moth 02583 Sesiidae Synanthedon exitiosa 02691 Cossidae Fania nanus 02694 Cossidae Prionoxystus macmurtrei Little Carpenterworm Moth 02837 Tortricidae Olethreutes astrologana The Astrologer 03172 Tortricidae Epiblema strenuana 03202 Tortricidae Epiblema otiosana 03494 Tortricidae Cydia latiferreanus Filbert Worm 03573 Tortricidae Decodes basiplaganus 03632 Tortricidae Choristoneura fractittana 03635 Tortricidae Choristoneura rosaceana Oblique-banded Leafroller moth 03688 Tortricidae Clepsis peritana 03695 Tortricidae Sparganothis sulfureana Sparganothis Fruitworm Moth 03732 Tortricidae Platynota flavedana 03768.99 Tortricidae Cochylis ringsi 04639 Zygaenidae Pyromorpha dimidiata Orange-patched Smoky Moth 04644 Megalopygidae Lagoa crispata Black Waved Flannel Moth 04647 Megalopygidae Megalopyge opercularis 04665 Limacodidae Lithacodes fasciola 04677 Limacodidae Phobetron pithecium Hag Moth 04691 Limacodidae
    [Show full text]
  • Volume 28 Number 1
    Wisconsin Entomological Society Newsletter UPDATE ON THE REGAL FRITILLARY IN WISCONSIN by Ann Swengel Fritillary (Speyerta idalia) Thomson/Barneveld (Iowa), and Hwashe listedspectacularin WisconsinRegalas (Green),Waterfowl PineProductionIsland* Area(s)*(Columbia),(St. threatened in 1989 and endangered Croix). Only the three starred areas in 1997. My husband, Scott have records known from before the Swengel, and I have surveyed Regal 1990s, and the three largest known populations here each year since populations today do not have 1990. We also conducted a com- records from before the 1990s. It's panion study in five other states all but impossible to piece together & p (Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, the very long-term picture of the Regal Fritillary (Speyerta idalia) and North Dakota) from 1990 Regal's distribution and trend in Prioto: Ann swengel. 6/17/97 through 1999. In the latter three Wisconsin. If even half the effort in states, many large Regal populations the 1990s to find and publish Regal populations in these places. We occurred, allowing us to learn more records had occurred in earlier started surveys at Pine Island in quickly (or at all) many interesting decades, how many more 1993 but found no Regals until relationships to habitat character- populations would have been found 1995, when we recorded populations i s t i c s a n d then? We'll never at two sites. management that know. But we can In 1997, Scott was determined to would be very III use what we know search for Regals at Buena Vista. It d i f f i c u 1t t o ; now to help improve has the factors most strongly associ- demonstrate only the future outlook ated with higher Regal numbers in w i t h t h e f ew for this species in our multi-state study (very large populations in our state.
    [Show full text]
  • Moths of North Carolina - Early Draft 1
    Erebidae Grammia arge Arge Moth 10 9 8 n=0 • • • 7 High Mt. • • 6 • N 5 • u 4 • 3 • • • m 2 • b 1 • e 0 • r 5 25 15 5 25 15 5 25 15 5 25 15 5 25 15 5 25 15 • 15 5 25 15 5 25 15 5 25 15 5 25 15 5 25 15 5 25 NC counties: 21 • • Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec • o 10 • f 9 n=15 = Sighting or Collection 8 • 7 Low Mt. High counts of: • in NC since 2001 F 6 • l 5 4 - Bladen - 1994-06-03 = Not seen since 2001 4 • i 3 3 - Haywood - 2001-08-17 g 2 Status Rank h 1 3 - Alleghany - 2000-07-30 0 NC US NC Global t 5 25 15 5 25 15 5 25 15 5 25 15 5 25 15 5 25 15 15 5 25 15 5 25 15 5 25 15 5 25 15 5 25 15 5 25 D Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec a 10 10 9 9 t 8 n=6 8 n=16 e 7 Pd 7 CP s 6 6 5 5 4 4 3 3 2 2 1 1 0 0 5 25 15 5 25 15 5 25 15 5 25 15 5 25 15 5 25 15 5 25 15 5 25 15 5 25 15 5 25 15 5 25 15 5 25 15 15 5 25 15 5 25 15 5 25 15 5 25 15 5 25 15 5 25 15 5 25 15 5 25 15 5 25 15 5 25 15 5 25 15 5 25 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Three periods to each month: 1-10 / 11-20 / 21-31 FAMILY: Erebidae SUBFAMILY: Arctiinae TRIBE: Arctiini TAXONOMIC_COMMENTS: One of 36 species in this genus that occur in North America (Schmidt, 2009), nine of which have been recorded in North Carolina.
    [Show full text]
  • Moths of the Kingston Study Area
    Moths of the Kingston Study Area Last updated 30 July 2015 by Mike Burrell This checklist contains the 783 species known to have occurred within the Kingston Study. Major data sources include KFN bioblitzes, an earlier version created by Gary Ure (2013) and the Queen’s University Biological Station list by Kit Muma (2008). For information about contributing your sightings or to download the latest version of this checklist, please visit: http://kingstonfieldnaturalists.org/moths/moths.html Contents Superfamily: Tineoidea .................................................................................................................................................... 5 Family: Tineidae ........................................................................................................................................................... 5 Subfamily: Tineinae .................................................................................................................................................. 5 Family: Psychidae ......................................................................................................................................................... 5 Subfamily: Psychinae ................................................................................................................................................ 5 Superfamily: Gracillarioidea ............................................................................................................................................. 5 Family: Gracillariidae ...................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • 1 the RESTRUCTURING of ARTHROPOD TROPHIC RELATIONSHIPS in RESPONSE to PLANT INVASION by Adam B. Mitchell a Dissertation Submitt
    THE RESTRUCTURING OF ARTHROPOD TROPHIC RELATIONSHIPS IN RESPONSE TO PLANT INVASION by Adam B. Mitchell 1 A dissertation submitted to the Faculty of the University of Delaware in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Entomology and Wildlife Ecology Winter 2019 © Adam B. Mitchell All Rights Reserved THE RESTRUCTURING OF ARTHROPOD TROPHIC RELATIONSHIPS IN RESPONSE TO PLANT INVASION by Adam B. Mitchell Approved: ______________________________________________________ Jacob L. Bowman, Ph.D. Chair of the Department of Entomology and Wildlife Ecology Approved: ______________________________________________________ Mark W. Rieger, Ph.D. Dean of the College of Agriculture and Natural Resources Approved: ______________________________________________________ Douglas J. Doren, Ph.D. Interim Vice Provost for Graduate and Professional Education I certify that I have read this dissertation and that in my opinion it meets the academic and professional standard required by the University as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. Signed: ______________________________________________________ Douglas W. Tallamy, Ph.D. Professor in charge of dissertation I certify that I have read this dissertation and that in my opinion it meets the academic and professional standard required by the University as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. Signed: ______________________________________________________ Charles R. Bartlett, Ph.D. Member of dissertation committee I certify that I have read this dissertation and that in my opinion it meets the academic and professional standard required by the University as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. Signed: ______________________________________________________ Jeffery J. Buler, Ph.D. Member of dissertation committee I certify that I have read this dissertation and that in my opinion it meets the academic and professional standard required by the University as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.
    [Show full text]
  • Effects of Standard Management Practices On, and Faunistics of Native Prairies
    Conservation Biology Research Grants Program Division of Ecological Services Minnesota Department of Natural Resources EFFECTS OF STANDARD MANAGEMENT PRACTICES ON, AND FAUNISTICS OF NATIVE PRAIRIES: A study of three sites in western Minnesota. Report submitted to: Minnesota and Wisconsin Departments of Natural Resources, The Nature Conservancy, and the R. J. Kose foundation. David Rider, Systematic Entomologist Gerald Fauske, Research specialist Paul Tinerella, Graduate student Department of Entomology North Dakota State University Fargo, ND May 2000 ABSTRACT From 1995 through 1999 an ongoing study was conducted to examine the effects of standard prairie management practices (burning, grazing, haying) and unmanaged prairie, with regard to arthropod communities. Additional objectives were to gather baseline data on the arthropod species present on remnant prairies of western Minnesota, to identify rare species found on theses sites, and if possible, to determine prairie indicator species which might be used to identify dry, mesic, or wet prairies types in a manner similar to the plant indicator species used in botanical studies. At present, nearly 35,000 insect specimens have been pinned, labeled, and identified representing more than 750 species. As additional material is processed and identified, we expect the number of species found on these sites to more than double, perhaps even triple. This report provides a summary of work completed as of May, 2000, and includes species lists, information on species distributions (state records and extensions of known species ranges), presence of rare or state endangered species on these prairies, diversity indices for prairie sites, types, and management practices, and management histories of the study areas.
    [Show full text]
  • Common Butterflies and Moths (Order Lepidoptera) in the Wichita Mountains and Surrounding Areas
    Common Butterflies and Moths (Order Lepidoptera) in the Wichita Mountains and Surrounding Areas Angel Chiri Less than 2% of known species in the U.S. have Entomologist approved common names. Relying on only common names for individual species may lead Introduction to confusion, since more than one common name may exist for the same species, or the With over 11,000 species described in the U.S. same name may be used for more than one and Canada, butterflies and moths are among the species. Using the scientific name, which is the most common and familiar insects. With few same in any language or region, eliminates this exceptions, the adults have two pairs of wings problem. Furthermore, only scientific names are covered with minute and easily dislodgeable used in the scientific literature. Common names scales. The mouthparts consist of a long, are not capitalized. flexible, and coiled proboscis that is used to absorb nectar. Butterflies and skippers are All photos in this guide were taken by the author diurnal, while most moths are nocturnal. using a Canon PowerShot SX110 IS camera. The Lepidoptera undergo a full metamorphosis. Family Pieridae (sulfurs and whites) The larva has a well developed head, with opposable mandibles designed for chewing and Pierids are common, mostly medium-sized, six simple eyes arranged in a semicircle, on each yellowish or white butterflies. The cloudless side of the head. The first three segments (the sulphur, Phoebis sennae has greenish-yellow or thorax) each bears a pair of segmented legs that lemon yellow wings with a spot resembling a end in a single claw.
    [Show full text]
  • Tishomingo NWR Moth List
    Tishomingo National Wildlife Refuge Moth List Hodges Number Family SubFamily Species Name_Common 00373 Tineidae Acrolophus popeanella 02401 Yponomeutidae Atteva punctella Ailanthus Webworm Moth 02693 Cossidae Cossinae Prionoxystus robinae Carpenterworm Moth 03593 Tortricidae Tortricinae Pandemis lamprosana Woodgrain Leafroller 03594 Tortricidae Tortricinae Pandemis limitata Three-lined Leafroller 04667 Limacodidae Apoda y-inversum Yellow-Collared Slug 04669 Limacodidae Apoda biguttata 04691 Limacodidae Monoleuca semifascia 04697 Limacodidae Euclea delphinii Spiny Oak Slug Moth 04794 Pyralidae Odontiinae Eustixia pupula Spotted Peppergrass Moth 04895 Pyralidae Glaphyriinae Chalcoela iphitalis 04975 Pyralidae Pyraustinae Achyra rantalis Garden Webworm 04979 Pyralidae Pyraustinae Neohelvibotys polingi 04991 Pyralidae Pyraustinae Sericoplaga externalis 05069 Pyralidae Pyraustinae Pyrausta tyralis 05070 Pyralidae Pyraustinae Pyrausta laticlavia Southern Purple Mint Moth 05159 Pyralidae Spilomelinae Desmia funeralis Grape Leaffolder Moth 05226 Pyralidae Spilomelinae Palpita magniferalis Splendid Palpita 05256 Pyralidae Spilomelinae Diastictis fracturalis 05292 Pyralidae Spilomelinae Conchylodes ovulalis 05362 Pyralidae Crambinae Crambus agitatellus Double-banded Grass-veneer 05450 Pyralidae Crambinae Parapediasia decorella 05533 Pyralidae Pyralinae Dolichomia olinalis Yellow-fringed Dolichomia 05579 Pyralidae Epipaschiinae Epipaschia zelleri Zeller's Epipaschia 05625 Pyralidae Galleriinae Omphalocera cariosa 05779.1 Pyralidae Phycitinae Quasisalebriaria
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix 5: Fauna Known to Occur on Fort Drum
    Appendix 5: Fauna Known to Occur on Fort Drum LIST OF FAUNA KNOWN TO OCCUR ON FORT DRUM as of January 2017. Federally listed species are noted with FT (Federal Threatened) and FE (Federal Endangered); state listed species are noted with SSC (Species of Special Concern), ST (State Threatened, and SE (State Endangered); introduced species are noted with I (Introduced). INSECT SPECIES Except where otherwise noted all insect and invertebrate taxonomy based on (1) Arnett, R.H. 2000. American Insects: A Handbook of the Insects of North America North of Mexico, 2nd edition, CRC Press, 1024 pp; (2) Marshall, S.A. 2013. Insects: Their Natural History and Diversity, Firefly Books, Buffalo, NY, 732 pp.; (3) Bugguide.net, 2003-2017, http://www.bugguide.net/node/view/15740, Iowa State University. ORDER EPHEMEROPTERA--Mayflies Taxonomy based on (1) Peckarsky, B.L., P.R. Fraissinet, M.A. Penton, and D.J. Conklin Jr. 1990. Freshwater Macroinvertebrates of Northeastern North America. Cornell University Press. 456 pp; (2) Merritt, R.W., K.W. Cummins, and M.B. Berg 2008. An Introduction to the Aquatic Insects of North America, 4th Edition. Kendall Hunt Publishing. 1158 pp. FAMILY LEPTOPHLEBIIDAE—Pronggillled Mayflies FAMILY BAETIDAE—Small Minnow Mayflies Habrophleboides sp. Acentrella sp. Habrophlebia sp. Acerpenna sp. Leptophlebia sp. Baetis sp. Paraleptophlebia sp. Callibaetis sp. Centroptilum sp. FAMILY CAENIDAE—Small Squaregilled Mayflies Diphetor sp. Brachycercus sp. Heterocloeon sp. Caenis sp. Paracloeodes sp. Plauditus sp. FAMILY EPHEMERELLIDAE—Spiny Crawler Procloeon sp. Mayflies Pseudocentroptiloides sp. Caurinella sp. Pseudocloeon sp. Drunela sp. Ephemerella sp. FAMILY METRETOPODIDAE—Cleftfooted Minnow Eurylophella sp. Mayflies Serratella sp.
    [Show full text]
  • Butterflies of Ontario & Summaries of Lepidoptera
    ISBN #: 0-921631-19-7 BUTTERFLIES OF ONTARIO & SUMMARIES OF LEPIDOPTERA ENCOUNTERED IN ONTARIO IN 1998 COMPILED BY ALAN J. HANKS PRODUCTION BY ALAN J. HANKS JUNE 1999 CONTENTS PAGE 1. INTRODUCTION 1 2. CORRECTIONS TO PREVIOUS T.E.A. SUMMARIES 5 3. SPECIAL NOTES ON ONTARIO LEPIDOPTERA 5 3.1 Supplementary Update to the Butterflies ofthe Toronto Area Barry Harrison 5 3.2 Range Extension ofthe Wild Indigo Duskywing to Toronto Barry Harrison 6 3.3 The Status and Distribution ofthe Sleepy Orange (Eurema nicippe) in Ontario - Alan Wormington 7 3.4 An Outbreak ofOlive Hairstreaks (Callophrys grynea) at Point Pelee, Ontario in 1998 - Alan Wormington 9 3.5 Rearing Notes from Northumberland County - Dr. W.J.D. Eberlie 11 3.6 Funereal Duskywing (Erynnisjuneralis) at Toronto on September 27, 1998 - Bob Yukich 12 3.7 Noteworthy Butterfly Records from Algonquin Provincial Park in 1998 - Colin D. Jones 14 3.8 Foodplants ofthe Baltimore (Euphydryas phaeton) Rosemary Scott 16 4. GENERAL SUMMARY - Alan J. Hanks 18 5. 1998 SUMMARY OF ONTARIO BUTTERFLIES compiled by Alan J. Hanks 19 Hesperiidae 19 Papilionidae 28 Pieridae 30 Lycaenidae 34 Libytheidae 40 Nymphalidae 41 Apaturidae 48 Satyridae 49 Danaidae 51 6. SELECTED REPORTS OF MOTHS IN ONTARIO, 1997 compiled by Dr. Duncan Robertson 53 7. CONCISE CYCLICAL SUMMARY OF MOTHS IN ONTARIO compiled by Dr. Duncan Robertson 66 8. PREVIOUS PUBLICATIONS 81 ******************** a Q) CJ) o ­c::: eo I- 1. INTRODUCTION This is Publication # 31-99 ofthe Toronto Entomologists' Association. Data is selected from reports for 1998 (or as otherwise indicated) for the Province ofOntario (Canada) from contributors listed below: Note: TEA members names are in bold.
    [Show full text]