DOCSLIB.ORG

HABITAT MANAGEMENT PLAN Green Bay and Gravel Island

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
HABITAT MANAGEMENT PLAN Green Bay and Gravel Island HABITAT MANAGEMENT PLAN Green Bay and Gravel Island National Wildlife Refuges October 2017 Habitat Management 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. The National Wildlife Refuge System, managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, is the world's premier system of public lands and waters set aside to conserve America's fish, wildlife, and plants. Since the designation of the first wildlife refuge in 1903, the System has grown to encompass more than 150 million acres, 556 national wildlife refuges and other units of the Refuge System, plus 38 wetland management districts. This page intentionally left blank. Habitat Management Plan for Green Bay and Gravel Island National Wildlife Refuges EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This Habitat Management Plan (HMP) provides vision and specific guidance on enhancing and managing habitat for the resources of concern (ROC) at the refuge. The contributions of the refuge to ecosystem- and landscape-scale wildlife and biodiversity conservation, specifically migratory waterfowl, are incorporated into this HMP. The HMP is intended to provide habitat management direction for the next 15 years. The HMP is also needed to ensure that the refuge continues to conserve habitat for migratory birds in the context of climate change, which affects all units of the National Wildlife Refuge System. This HMP is a step-down plan, tiered from the Gravel Island, Green Bay, Harbor Island, Huron, and Michigan Islands National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) (USFWS 2012). The CCP process was a multi-year, collaborative planning exercise resulting in the establishment of refuge-specific goals, objectives, and strategies, and this HMP further refines these goals and prescribes specific management actions for their implementation. The HMP builds on and amends the original objectives from the CCP to develop specific goals and strategies related to ROC. Future Inventory and Monitoring Plans and Annual Habitat Work Plans will tier from the HMP and hone in on these goals and strategies. Green Bay and Gravel Island National Wildlife Refuges (NWR) are managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) as part of the National Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS). The island refuges are managed by staff based at Horicon NWR in Mayville, WI. The five islands that make up the Green Bay NWR are located off the tip of Door County peninsula in Lake Michigan between mainland Wisconsin and Michigan. Three islands (Hog, Plum, and Pilot) lie between the tip of the Door Peninsula and Washington Island in Wisconsin waters, while 2015 additions (St. Martin Island and Rocky Island) lie further northeast and within Michigan’s border. Spider Island and Gravel Island comprise Gravel Islands NWR. These islands are also located in Lake Michigan, approximately one mile to the east of the Door Peninsula. In 1970, Gravel, Spider, and Hog Island were designated as Wilderness Areas. The Green Bay and Gravel Island NWR ROC were identified by reviewing the species known to occur within the refuge, as well as those identified in local and regional conservation plans, and analyzing their relation to the biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health (BIDEH) of the habitats present on the refuge. The comprehensive ROC list was then narrowed down by selecting species most likely to represent a suite of habitat needs for other species (i.e., focal or surrogate species). Based on this analysis, the refuge identified 7 priority ROC, including 3 birds, 1 plant, and 3 natural communities. More information on these ROC and their selection is detailed in Chapter 3. As part of the ROC identification, habitats were also prioritized for future management. Priorities were based on each habitat’s ability to be managed effectively to support ROCs. Based on this review, the refuge identified the following priority habitats (ordered from greater to lesser importance): early successional habitat/colonial nesting areas, northern mesic forest, Great Lakes rock shore and alvar. Lastly, the HMP establishes a list of appropriate management actions pertinent to achieving determined priority habitat and ROC goals. Executive Summary i October 2017 Habitat Management Plan for Green Bay and Gravel Island National Wildlife Refuges This HMP defines the refuge’s important role in providing breeding habitat for colonial nesting birds, as well as migratory stopover habitat. Similarly, the refuges provide a unique landscape context and protection for several rare natural communities and endangered plants. Its location along the Niagara Escarpment and Lake Michigan makes it a major stopover and breeding focal area for many species. The selection of priorities and management actions within this plan reflect the refuge’s contribution to these resources. Executive Summary ii October 2017 Habitat Management Plan for Green Bay and Gravel Island National Wildlife Refuges This page intentionally left blank. Executive Summary iii October 2017 Habitat Management Plan for Green Bay and Gravel Island National Wildlife Refuges TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................................... I 1. INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................................. 1-1 Purpose of Green Bay and Gravel Island National Wildlife Refuges ........................... 1-1 Refuge Overview ............................................................................................................... 1-1 Scope of Habitat Management Plan ................................................................................ 1-5 Mission Mandates ............................................................................................................. 1-5 Habitat Management Planning Relationship to Other Plans ........................................ 1-6 2. BACKGROUND ............................................................................................................................... 2-1 Refuge Background .......................................................................................................... 2-1 Refuge Islands Overview and Habitats ........................................................................... 2-2 Changes from Historic Condition and Current Issues .................................................. 2-9 Land Classification and Plant Communities ................................................................ 2-17 3. RESOURCES OF CONCERN ......................................................................................................... 3-1 Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 3-1 Identification of Refuge Resources of Concern ............................................................. 3-1 Biological Integrity, Diversity, and Environmental Health ............................................ 3-4 Priority District Resources of Concern ........................................................................... 3-5 Habitat Types and Associated Priority Species ........................................................... 3-14 Conflicting Habitat Management ................................................................................... 3-17 Adaptive Management .................................................................................................... 3-18 4. HABITAT GOAL, OBJECTIVES, AND MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES ...................................... 4-23 Refining CCP Objectives within the HMP ..................................................................... 4-23 HMP Goal, Objectives, and Management Strategies ................................................... 4-24 Prioritization of Management Units ............................................................................... 4-26 HMP Objective 1: Maintain and Evaluate Wilderness Characteristics ...................... 4-28 HMP Objective 2: Early Successional Habitat/Colonial Nesting Areas ................................................................................................................................ 4-30 HMP Objective 3: Northern Mesic Forest ..................................................................... 4-33 HMP Objective 4: Great Lakes Alkaline Rock Shore and Alvar .................................. 4-37 5. REFERENCES ................................................................................................................................. 5-1 Table of Contents i October 2017 Habitat Management Plan for Green Bay and Gravel Island National Wildlife Refuges LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1-1. Map of St. Martin Island depicting areas purchased and donated by the Nature Conservancy, as well as areas still owned by the Little Traverse Bay Band of Odawa Indians (TNC 2014). ...................................................... 1-2 Figure 1-2. Locations of Green Bay and Gravel Islands Units. ..........................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Great Lakes Islands: Biodiversity Elements And
    GREAT LAKES ISLANDS: BIODIVERSITY ELEMENTS AND THREATS A FINAL REPORT TO THE GREAT LAKES NATIONAL PROGRAM OFFICE OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY AUGUST 6, 2007 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Funding for this project has been provided by the Great Lakes Program Office (GLNPO) of the Environmental Protection Agency (Grant No. Gl-96521901: Framework for the Binational Conservation of Great Lakes Islands). We especially appreciated the support of our project officer, K. Rodriquez, and G. Gulezian, director of the GLNPO. Project team members were F. Cuthbert (University of Minnesota), D. Ewert (The Nature Conservancy), R. Greenwood (U. S. Fish & Wildlife Service), D. Kraus (The Nature Conservancy of Canada), M. Seymour (U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service), K. Vigmostad (Principal Investigator, formerly of Northeast-Midwest Institute), and L. Wires (University of Minnesota). Team members for the Ontario portion of the project included W. Bakowsky (NHIC), B. Crins (Ontario Parks), J. Mackenzie (NHIC) and M. McMurtry (NHIC). GIS and technical support for this project has been provided by T. Krahn (Provincial Geomatics Service Centre, OMNR), J. Slatts (The Nature Conservancy), and G. White (The Nature Conservancy of Canada). Many others have provided scientific and policy support for this project. We particularly want to recognize M. DePhillips (The Nature Conservancy), G. Jackson (Parks Canada), B. Manny (Great Lakes Science Center), and C. Vasarhelyi (policy consultant). Cover photograph: A Bay on Gibraltar Island (Lake Erie) ©2005 Karen E. Vigmostad 2 Contents
    [Show full text]
  • Green-Tree Retention and Controlled Burning in Restoration and Conservation of Beetle Diversity in Boreal Forests
    Dissertationes Forestales 21 Green-tree retention and controlled burning in restoration and conservation of beetle diversity in boreal forests Esko Hyvärinen Faculty of Forestry University of Joensuu Academic dissertation To be presented, with the permission of the Faculty of Forestry of the University of Joensuu, for public criticism in auditorium C2 of the University of Joensuu, Yliopistonkatu 4, Joensuu, on 9th June 2006, at 12 o’clock noon. 2 Title: Green-tree retention and controlled burning in restoration and conservation of beetle diversity in boreal forests Author: Esko Hyvärinen Dissertationes Forestales 21 Supervisors: Prof. Jari Kouki, Faculty of Forestry, University of Joensuu, Finland Docent Petri Martikainen, Faculty of Forestry, University of Joensuu, Finland Pre-examiners: Docent Jyrki Muona, Finnish Museum of Natural History, Zoological Museum, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland Docent Tomas Roslin, Department of Biological and Environmental Sciences, Division of Population Biology, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland Opponent: Prof. Bengt Gunnar Jonsson, Department of Natural Sciences, Mid Sweden University, Sundsvall, Sweden ISSN 1795-7389 ISBN-13: 978-951-651-130-9 (PDF) ISBN-10: 951-651-130-9 (PDF) Paper copy printed: Joensuun yliopistopaino, 2006 Publishers: The Finnish Society of Forest Science Finnish Forest Research Institute Faculty of Agriculture and Forestry of the University of Helsinki Faculty of Forestry of the University of Joensuu Editorial Office: The Finnish Society of Forest Science Unioninkatu 40A, 00170 Helsinki, Finland http://www.metla.fi/dissertationes 3 Hyvärinen, Esko 2006. Green-tree retention and controlled burning in restoration and conservation of beetle diversity in boreal forests. University of Joensuu, Faculty of Forestry. ABSTRACT The main aim of this thesis was to demonstrate the effects of green-tree retention and controlled burning on beetles (Coleoptera) in order to provide information applicable to the restoration and conservation of beetle species diversity in boreal forests.
    [Show full text]
  • Water Beetles
    Ireland Red List No. 1 Water beetles Ireland Red List No. 1: Water beetles G.N. Foster1, B.H. Nelson2 & Á. O Connor3 1 3 Eglinton Terrace, Ayr KA7 1JJ 2 Department of Natural Sciences, National Museums Northern Ireland 3 National Parks & Wildlife Service, Department of Environment, Heritage & Local Government Citation: Foster, G. N., Nelson, B. H. & O Connor, Á. (2009) Ireland Red List No. 1 – Water beetles. National Parks and Wildlife Service, Department of Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Dublin, Ireland. Cover images from top: Dryops similaris (© Roy Anderson); Gyrinus urinator, Hygrotus decoratus, Berosus signaticollis & Platambus maculatus (all © Jonty Denton) Ireland Red List Series Editors: N. Kingston & F. Marnell © National Parks and Wildlife Service 2009 ISSN 2009‐2016 Red list of Irish Water beetles 2009 ____________________________ CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .................................................................................................................................... 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY...................................................................................................................................... 2 INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................................................ 3 NOMENCLATURE AND THE IRISH CHECKLIST................................................................................................ 3 COVERAGE .......................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Download Animal List
    MICHIGAN'S SPECIAL ANIMALS Endangered, Threatened, Special Concern, and Probably Extirpated This list presents the Endangered (E), Threatened (T), and Probably Extirpated (X) animal species of Michigan, which are protected under the Endangered Species Act of the State of Michigan (Part 365 of PA 451, 1994 Michigan Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act). The current list became effective on April 9, 2009, after extensive review by technical advisors to the Michigan Department of Natural Resources and the citizenry of the state. Also included in this list are animal species of Special Concern (SC). While not afforded legal protection under the Act, many of these species are of concern because of declining or relict populations in the state. Should these species continue to decline, they would be recommended for Threatened or Endangered status. Protection of Special Concern species now, before they reach dangerously low population levels, would prevent the need to list them in the future by maintaining adequate numbers of self-sustaining populations within Michigan. Some other potentially rare species are listed as Special Concern pending more precise information on their status in the state; when such information becomes available, they could be moved to threatened or endangered status or deleted from the list. This list was produced by the Endangered Species Program of the Michigan Department of Natural Resources and the Michigan Natural Features Inventory. English names in common usage or from published sources have been incorporated, when possible, to promote public understanding of and participation in the Endangered Species Program. To comment on the list or request additional copies, or for information on the Endangered Species Program, contact the Endangered Species Coordinator, Wildlife Division, Michigan Department of Natural Resources, P.O.
    [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]
  • 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]
  • KS2 Tortoise Shapes and Sizes
    TORTOISE SHAPES AND SIZE... ? Not all tortoises look the same. What can you learn about a tortoise from looking at the shape of its shell? Some Galapagos tortoises have Some Galapagos tortoises have domed shells like this saddleback shells like this An adaptation is a feature an animal has which helps it survive. If an animal has a greater chance of surviving then it has a greater chance of having more babies who are also likely to have the same adaptation. In the space below, draw one of our Galapagos giant tortoises. Make notes describing the TASK 1 different adaptations of the tortoise and how those features might help the tortoise survive in the wild. Worksheet 2 KS2 1 ? Not all the Galapagos Islands have the same habitat. What can you tell about the habitat of a tortoise by looking at the shape of its shell? Some of the Galapagos Islands are Some of the Galapagos Islands are smaller and dryer, where tall cacti larger and wetter, where many plants grow. plants grow close to the ground. TASK 2 Of the two tortoise shell shapes, which is likely to be better for reaching tall cacti plants? ______________________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________________ Which of these island types is likely to provide enough food for tortoises to grow to large sizes? ______________________________________________________________________________________________
    [Show full text]
  • An Introduction to Lemurs for Teachers and Educators
    AN INTRODUCTION TO LEMURS FOR TEACHERS AND EDUCATORS WELCOME TO THE WORLD OF AKO THE AYE-AYE The Ako the Aye-Aye Educator’s Guide introduces you to the remarkable world of lemurs. This guide provides background information about the biological concepts conveyed through the 21 Ako lessons. These lessons were created to accompany the Ako books. The Ako book series were developed by renowned primatologist Alison Jolly for students in Madagascar to inspire understanding and appreciation for the unique primates that share their island home. In addition to the books there is also a set of posters which showcase the habitat of each lemur species and their forest “neighbors.” GOALS OF THE AKO LESSONS: • Inspire students to make a positive difference for lemurs and other wildlife. • Promote environmental awareness, understanding and appreciation. • Provide activities that connect students to nature and motivate conservation action. HOW TO USE THIS GUIDE Each lesson aligns with a specific grade level (Kindergarten-1st, 2nd-3rd and 4th-5th) and one of the seven environmental themes below. Before carrying out an activity, we recommend reading the corresponding section in this guide that matches the theme of the lesson. The themes are: • LOOKING AT LEMURS—CLASSIFICATION AND BIODIVERSITY (PAGE 4) • EXPLORING LEMUR HABITATS (PAGE 10) • INVESTIGATING LEMUR ADAPTATIONS (PAGE 18) • DISCOVERING LEMUR COMMUNITIES—INTER-DEPENDENCE (PAGE 23) • LEARNING ABOUT LEMUR LIFE—LIFE CYCLES AND BEHAVIOR (PAGE 26) • DISCOVERING MADAGASCAR’S PEOPLE AND PLACES (PAGE 33) • MAKING A DIFFERENCE FOR LEMURS (PAGE 40) Lessons can be completed chronologically or independently. Each activity incorporates multiple learning styles and subject areas.
    [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]
  • Effects of Climate Change on Arctic Arthropod Assemblages and Distribution Phd Thesis
    Effects of climate change on Arctic arthropod assemblages and distribution PhD thesis Rikke Reisner Hansen Academic advisors: Main supervisor Toke Thomas Høye and co-supervisor Signe Normand Submitted 29/08/2016 Data sheet Title: Effects of climate change on Arctic arthropod assemblages and distribution Author University: Aarhus University Publisher: Aarhus University – Denmark URL: www.au.dk Supervisors: Assessment committee: Arctic arthropods, climate change, community composition, distribution, diversity, life history traits, monitoring, species richness, spatial variation, temporal variation Date of publication: August 2016 Please cite as: Hansen, R. R. (2016) Effects of climate change on Arctic arthropod assemblages and distribution. PhD thesis, Aarhus University, Denmark, 144 pp. Keywords: Number of pages: 144 PREFACE………………………………………………………………………………………..5 LIST OF PAPERS……………………………………………………………………………….6 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS……………………………………………………………………...7 SUMMARY……………………………………………………………………………………...8 RESUMÉ (Danish summary)…………………………………………………………………....9 SYNOPSIS……………………………………………………………………………………....10 Introduction……………………………………………………………………………………...10 Study sites and approaches……………………………………………………………………...11 Arctic arthropod community composition…………………………………………………….....13 Potential climate change effects on arthropod composition…………………………………….15 Arctic arthropod responses to climate change…………………………………………………..16 Future recommendations and perspectives……………………………………………………...20 References………………………………………………………………………………………..21 PAPER I: High spatial
    [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]
  • Ohio EPA Macroinvertebrate Taxonomic Level December 2019 1 Table 1. Current Taxonomic Keys and the Level of Taxonomy Routinely U
    Ohio EPA Macroinvertebrate Taxonomic Level December 2019 Table 1. Current taxonomic keys and the level of taxonomy routinely used by the Ohio EPA in streams and rivers for various macroinvertebrate taxonomic classifications. Genera that are reasonably considered to be monotypic in Ohio are also listed. Taxon Subtaxon Taxonomic Level Taxonomic Key(ies) Species Pennak 1989, Thorp & Rogers 2016 Porifera If no gemmules are present identify to family (Spongillidae). Genus Thorp & Rogers 2016 Cnidaria monotypic genera: Cordylophora caspia and Craspedacusta sowerbii Platyhelminthes Class (Turbellaria) Thorp & Rogers 2016 Nemertea Phylum (Nemertea) Thorp & Rogers 2016 Phylum (Nematomorpha) Thorp & Rogers 2016 Nematomorpha Paragordius varius monotypic genus Thorp & Rogers 2016 Genus Thorp & Rogers 2016 Ectoprocta monotypic genera: Cristatella mucedo, Hyalinella punctata, Lophopodella carteri, Paludicella articulata, Pectinatella magnifica, Pottsiella erecta Entoprocta Urnatella gracilis monotypic genus Thorp & Rogers 2016 Polychaeta Class (Polychaeta) Thorp & Rogers 2016 Annelida Oligochaeta Subclass (Oligochaeta) Thorp & Rogers 2016 Hirudinida Species Klemm 1982, Klemm et al. 2015 Anostraca Species Thorp & Rogers 2016 Species (Lynceus Laevicaudata Thorp & Rogers 2016 brachyurus) Spinicaudata Genus Thorp & Rogers 2016 Williams 1972, Thorp & Rogers Isopoda Genus 2016 Holsinger 1972, Thorp & Rogers Amphipoda Genus 2016 Gammaridae: Gammarus Species Holsinger 1972 Crustacea monotypic genera: Apocorophium lacustre, Echinogammarus ischnus, Synurella dentata Species (Taphromysis Mysida Thorp & Rogers 2016 louisianae) Crocker & Barr 1968; Jezerinac 1993, 1995; Jezerinac & Thoma 1984; Taylor 2000; Thoma et al. Cambaridae Species 2005; Thoma & Stocker 2009; Crandall & De Grave 2017; Glon et al. 2018 Species (Palaemon Pennak 1989, Palaemonidae kadiakensis) Thorp & Rogers 2016 1 Ohio EPA Macroinvertebrate Taxonomic Level December 2019 Taxon Subtaxon Taxonomic Level Taxonomic Key(ies) Informal grouping of the Arachnida Hydrachnidia Smith 2001 water mites Genus Morse et al.
    [Show full text]