DOCSLIB.ORG

The Illinois Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Plan & Strategy

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Illinois Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Plan & Strategy State of Illinois Rod R. Blagojevich, Governor Department of Natural Resources Joel Brunsvold, Director THE ILLINOIS COMPREHENSIVE WILDLIFE CONSERVATION PLAN & STRATEGY VERSION 1.0 AS PRESCRIBED BY THE WILDLIFE CONSERVATION & RESTORATION PROGRAM AND STATE WILDLIFE GRANTS PROGRAM ILLINOIS COMPREHENSIVE WILDLIFE CONSERVATION PLAN & STRATEGY Version 1.0 i. Partners in Plan/Strategy Development The Illinois Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Plan & Strategy was made possible with the help of these partners in conservation: ABATE of Illinois, Inc. Environmental Law & Policy Center Black Diamond Chapter Field Trial Clubs of Illinois American Bird Conservancy Fishing Buddies Association of Illinois Soil & Water Forest Preserve District of DuPage County Conservation Districts Forest Preserve District of Kane County Audubon Chicago Region Forest Preserve District of Will County Bird Conservation Network Friends of Johnson Park Boone County Conservation District Grand Prairie Friends Brookfield Zoo Henson Robinson Zoo Calhoun County Farm Bureau Illinois Association of Conservation Districts Central Hardwoods Joint Venture Illinois Association of REALTORS Central Illinois Musky Hunters Illinois Association of Regional Councils Champaign County Forest Preserve District Illinois Association of Resource Chicago Botanic Garden Conservation and Development Areas Chicago Wilderness Illinois Audubon Society Cook County Forest Preserve District Illinois Conservation Foundation Cosley Zoo Illinois Department of Agriculture D.J. Case & Associates Division of Natural Resources Defenders of Wildlife Illinois Department of Transportation Ducks Unlimited Design & Environment DuPage River Fly Tyers Planning & Programming Eastern Illinois University Illinois Department of Natural Resources Department of Biological Sciences C2000 Ecosystems Program Educational Resources for Environmental Endangered Species Task Group Sciences Illinois Natural History Survey Embarras Volunteer Stewards Office of Land Management & Environmental Education Association of Education Illinois Office of Law Enforcement -i- ILLINOIS COMPREHENSIVE WILDLIFE CONSERVATION PLAN & STRATEGY Version 1.0 i. Partners in Plan/Strategy Development Illinois Department of Natural Resources National Wild Turkey Federation Office of Realty & Environmental Illinois Chapter Planning Northern Illinois Anglers Association Office of Resource Conservation Northern Illinois Conservation Club Private Lands Task Group Organization of Wildlife Planners Illinois Endangered Species Protection Partners in Flight Board Peggy Notebaert Nature Museum Illinois Environmental Protection Agency Pheasants Forever Illinois Farm Bureau Prairie Rivers Network Illinois Federation for Outdoor Resources Quail Unlimited Illinois Forestry Development Council Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation Illinois-Indiana Sea Grant Program Sand Bluff Bird Observatory Illinois Nature Preserves Commission Shawnee Audubon Society Illinois State Museum Sierra Club Illinois State University Illinois Chapter Department of Biological Sciences Northwest Cook County Group International Association of Fish & Wildlife Shawnee Group Agencies Southern Illinois University Izaak Walton League Cooperative Wildlife Research Illinois Division Laboratory Champaign County Chapter Southwestern Illinois RC & D Jo Daviess Conservation Foundation The Natural Lands Institute Kankakee County Soil & Water The Nature Conservancy Conservation District The Ornithological Council Lake County Forest Preserve District The Wildlife Society Lincoln Park Zoo Illinois Chapter Little John Conservation Club Tri-County Regional Planning Commission Macon County Conservation District Trout Unlimited McHenry County Conservation District Illinois Council Union County Farm Bureau United Bowhunters of Illinois -ii- ILLINOIS COMPREHENSIVE WILDLIFE CONSERVATION PLAN & STRATEGY Version 1.0 i. Partners in Plan/Strategy Development University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign US Fish & Wildlife Service Department of Natural Resources & Region 3 Development Assistance Environmental Sciences Team Urbana Park District Chicago Field Office Upper Des Plaines River Ecosystem Illinois River National Fish & Wildlife Partnership Refuges Complex Upper Mississippi River and Great Lakes Mark Twain National Fish & Wildlife Joint Venture Refuges Complex US Army Corps of Engineers National Acceptance Advisory Team Rock Island District Rock Island Field Office St. Louis District Upper Mississippi River National US Department of Agriculture Fish & Wildlife Refuges Complex Farm Service Agency Western Illinois University Midewin National Tallgrass Prairie Department of Biological Sciences Natural Resources Conservation Whiteside County Soil and Water Service Conservation District Shawnee National Forest Will County Forest Preserve District Winnebago County Forest Preserve District Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources Special Thanks to the C2000 Ecosystem Partnerships EMBARRAS RIVER AMERICAN BOTTOM FOX RIVER BIG RIVERS HEADWATERS CACHE RIVER HEART OF THE SANGAMON CARLYLE LAKE RIVER DRIFTLESS AREA ILLINOIS RIVER BLUFFS DUPAGE RIVER COALITION KANKAKEE RIVER -iii- ILLINOIS COMPREHENSIVE WILDLIFE CONSERVATION PLAN & STRATEGY Version 1.0 i. Partners in Plan/Strategy Development C2000 Ecosystem Partnerships PRAIRIE PARKLANDS KASKASKIA RIVER/SHOAL CREEK ROCK RIVER KINKAID AREA WATERSHED SALINE BASIN KISHWAUKEE RIVER SHAWNEE WATERSHED LAKE CALUMET SPOON RIVER LA MOINE RIVER SUGAR-PECATONICA RIVERS LOWER DES PLAINES RIVER THORN CREEK MACROSITE LOWER KASKASKIA/SILVER UPPER DES PLAINES RIVER CREEK UPPER KASKASKIA RIVER LOWER ROCK RIVER UPPER LITTLE WABASH LOWER SANGAMON VALLEY UPPER ROCK RIVER MACKINAW RIVER UPPER SALT CREEK OF THE MISSISSIPPI WESTERN FIVE SANGAMON NORTH BRANCH OF THE VERMILION RIVER CHICAGO RIVER VERMILION WATERSHED TASK OZARK FORCE -iv- ILLINOIS COMPREHENSIVE WILDLIFE CONSERVATION PLAN & STRATEGY Version 1.0 ii. Acknowledgments ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The Illinois Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Plan & Strategy (Plan/Strategy) has been made possible by tremendous cooperation and collaboration among many agencies, organizations and individuals. All of the agencies and organizations participating in the planning process are acknowledged on the previous pages. A number of excellent conservation plans were consulted and incorporated into this document (Table 3). The Plan/Strategy steering committee provided helpful guidance to the process (Table 2). Special thanks to the scientists who contributed to status assessments, objectives, and natural division assessments. The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service was most helpful in guiding development of the Plan/Strategy, and the International Association of Fish & Wildlife Agencies provided much- appreciated support to Illinois and the other states. Though the Illinois Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Plan & Strategy documents much work needs to be done, the accomplishments of yesterday’s and today’s conservationists provide an excellent foundation for the future. Thanks to the Teaming With Wildlife Coalition, the Wildlife Conservation & Restoration Program and State Wildlife Grants Program are providing additional support to habitat and wildlife conservation. Development of the Illinois Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Plan & Strategy was supported by State Wildlife Grant Program funding (Federal Aid Project T-2-P-1). -v- ILLINOIS COMPREHENSIVE WILDLIFE CONSERVATION PLAN & STRATEGY Version 1.0 iii. Foreword FOREWORD Illinois' Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Plan is a truly historic effort; never before has such a detailed, science-based plan for conserving our state's wildlife been undertaken. This process stretched over several months, and involved professional wildlife biologists, and also a knowledgeable steering committee representing several non-governmental wildlife and conservation organizations. In addition, the draft plan was presented at a number of regional meetings open to other interested groups and the general public, and was available to all on the Illinois Department of Natural Resources website. Wildlife and habitat data from public and private sources were evaluated and incorporated into the evolving plan. Most importantly, the final plan presented here is one which involves action. It is not just an inventory of species, but a plan to address the particular needs of wildlife that are declining so that populations can be stabilized and then increased. Many conservation projects in the past have been opportunistic and lacked a true sense of direction that could be plotted, tracked and designated as successful. Long-range landscape-level planning is one important component that leads to successful recovery efforts like those exemplified by wild turkeys and waterfowl. The Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Plan is a way to make habitat management and land protection targeted at ecosystems as exciting and successful as the aforementioned restoration efforts. It will guide future conservation efforts by outlining specific areas where limited dollars can be targeted to make positive impacts that are measurable. At the same time, all those entities with a vested interest in conservation--who have been part of the planning process--can work together more effectively in achieving the wildlife habitat goals which have been identified. The strategies outlined herein will focus future action by the Illinois Department of Natural Resources and many not-for-profit organizations which are involved in saving, restoring and managing wildlife habitat.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 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]
  • 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]
  • 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]
  • A Revision of the New World Species of Donacaula Meyrick and a Phylogenetic Analysis of Related Schoenobiinae (Lepidoptera: Crambidae)
    Mississippi State University Scholars Junction Theses and Dissertations Theses and Dissertations 1-1-2010 A Revision Of The New World Species Of Donacaula Meyrick And A Phylogenetic Analysis Of Related Schoenobiinae (Lepidoptera: Crambidae) Edda Lis Martinez Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarsjunction.msstate.edu/td Recommended Citation Martinez, Edda Lis, "A Revision Of The New World Species Of Donacaula Meyrick And A Phylogenetic Analysis Of Related Schoenobiinae (Lepidoptera: Crambidae)" (2010). Theses and Dissertations. 248. https://scholarsjunction.msstate.edu/td/248 This Dissertation - Open Access is brought to you for free and open access by the Theses and Dissertations at Scholars Junction. It has been accepted for inclusion in Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of Scholars Junction. For more information, please contact [email protected]. A REVISION OF THE NEW WORLD SPECIES OF DONACAULA MEYRICK AND A PHYLOGENETIC ANALYSIS OF RELATED SCHOENOBIINAE (LEPIDOPTERA: CRAMBIDAE) By Edda Lis Martínez A Dissertation Submitted to the Faculty of Mississippi State University in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Entomology in the Department of Entomology and Plant Pathology Mississippi State, Mississippi December 2010 A REVISION OF THE NEW WORLD SPECIES OF DONACAULA MEYRICK AND PHYLOGENETIC ANALYSIS OF RELATED SCHOENOBIINAE (LEPIDOPTERA: CRAMBIDAE) By Edda Lis Martínez Approved: ______________________________ ______________________________ Richard
    [Show full text]
  • Acrolepiopsis Assectella
    Acrolepiopsis assectella Scientific Name Acrolepiopsis assectella (Zeller, 1893) Synonym: Lita vigeliella Duponchel, 1842 Common Name Leek moth, onion leafminer Type of Pest Moth Taxonomic Position Class: Insecta, Order: Lepidoptera, Family: Acrolepiidae Figures 1 & 2. Adult male (top) and female (bottom) Reason for Inclusion of A. assectella. Scale bar is 1 mm (© Jean-François CAPS Community Suggestion Landry, Agriculture & Agri-Food Canada, 2007). Pest Description Eggs: “Roughly oval in shape with raised reticulated sculpturing; iridescent white” (Carter, 1984). Eggs are 0.5 by 1 0.2 mm (< /16 in) (USDA, 1960). Larvae: “Head yellowish brown, sometimes with reddish brown maculation; body yellowish green; spiracles surrounded by sclerotised rings, on abdominal segments coalescent with SD pinacula, these grayish brown; prothoracic and anal plates yellow with brown maculation; thoracic legs yellowish brown’ crochets of abdominal prologs arranged in uniserial circles, each enclosing a short, longitudinal row of 3–5 crochets” 1 (Carter, 1984). Larvae are about 13 to 14 mm (approx. /2 in) long (McKinlay, 1992). Pupae: “Reddish brown; abdominal spiracles on raised tubercles; cremaster abruptly terminated, dorsal lobe with a Figure 3. A. assectella larvae rugose plate bearing eight hooked setae, two rounded ventral on stem of elephant garlic lobes each bearing four hooked setae” (Carter, 1984). The (eastern Ontario, June 2000) (© 1 cocoon is 7 mm (approx. /4 in) long (USDA, 1960). “The Jean-François Landry, cocoon is white in colour and is composed of a loose net-like Agriculture & Agri-Food Canada, 2007). structure” (CFIA, 2012). Last updated: August 23, 2016 9 Adults: “15 mm [approx. /16 in wingspan]. Forewing pale brown, variably suffused with blackish brown; terminal quarter sprinkled with white scales; a distinct triangular white spot on the dorsum near the middle.
    [Show full text]
  • CHAPTER 4: EPHEMEROPTERA (Mayflies)
    Guide to Aquatic Invertebrate Families of Mongolia | 2009 CHAPTER 4 EPHEMEROPTERA (Mayflies) EPHEMEROPTERA Draft June 17, 2009 Chapter 4 | EPHEMEROPTERA 45 Guide to Aquatic Invertebrate Families of Mongolia | 2009 ORDER EPHEMEROPTERA Mayflies 4 Mayfly larvae are found in a variety of locations including lakes, wetlands, streams, and rivers, but they are most common and diverse in lotic habitats. They are common and abundant in stream riffles and pools, at lake margins and in some cases lake bottoms. All mayfly larvae are aquatic with terrestrial adults. In most mayfly species the adult only lives for 1-2 days. Consequently, the majority of a mayfly’s life is spent in the water as a larva. The adult lifespan is so short there is no need for the insect to feed and therefore the adult does not possess functional mouthparts. Mayflies are often an indicator of good water quality because most mayflies are relatively intolerant of pollution. Mayflies are also an important food source for fish. Ephemeroptera Morphology Most mayflies have three caudal filaments (tails) (Figure 4.1) although in some taxa the terminal filament (middle tail) is greatly reduced and there appear to be only two caudal filaments (only one genus actually lacks the terminal filament). Mayflies have gills on the dorsal surface of the abdomen (Figure 4.1), but the number and shape of these gills vary widely between taxa. All mayflies possess only one tarsal claw at the end of each leg (Figure 4.1). Characters such as gill shape, gill position, and tarsal claw shape are used to separate different mayfly families.
    [Show full text]
  • Evaluation of Insecticide Chemistries Against the Leek Moth (Lepidoptera: Acrolepiidae), a New Pest in North America Author(S): Daniel L
    Evaluation of Insecticide Chemistries Against the Leek Moth (Lepidoptera: Acrolepiidae), a New Pest in North America Author(s): Daniel L. Olmstead and Anthony M. Shelton Source: Florida Entomologist, 95(4):1127-1131. 2012. Published By: Florida Entomological Society URL: http://www.bioone.org/doi/full/10.1653/024.095.0443 BioOne (www.bioone.org) is a nonprofit, online aggregation of core research in the biological, ecological, and environmental sciences. BioOne provides a sustainable online platform for over 170 journals and books published by nonprofit societies, associations, museums, institutions, and presses. Your use of this PDF, the BioOne Web site, and all posted and associated content indicates your acceptance of BioOne’s Terms of Use, available at www.bioone.org/page/ terms_of_use. Usage of BioOne content is strictly limited to personal, educational, and non-commercial use. Commercial inquiries or rights and permissions requests should be directed to the individual publisher as copyright holder. BioOne sees sustainable scholarly publishing as an inherently collaborative enterprise connecting authors, nonprofit publishers, academic institutions, research libraries, and research funders in the common goal of maximizing access to critical research. Olmstead & Shelton: Chemical Control of the Leek Moth 1127 EVALUATION OF INSECTICIDE CHEMISTRIES AGAINST THE LEEK MOTH (LEPIDOPTERA: ACROLEPIIDAE), A NEW PEST IN NORTH AMERICA DANIEL L. OLMSTEAD* AND ANTHONY M. SHELTON New York State Agricultural Experiment Station, Department of Entomology, Cornell University, 630 West North Street, Geneva, NY 14456, USA *Corresponding author; E-mail: [email protected] Abstract The leek moth, Acrolepiopsis assectella (Zeller), is a newly introduced micro-lepidopteran pest in North America that attacks Allium crops, including onion, leek, and garlic.
    [Show full text]
  • Moth Diversity in Young Jack Pine-Deciduous Forests Aiter Disturbance by Wildfire Or Clear-Cutting
    MOTH DIVERSITY IN YOUNG JACK PINE-DECIDUOUS FORESTS AITER DISTURBANCE BY WILDFIRE OR CLEAR-CUTTING Rosalind Frances Cordes Chaundy A thesis submitted in conformity with the nquirements for the degree of Muter of Science in Foresty Gnduate Faculty of Forest y University of Toronto Q Copyright by Rosrlind Frances Cordu Chiundy 1999 National Library Bibliothbque nationale I*I oi canaci, du Canada Acquisitions and Acquisitions et Bibliogmphic SeMces secvices bibliographiques 395 Wellington Street 395, rue Wellington ûttawaON K1A ON4 Ottawa ON K1A ON4 Canada canada The author has granted a non- L'auteur a accordé une licence non exclusive licence allowing the exclusive permettant a la National Library of Canada to Bibliothèque nationale du Canada de reproduce, loan, distribute or sel1 reproduire, prêter, distribuer ou copies of this thesis in rnicroform, vendre des copies de cette thèse sous paper or electronic formats. la forme de microfichelfilm, de reproduction sur papier ou sur format électronique. The author retains ownership of the L'auteur conserve la propriété du copyright in this thesis. Neither the droit d'auteur qui protège cette thèse. thesis nor substantial extracts fiom it Ni la thèse ni des extraits substantiels may be printed or otherwise de celle-ci ne doivent être imprimés reproduced without the author's ou autrement reproduits sans son permission. autorisation. ABSTRACT Moth Diversity in Young Jack Pine-Deciduous Forests Mer Disturbance by Wfldfire or Clear- Cutting. Muter of Science in Forestry. 1999. Roselind Frances Cordes Chaundy. Fadty of Forestry, University of Toronto. Moth divcrsity was compared between four to eight yw-old jack pinedeciduous forests that had ban burned by wildfire or clearîut.
    [Show full text]
  • MOTHS and BUTTERFLIES LEPIDOPTERA DISTRIBUTION DATA SOURCES (LEPIDOPTERA) * Detailed Distributional Information Has Been J.D
    MOTHS AND BUTTERFLIES LEPIDOPTERA DISTRIBUTION DATA SOURCES (LEPIDOPTERA) * Detailed distributional information has been J.D. Lafontaine published for only a few groups of Lepidoptera in western Biological Resources Program, Agriculture and Agri-food Canada. Scott (1986) gives good distribution maps for Canada butterflies in North America but these are generalized shade Central Experimental Farm Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0C6 maps that give no detail within the Montane Cordillera Ecozone. A series of memoirs on the Inchworms (family and Geometridae) of Canada by McGuffin (1967, 1972, 1977, 1981, 1987) and Bolte (1990) cover about 3/4 of the Canadian J.T. Troubridge fauna and include dot maps for most species. A long term project on the “Forest Lepidoptera of Canada” resulted in a Pacific Agri-Food Research Centre (Agassiz) four volume series on Lepidoptera that feed on trees in Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada Canada and these also give dot maps for most species Box 1000, Agassiz, B.C. V0M 1A0 (McGugan, 1958; Prentice, 1962, 1963, 1965). Dot maps for three groups of Cutworm Moths (Family Noctuidae): the subfamily Plusiinae (Lafontaine and Poole, 1991), the subfamilies Cuculliinae and Psaphidinae (Poole, 1995), and ABSTRACT the tribe Noctuini (subfamily Noctuinae) (Lafontaine, 1998) have also been published. Most fascicles in The Moths of The Montane Cordillera Ecozone of British Columbia America North of Mexico series (e.g. Ferguson, 1971-72, and southwestern Alberta supports a diverse fauna with over 1978; Franclemont, 1973; Hodges, 1971, 1986; Lafontaine, 2,000 species of butterflies and moths (Order Lepidoptera) 1987; Munroe, 1972-74, 1976; Neunzig, 1986, 1990, 1997) recorded to date.
    [Show full text]
  • Economic Cost of Invasive Non-Native Species on Great Britain F
    The Economic Cost of Invasive Non-Native Species on Great Britain F. Williams, R. Eschen, A. Harris, D. Djeddour, C. Pratt, R.S. Shaw, S. Varia, J. Lamontagne-Godwin, S.E. Thomas, S.T. Murphy CAB/001/09 November 2010 www.cabi.org 1 KNOWLEDGE FOR LIFE The Economic Cost of Invasive Non-Native Species on Great Britain Acknowledgements This report would not have been possible without the input of many people from Great Britain and abroad. We thank all the people who have taken the time to respond to the questionnaire or to provide information over the phone or otherwise. Front Cover Photo – Courtesy of T. Renals Sponsors The Scottish Government Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, UK Government Department for the Economy and Transport, Welsh Assembly Government FE Williams, R Eschen, A Harris, DH Djeddour, CF Pratt, RS Shaw, S Varia, JD Lamontagne-Godwin, SE Thomas, ST Murphy CABI Head Office Nosworthy Way Wallingford OX10 8DE UK and CABI Europe - UK Bakeham Lane Egham Surrey TW20 9TY UK CABI Project No. VM10066 2 The Economic Cost of Invasive Non-Native Species on Great Britain Executive Summary The impact of Invasive Non-Native Species (INNS) can be manifold, ranging from loss of crops, damaged buildings, and additional production costs to the loss of livelihoods and ecosystem services. INNS are increasingly abundant in Great Britain and in Europe generally and their impact is rising. Hence, INNS are the subject of considerable concern in Great Britain, prompting the development of a Non-Native Species Strategy and the formation of the GB Non-Native Species Programme Board and Secretariat.
    [Show full text]
  • CHECKLIST of WISCONSIN MOTHS (Superfamilies Mimallonoidea, Drepanoidea, Lasiocampoidea, Bombycoidea, Geometroidea, and Noctuoidea)
    WISCONSIN ENTOMOLOGICAL SOCIETY SPECIAL PUBLICATION No. 6 JUNE 2018 CHECKLIST OF WISCONSIN MOTHS (Superfamilies Mimallonoidea, Drepanoidea, Lasiocampoidea, Bombycoidea, Geometroidea, and Noctuoidea) Leslie A. Ferge,1 George J. Balogh2 and Kyle E. Johnson3 ABSTRACT A total of 1284 species representing the thirteen families comprising the present checklist have been documented in Wisconsin, including 293 species of Geometridae, 252 species of Erebidae and 584 species of Noctuidae. Distributions are summarized using the six major natural divisions of Wisconsin; adult flight periods and statuses within the state are also reported. Examples of Wisconsin’s diverse native habitat types in each of the natural divisions have been systematically inventoried, and species associated with specialized habitats such as peatland, prairie, barrens and dunes are listed. INTRODUCTION This list is an updated version of the Wisconsin moth checklist by Ferge & Balogh (2000). A considerable amount of new information from has been accumulated in the 18 years since that initial publication. Over sixty species have been added, bringing the total to 1284 in the thirteen families comprising this checklist. These families are estimated to comprise approximately one-half of the state’s total moth fauna. Historical records of Wisconsin moths are relatively meager. Checklists including Wisconsin moths were compiled by Hoy (1883), Rauterberg (1900), Fernekes (1906) and Muttkowski (1907). Hoy's list was restricted to Racine County, the others to Milwaukee County. Records from these publications are of historical interest, but unfortunately few verifiable voucher specimens exist. Unverifiable identifications and minimal label data associated with older museum specimens limit the usefulness of this information. Covell (1970) compiled records of 222 Geometridae species, based on his examination of specimens representing at least 30 counties.
    [Show full text]
  • September 24, 2018
    September 24, 2018 Sent via Federal eRulemaking Portal to: http://www.regulations.gov Docket Nos. FWS-HQ-ES-2018-0006 FWS-HQ-ES-2018-0007 FWS-HQ-ES-2018-0009 Bridget Fahey Chief, Division of Conservation and Classification U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 5275 Leesburg Pike, MS: ES Falls Church, VA 22041-3808 [email protected] Craig Aubrey Chief, Division of Environmental Review Ecological Services Program U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 5275 Leesburg Pike, MS: ES Falls Church, VA 22041 [email protected] Samuel D. Rauch, III National Marine Fisheries Service Office of Protected Resources 1315 East-West Highway Silver Spring, MD 20910 [email protected] Re: Proposed Revisions of Endangered Species Act Regulations Dear Mr. Aubrey, Ms. Fahey, and Mr. Rauch: The Southern Environmental Law Center (“SELC”) submits the following comments in opposition to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s and National Marine Fisheries Service’s proposed revisions to the Endangered Species Act’s implementing regulations.1 We submit these comments on behalf of 57 organizations working to protect the natural resources of the 1 Revision of the Regulations for Prohibitions to Threatened Wildlife and Plants, 83 Fed. Reg. 35,174 (proposed July 25, 2018) (to be codified at 50 C.F.R. pt. 17); Revision of Regulations for Interagency Cooperation, 83 Fed. Reg. 35,178 (proposed July 25, 2018) (to be codified at 50 C.F.R. pt. 402); Revision of the Regulations for Listing Species and Designating Critical Habitat, 83 Fed. Reg. 35,193 (proposed July 25, 2018) (to be codified at 50 C.F.R.
    [Show full text]