DOCSLIB.ORG

Minesing Wetlands Biological Inventory

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Minesing Wetlands Biological Inventory Minesing Wetlands Biological Inventory February 2007 Prepared for: Friends of Minesing Wetlands Minesing Wetlands Biological Inventory & Nottawasaga Valley Conservation12/13/2007 Authority Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority MINESING WETLANDS BIOLOGICAL INVENTORY Prepared by ROBERT L. BOWLES, JOLENE LAVERTY and DAVID FEATHERSTONE February 2007 Prepared for Friends of Minesing Wetlands & Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority Minesing Wetlands Biological Inventory 12/13/2007 Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority FOREWARD The Minesing Wetlands Biological Inventory and Evaluation was conducted during 2005-2006 field season. Technical investigations were conducted within the Minesing Wetlands by Bowles Environmental Consultants and Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority (NVCA) for the NVCA Minesing Wetlands Management Plan and for Friends of Minesing Wetlands (FOMW). This report received technical review prior to its publication and does not necessarily signify that its contents reflect the views and policies of the Friends of Minesing Wetlands or their partners; nor does mention of trade names or commercial products constitute endorsement or recommendation for use. For additional copies of this report or information about NVCA or FOMW, please contact: Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority Centre for Conservation John Hix Conservation Administration Centre 8195 Concession Line 8 Utopia, Ontario L0M 1T0 Phone: (705) 424-1479 Fax: (705) 424-2115 www.nvca.on.ca Friends of Minesing Wetlands www.minesingswamp.ca Minesing Wetlands Biological Inventory 12/13/2007 Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The Minesing Wetlands Flora and Fauna Biological Inventory was completed for the Friends of Minesing Wetlands (FOMW) and Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority (NVCA) as part of the Minesing Wetlands Management Plan. Funding support for the project was provided by the FOMW, the NVCA and the following organizations: Brereton Field Naturalists Friends of the Environment Foundation Helen McCrae Peacock Foundation Rotary Club of Barrie Shell Environmental Fund Throughout the project; many individuals provided valuable information about the general area, history, flora and fauna sighting, volunteering and support. The following individuals’ time, effort and support was greatly appreciated: y Byron Wesson, NVCA y Greg Bray, NVCA y Adam Scott, NVCAy Katherine Watson, NVCA y Brian Smith, NVCA y Tina DesRoches, NVCA y David Crossman, NVCA y Iaian Docherty, NVCA y Rick Grillmayer, NVCAy Fred Dobbs, NVCA y Jennifer Koen, NVCA y Steve Green, NVCA y Matt McCool, NVCAy Dan Kraus, Nature Conservancy of Canada y Ric Symmes, Nature Conservancy of Canada y Kevin Rich, Ducks Unlimited Canada y Harold Parker NVCA Past Chair/FOMW Director/Landowner y Harold McMaster FOMW Director/FWIG/Landowner y Lynn Brennan, FOMW Chair y Gary Allen, MNR y Greg Cull, MNR y Graham Findlay, MNR y Suzanne Robinson, MNR y Dr. Jacqueline Litzgus, Laurentian University y Brian Gibbon, Brereton Field Naturalists y Jennifer and Jeff Howard, Brereton Field Naturalists y Phyllis Trembly, Brereton Field Naturalists y Peter Mills, Brereton Field Naturalists y Lisa Moran, Brereton Field Naturalists y Chris Evans, Volunteer Naturalist y Ervin Ozvart, Landowner y George Mason, Landowner y Lisa and Peter Maher, Landowners y Terry Walton, Landowner y Sciensational Snakes Staff y Minesing Wetland Monitoring Team Members y All ATV Dealerships in the NVCA watershed y Special thanks to Dan Kraus (Nature Conservancy of Canada), Graham Findlay and Suzanne Robinson (Ministry of Natural Resources), and Byron Wesson (NVCA) for their comments on the draft report which added to the strength of the final document. All photographs in this report were taken by Robert L. Bowles and Jolene Laverty, unless otherwise noted. Minesing Wetlands Biological Inventory 12/13/2007 Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...........................................................................................................................I 1.0 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................. 1 1.1 STUDY PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVES .................................................................................................. 3 1.2 STUDY AREA................................................................................................................................... 4 1.3 STUDY TEAM................................................................................................................................... 6 2.0 MINESING WETLANDS OVERVIEW ............................................................................................. 7 2.1 PHYSIOGRAPHIC SETTING................................................................................................................ 7 2.2 CULTURAL HISTORY ....................................................................................................................... 7 2.2.1 Native Settlements................................................................................................................... 7 2.2.2 European Contact to Settlement ............................................................................................. 8 2.2.3 Present Day ............................................................................................................................ 9 2.3 PLANNING DESIGNATIONS............................................................................................................. 11 2.3.1 RAMSAR............................................................................................................................... 11 2.3.2 Areas of Natural and Scientific Interest (ANSI) ................................................................... 12 2.3.3 Provincially Significant Wetland Designation...................................................................... 12 2.3.4 Simcoe County Greenland .................................................................................................... 12 2.3.5 Local Official Plans.............................................................................................................. 13 2.4 NATURAL HERITAGE OVERVIEW................................................................................................... 13 2.4.1 Significant Features.............................................................................................................. 13 2.4.2 Hydrology and Hydrogeology .............................................................................................. 13 2.4.3 Corridors and Linkages........................................................................................................ 13 3.0 STUDY METHODOLOGY................................................................................................................ 13 3.1 MINESING WETLANDS INVENTORY (SITES OF INTEREST).............................................................. 13 3.1.1 Sites of Interest ..................................................................................................................... 13 3.2 TURTLE SURVEY ........................................................................................................................... 13 4.0 RESULTS............................................................................................................................................. 13 4.1 VEGETATION COMMUNITIES ......................................................................................................... 13 4.2 VASCULAR PLANTS AND WILDLIFE............................................................................................... 13 4.2.1 Vascular Plants..................................................................................................................... 13 4.3.2 Invertebrates......................................................................................................................... 13 4.3.3 Fish....................................................................................................................................... 13 4.3.4 Reptiles and Amphibians ...................................................................................................... 13 4.3.5 Birds ..................................................................................................................................... 13 4.3.6 Mammals .............................................................................................................................. 13 5.1 NON-NATIVE SPECIES.................................................................................................................... 13 5.2 ILLEGAL ACCESS........................................................................................................................... 13 5.3 LOG JAMS...................................................................................................................................... 13 5.4 PRIVATE LAND MANAGEMENT...................................................................................................... 13 5.5 TURTLE MORTALITY ..................................................................................................................... 13 5.6 WILDLIFE IMBALANCE .................................................................................................................. 13 6.0 RECOMMENDATIONS ....................................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • This Article Appeared in a Journal Published by Elsevier. the Attached
    This article appeared in a journal published by Elsevier. The attached copy is furnished to the author for internal non-commercial research and education use, including for instruction at the authors institution and sharing with colleagues. Other uses, including reproduction and distribution, or selling or licensing copies, or posting to personal, institutional or third party websites are prohibited. In most cases authors are permitted to post their version of the article (e.g. in Word or Tex form) to their personal website or institutional repository. Authors requiring further information regarding Elsevier’s archiving and manuscript policies are encouraged to visit: http://www.elsevier.com/copyright Author's personal copy Quaternary Research 75 (2011) 531–540 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Quaternary Research journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/yqres Response of a warm temperate peatland to Holocene climate change in northeastern Pennsylvania Shanshan Cai, Zicheng Yu ⁎ Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences, Lehigh University, 1 West Packer Avenue, Bethlehem, PA 18015, USA article info abstract Article history: Studying boreal-type peatlands near the edge of their southern limit can provide insight into responses of Received 11 September 2010 boreal and sub-arctic peatlands to warmer climates. In this study, we investigated peatland history using Available online 18 February 2011 multi-proxy records of sediment composition, plant macrofossil, pollen, and diatom analysis from a 14C-dated sediment core at Tannersville Bog in northeastern Pennsylvania, USA. Our results indicate that peat Keywords: accumulation began with lake infilling of a glacial lake at ~9 ka as a rich fen dominated by brown mosses.
    [Show full text]
  • Research Report110
    ~ ~ WISCONSIN DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES A Survey of Rare and Endangered Mayflies of Selected RESEARCH Rivers of Wisconsin by Richard A. Lillie REPORT110 Bureau of Research, Monona December 1995 ~ Abstract The mayfly fauna of 25 rivers and streams in Wisconsin were surveyed during 1991-93 to document the temporal and spatial occurrence patterns of two state endangered mayflies, Acantha­ metropus pecatonica and Anepeorus simplex. Both species are candidates under review for addition to the federal List of Endang­ ered and Threatened Wildlife. Based on previous records of occur­ rence in Wisconsin, sampling was conducted during the period May-July using a combination of sampling methods, including dredges, air-lift pumps, kick-nets, and hand-picking of substrates. No specimens of Anepeorus simplex were collected. Three specimens (nymphs or larvae) of Acanthametropus pecatonica were found in the Black River, one nymph was collected from the lower Wisconsin River, and a partial exuviae was collected from the Chippewa River. Homoeoneuria ammophila was recorded from Wisconsin waters for the first time from the Black River and Sugar River. New site distribution records for the following Wiscon­ sin special concern species include: Macdunnoa persimplex, Metretopus borealis, Paracloeodes minutus, Parameletus chelifer, Pentagenia vittigera, Cercobrachys sp., and Pseudiron centra/is. Collection of many of the aforementioned species from large rivers appears to be dependent upon sampling sand-bottomed substrates at frequent intervals, as several species were relatively abundant during only very short time spans. Most species were associated with sand substrates in water < 2 m deep. Acantha­ metropus pecatonica and Anepeorus simplex should continue to be listed as endangered for state purposes and receive a biological rarity ranking of critically imperiled (S1 ranking), and both species should be considered as candidates proposed for listing as endangered or threatened as defined by the Endangered Species Act.
    [Show full text]
  • Biological Monitoring of Surface Waters in New York State, 2019
    NYSDEC SOP #208-19 Title: Stream Biomonitoring Rev: 1.2 Date: 03/29/19 Page 1 of 188 New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Division of Water Standard Operating Procedure: Biological Monitoring of Surface Waters in New York State March 2019 Note: Division of Water (DOW) SOP revisions from year 2016 forward will only capture the current year parties involved with drafting/revising/approving the SOP on the cover page. The dated signatures of those parties will be captured here as well. The historical log of all SOP updates and revisions (past & present) will immediately follow the cover page. NYSDEC SOP 208-19 Stream Biomonitoring Rev. 1.2 Date: 03/29/2019 Page 3 of 188 SOP #208 Update Log 1 Prepared/ Revision Revised by Approved by Number Date Summary of Changes DOW Staff Rose Ann Garry 7/25/2007 Alexander J. Smith Rose Ann Garry 11/25/2009 Alexander J. Smith Jason Fagel 1.0 3/29/2012 Alexander J. Smith Jason Fagel 2.0 4/18/2014 • Definition of a reference site clarified (Sect. 8.2.3) • WAVE results added as a factor Alexander J. Smith Jason Fagel 3.0 4/1/2016 in site selection (Sect. 8.2.2 & 8.2.6) • HMA details added (Sect. 8.10) • Nonsubstantive changes 2 • Disinfection procedures (Sect. 8) • Headwater (Sect. 9.4.1 & 10.2.7) assessment methods added • Benthic multiplate method added (Sect, 9.4.3) Brian Duffy Rose Ann Garry 1.0 5/01/2018 • Lake (Sect. 9.4.5 & Sect. 10.) assessment methods added • Detail on biological impairment sampling (Sect.
    [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]
  • Using Dragonflies As Common, Flexible, and Charismatic Subjects for Teaching the Scientific Process
    Eastern Illinois University The Keep Faculty Research & Creative Activity Biological Sciences 1-1-2007 Using dragonflies sa common, flexible, and charismatic subjects for teaching the scientific process Paul Switzer Eastern Illinois University, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://thekeep.eiu.edu/bio_fac Part of the Behavior and Ethology Commons, Entomology Commons, and the Terrestrial and Aquatic Ecology Commons Recommended Citation Switzer, P.V. (2007). Using dragonflies as common, flexible, and charismatic subjects for teaching the scientific process. The American Biology Teacher 69(3): 158-162. This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Biological Sciences at The Keep. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Research & Creative Activity by an authorized administrator of The Keep. For more information, please contact [email protected]. as Common, Flexible & Charismatic Subjects Using forDragonflies Teaching the Scientific Process P AUL V. S WI T ZER See this article with its beautiful images in full color online at: http://www.nabt.org/sites/S1/File/pdf/069-03-0158.pdf. iology laboratories are usually designed around eat other invertebrates in the jar . Adults are a bit more wary, convenientB and available subjects . For example, for animal yet if students avoid sudden movements or approaches, laboratories Daphnia magna, Drosophila melanogaster, frogs, they can get within inches of many common species . rats, and mice are common animals that are relatively easy Capture requires no more exotic equipment than either to obtain, relatively cheap, and consequently lend them- aerial (for adults) or aquatic (for larvae) nets, and adults can selves well to laboratory experimentation .
    [Show full text]
  • Empirically Derived Indices of Biotic Integrity for Forested Wetlands, Coastal Salt Marshes and Wadable Freshwater Streams in Massachusetts
    Empirically Derived Indices of Biotic Integrity for Forested Wetlands, Coastal Salt Marshes and Wadable Freshwater Streams in Massachusetts September 15, 2013 This report is the result of several years of field data collection, analyses and IBI development, and consideration of the opportunities for wetland program and policy development in relation to IBIs and CAPS Index of Ecological Integrity (IEI). Contributors include: University of Massachusetts Amherst Kevin McGarigal, Ethan Plunkett, Joanna Grand, Brad Compton, Theresa Portante, Kasey Rolih, and Scott Jackson Massachusetts Office of Coastal Zone Management Jan Smith, Marc Carullo, and Adrienne Pappal Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Lisa Rhodes, Lealdon Langley, and Michael Stroman Empirically Derived Indices of Biotic Integrity for Forested Wetlands, Coastal Salt Marshes and Wadable Freshwater Streams in Massachusetts Abstract The purpose of this study was to develop a fully empirically-based method for developing Indices of Biotic Integrity (IBIs) that does not rely on expert opinion or the arbitrary designation of reference sites and pilot its application in forested wetlands, coastal salt marshes and wadable freshwater streams in Massachusetts. The method we developed involves: 1) using a suite of regression models to estimate the abundance of each taxon across a gradient of stressor levels, 2) using statistical calibration based on the fitted regression models and maximum likelihood methods to predict the value of the stressor metric based on the abundance of the taxon at each site, 3) selecting taxa in a forward stepwise procedure that conditionally improves the concordance between the observed stressor value and the predicted value the most and a stopping rule for selecting taxa based on a conditional alpha derived from comparison to pseudotaxa data, and 4) comparing the coefficient of concordance for the final IBI to the expected distribution derived from randomly permuted data.
    [Show full text]
  • Increased Temperature Delays the Late-Season Phenology Of
    www.nature.com/scientificreports OPEN Increased temperature delays the late-season phenology of multivoltine insect Received: 26 February 2016 Adam Glazaczow1, David Orwin2 & Michał Bogdziewicz1 Accepted: 04 November 2016 We analyzed the impact of increased water temperature on the late-season phenology of the mayfly Published: 01 December 2016 (Baetis liebenauae). The River Gwda, unlike two other examined rivers (controls), has reservoirs along its length and thus, higher water temperature. Elevated water temperature prolonged summer diapause of the mayfly and shifted its life cycle to the later autumn: the last generation of mayflies started development later in the Gwda than in the control rivers. This translated into terrestrial stages (subimagos) of the insect being more abundant at the water surface in the late autumn in the Gwda river than in the control rivers. The low water temperature in the late autumn hampers subimagos emergence from the water surface. Thus, the altered insect phenology at Gwda resulted in a largely lost generation. However, the effect of reservoirs on the river water temperature was context-dependent, with the heating effect (and the impact on mayfly phenology) weaker in the year with lower average air temperature. In summary, warming blurred the environmental cue used by mayflies to tune their phenology, which resulted in a developmental trap. Since the projections of increases in global temperatures reach even 6.4 °C, reported mechanisms will potentially also occur in non-transformed watercourses. Phenology is the timing of seasonal activities of plants and animals such as flowering or mating. Alterations in phenology are among the best-supported effects of climate change on organisms1–5.
    [Show full text]
  • TB142: Mayflies of Maine: an Annotated Faunal List
    The University of Maine DigitalCommons@UMaine Technical Bulletins Maine Agricultural and Forest Experiment Station 4-1-1991 TB142: Mayflies of aine:M An Annotated Faunal List Steven K. Burian K. Elizabeth Gibbs Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.library.umaine.edu/aes_techbulletin Part of the Entomology Commons Recommended Citation Burian, S.K., and K.E. Gibbs. 1991. Mayflies of Maine: An annotated faunal list. Maine Agricultural Experiment Station Technical Bulletin 142. This Article is brought to you for free and open access by DigitalCommons@UMaine. It has been accepted for inclusion in Technical Bulletins by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@UMaine. For more information, please contact [email protected]. ISSN 0734-9556 Mayflies of Maine: An Annotated Faunal List Steven K. Burian and K. Elizabeth Gibbs Technical Bulletin 142 April 1991 MAINE AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION Mayflies of Maine: An Annotated Faunal List Steven K. Burian Assistant Professor Department of Biology, Southern Connecticut State University New Haven, CT 06515 and K. Elizabeth Gibbs Associate Professor Department of Entomology University of Maine Orono, Maine 04469 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Financial support for this project was provided by the State of Maine Departments of Environmental Protection, and Inland Fisheries and Wildlife; a University of Maine New England, Atlantic Provinces, and Quebec Fellow­ ship to S. K. Burian; and the Maine Agricultural Experiment Station. Dr. William L. Peters and Jan Peters, Florida A & M University, pro­ vided support and advice throughout the project and we especially appreci­ ated the opportunity for S.K. Burian to work in their laboratory and stay in their home in Tallahassee, Florida.
    [Show full text]
  • Minesing Wetlands Natural Area Conservation Plan Executive Summary Approved in 2017
    Minesing Wetlands Natural Area Conservation Plan Executive Summary Approved in 2017 Vision Statement The Minesing Wetlands is one of the largest wetland systems in southern Ontario and supports a diversity of rare species and wetland habitats including extensive marshes, fens, and treed swamps. Conservation activities focus on strategic securement of remaining private land parcels, and restoration activities in a variety of habitats to retain the full complement of ecological functions and structures. Conservation partners, compatible recreational users, researchers and community members are cooperatively engaged in the long-term conservation, promotion, and understanding of this Ramsar Wetland of International Importance. Project Team Name Organization Role Phone Email 519-826-0068 x.5222 kristyn.ferguson@ Kristyn Nature Conservancy natureconservancy.c Ferguson of Canada Plan lead a Nature Conservancy Team Laura Robson of Canada member Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Team Byron Wesson Authority member Nottawasaga Valley Dave Conservation Team Featherstone Authority member Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Team Kyra Howes Authority member Nature Conservancy Team Claire Elliott of Canada member Mhairi Nature Conservancy Team McFarlane of Canada member Doug van Nature Conservancy Project Hemessen of Canada advisor Sean Ducks Unlimited Project Rootham Canada advisor Naomi Friends of Minesing Project Saunders Wetlands advisor Danny Friends of Minesing Project Mainville Wetlands advisor Project Chris Evans Nature Barrie advisor Nottawasaga Valley
    [Show full text]
  • 100 Characters
    40 Review and Update of Non-mollusk Invertebrate Species in Greatest Need of Conservation: Final Report Leon C. Hinz Jr. and James N. Zahniser Illinois Natural History Survey Prairie Research Institute University of Illinois 30 April 2015 INHS Technical Report 2015 (31) Prepared for: Illinois Department of Natural Resources State Wildlife Grant Program (Project Number T-88-R-001) Unrestricted: for immediate online release. Prairie Research Institute, University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign Brian D. Anderson, Interim Executive Director Illinois Natural History Survey Geoffrey A. Levin, Acting Director 1816 South Oak Street Champaign, IL 61820 217-333-6830 Final Report Project Title: Review and Update of Non-mollusk Invertebrate Species in Greatest Need of Conservation. Project Number: T-88-R-001 Contractor information: University of Illinois at Urbana/Champaign Institute of Natural Resource Sustainability Illinois Natural History Survey 1816 South Oak Street Champaign, IL 61820 Project Period: 1 October 2013—31 September 2014 Principle Investigator: Leon C. Hinz Jr., Ph.D. Stream Ecologist Illinois Natural History Survey One Natural Resources Way, Springfield, IL 62702-1271 217-785-8297 [email protected] Prepared by: Leon C. Hinz Jr. & James N. Zahniser Goals/ Objectives: (1) Review all SGNC listing criteria for currently listed non-mollusk invertebrate species using criteria in Illinois Wildlife Action Plan, (2) Assess current status of species populations, (3) Review criteria for additional species for potential listing as SGNC, (4) Assess stressors to species previously reviewed, (5) Complete draft updates and revisions of IWAP Appendix I and Appendix II for non-mollusk invertebrates. T-88 Final Report Project Title: Review and Update of Non-mollusk Invertebrate Species in Greatest Need of Conservation.
    [Show full text]
  • CEDARBURG BOG WETLAND TYPES Kate Redmond Coniferous Bog, Coniferous Swamp, Fen, Lowland Hardwood Swamp, Marsh, Shrub Carr, Ephemeral Pond, Patterned Peatland
    SOUTHEAST - 2 CEDARBURG BOG WETLAND TYPES Kate Redmond Coniferous bog, coniferous swamp, fen, lowland hardwood swamp, marsh, shrub carr, ephemeral pond, patterned peatland ECOLOGY & SIGNIFICANCE low strips of open sedge mat alternating with peat ridges of bog birch, leatherleaf, white cedar and tamarack. Plants Cedarburg Bog is the least disturbed large bog remaining common at the site include cranberry, bog birch, narrow- in southern Wisconsin. This wetland complex was once leaved sedge, bogbean, water horsetail, arrowgrass and part of a large glacial lake; today six lakes of varying size orchids as well as insectivorous plants like round-leaved and depth, all with high water quality, remain. The site’s • sundew, purple pitcher plant and bladderwort. More than OZAUKEE COUNTY 2500 acres support a number of different wetland plant 35 plant species at Cedarburg Bog are at or near the southern community types and an associated diversity of plants, extent of their range in Wisconsin. including many species that are regionally rare and are at the southern limits of their range here. This Wetland Gem Cedarburg Bog provides excellent habitat for both breeding also supports significant wildlife diversity including many and migrating birds. Nearly 300 species of birds have been amphibians, mammals and hundreds of birds. documented in the area, including 19 species that are near the southern extent of their range in Wisconsin. Breeding FLORA & FAUNA birds include Acadian Flycatcher, willow flycatcher, hooded This diverse wetland complex consists of extensive warbler, golden-crowned kinglet, Canada warbler, northern coniferous bog with a canopy of tamarack and black spruce waterthrush and white-throated sparrow.
    [Show full text]
  • Scarlet Bluet Enallagma Pictum
    Natural Heritage Scarlet Bluet & Endangered Species Enallagma pictum Program State Status: Threatened www.mass.gov/nhesp Federal Status: None Massachusetts Division of Fisheries & Wildlife DESCRIPTION OF ADULT: The Scarlet Bluet is a small, semi-aquatic insect of the order Odonata, suborder Zygoptera (the damselflies), and family Coenagrionidae (pond damsels). Like most damselflies, Scarlet Bluets have large eyes on the sides of the head, short antennae, and four heavily veined wings that are held folded together over the back. The eyes are red with a small red spot behind each eye on the back of the head, which is black. The spots are connected by a thin red bar. The Scarlet Bluet has a long, slender abdomen, composed of ten segments. The abdominal segments are orange below and black above. The male’s thorax (winged and legged section behind the head) is red with black stripes on the “shoulders” and top. Females are Photo © Blair Nikula similar in appearance, but have a duller yellow thorax and thicker abdomens than the males. Scarlet Bluets average just over one inch (26 mm to 29 mm) in length. are blue, with the exception of one yellow, one orange, and one red species. The Eastern Red Damsel SIMILAR SPECIES: The Bluets (genus Enallagma) (Amphiagrion saucium) is also red, but is smaller, and comprise a large group of damselflies, with no fewer the abdomen is entirely red, unlike the Scarlet Bluet, than 20 species in Massachusetts. However, this is the whose abdomen is black above and orange below. The only red Bluet in the Northeast; the majority of bluets Orange Bluet (E.
    [Show full text]