DOCSLIB.ORG

Beltrami Island Land Utilization Project Comprehensive Conservation Management Plan Draft, 2012

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Beltrami Island Land Utilization Project Comprehensive Conservation Management Plan Draft, 2012 Beltrami Island Land Utilization Project Comprehensive Conservation Management Plan Draft, 2012 1 Beltrami Island Land Utilization Project Comprehensive Conservation Management Plan Draft, 2011 Minnesota Department of Natural Resources U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2 Acknowledgements This plan is a product of the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. Some sections of this plan, particularly where it references other plans, borrows language directly from those plans, including other Minnesota DNR documents, the Red Lake Bands’ Wolf Management Plan, and various Watershed District and watershed basin plans. Much of the material presented in Chapter 3 on soils, peatlands, and vegetation communities was contributed and written by Scott Zager of Wildlands Inc., 2009 Maryknoll Avenue North, Maplewood, MN. The section on insect resources was provided by Kyle Johnson, University of Wisconsin, Madison. Materials, guidance and edits were provided by members of the planning Leadership Team (see Appendix E) and other DNR staff including Jana Albers, Wes Bailey, Heidi Cyr, Margaret Dexter, Katie Haws, Steve Heutmaker, Chris Kotter-Weir, Mike Kovacovich, Mike Larson, Cindy Leuth, Mike Magner, Becky Marty, Cynthia Osmundson, Dave Radford,, Chris Scharenbroich, Dave Schiller, Dennis Simon, Phil Talmadge, and Dave Thomas. Pete Takash set up the project website and assisted with production and distribution of news press releases. Lead author: Michael R. North. Cover art work by Ross Hier, copyright 2011. “We and our families have enjoyed the Beltrami Forest area for many years. Its become an important part of our lives. My grandparents took us hunting, fishing, trapping, berrying all our lives, and it continues [for] our grandchildren and great grandchildren. Its not just land – it’s a way of life.” Leon Wilson (age 102) and Grace Sonstegard, February 2011 3 Table of Contents Executive Summary …………………………………………………………………………….. 4 Chapter 1. Introduction ………………………………………………………………………… 6 Chapter 2. The Planning Process ………………………………………………………………. 35 Chapter 3. The Natural and Human Environment …………………………………………….. 41 Chapter 4. Management Directions …………………………………………………………… 122 Chapter 5. Implementation ……………………………………………………………………. 179 References ……………………………………………………………………………………… 185 Appendix A. Environmental Assessment ……………………………………………………… 199 Appendix B. Current Land Cover and Desired Future Conditions in Hayes Lake State Park … 253 Appendix C. Minnesota’s Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy for the Agassiz Lowlands Ecological Subsection ……………………………………………………… 254 Appendix D. Management Plan for Cultural Resources on the Land Utilization Project Parcels in the Red Lake WMA and Beltrami Island State Forest …………………….. 256 Appendix E. Leadership Team and Project Staff ……………………………………………… 257 Appendix F. Summary of Public Comments Received During Scoping ……………………… 258 Appendix G. Birds of the Beltrami Island Area ……………………………………………….. 274 Appendix H. Process for Identification of Avian Ecological Keystone Species ………………. 286 Appendix I. Fishes of the Beltrami Island Land Utilization Project Area ……………………… 287 Appendix J. DNR GIS Analysis of Natural Versus Altered Watercourses in the Roseau River Watershed ………………………………………………………………………… 289 Appendix K. Butterflies and Moths of the Beltrami Island Land Utilization Project Area……... 290 Appendix L. Climate Change Adaptation Strategies Under Three Broad Adaptation Options … 305 Appendix M. Soil Moisture Monitoring and Soil Climate Analysis Network (SCAN) ………... 306 4 Executive Summary We propose to manage the 84,000 acres that comprise the Beltrami Island Land Utilization Project under a landscape type perspective. This draft Comprehensive Conservation Management Plan (CCMP) identifies and describes a series of goals, objectives, and strategies devised for managing wildlife, wildlife habitat, the human environment, and land assets and is intended to guide the management of LUP lands for at least the next 15 years. We developed three alternatives to accomplish the goals, objectives, and strategies: Alternative A: Current Management Direction (No Change/No Action), Alternative B: Manage the Landscape, and Alternative C: Manage by Species. Alternative B (Manage the Landscape) is the Preferred Alternative. The alternatives are fully described in the Environmental Assessment in Appendix A (see especially pages 204-206). The Beltrami Island Land Utilization Project CCMP does not propose any changes to existing public access (including motorized access) or hunting, fishing and trapping opportunities. Under Alterntives B and C, artificial water storage would be allowed on LUP lands if storage also provides wildlife benefits (see pages 165-166 [Objective 3.7], 206, and 227 [Strategies for Objective 3.7]). The primary focus of the CCMP is managing habitat to provide a diverse array of habitats for wildlife species. A landscape approach that considers the quality, quantity and interspersion of habitat throughout the entire project area – essentially the statutory boundaries of the Beltrami Island State Forest (see insert) – is deemed the most effective mechanism for assuring the habitat needs of all native wildlife species are met, and that wildlife populations may be maintained within their natural range of variability. An assessment of the habitat needs of key game and nongame species revealed three groups of particular management interest: nongame species and furbearers that require mature forests; openland species that require early successional graminoid-dominated wetlands; and game species that thrive in early successional forest habitats. LUP lands were identified as being particularly important in providing habitat for species requiring mature forests. Therefore, the CCMP envisions managing LUP lands in part to provide more conifers and older forests on the landscape. This vision is complementary with the current Agassiz Lowlands SFRMP. A landscape approach allows management decisions for a particular LUP parcel to be made in a holistic manner with the condition of surrounding state, tribal, or private lands taken into consideration. Alternative C (Manage by Species) is similar to the preferred alternative, except that management decisions would be driven more by conditions on the LUP parcel with less consideration for habitat conditions on adjoining state, tribal or private lands. Vegetation management would be more intensive under Alternative C, and slightly more acres of habitat would be managed for key species. A drawback for Alternative C is that it could lead to unintended consequences for managing adjoining state land under the directions provided by the current Agassiz Lowlands SFRMP. Both Alternatives B and C establish a vision for the desired future condition of LUP lands while still honoring existing management plans. A few strategic land exchanges within the LUP project area are proposed that would benefit both the state and the purpose for which LUP lands were designated by President Franklin Roosevelt by Executive Order in 1942. These include exchanging LUP lands out of 5 Hayes Lake State Park, exchanging some red pine plantations with the state for ecologically sensitive areas, and consolidating LUP ownership of yellow birch stands on the north shore of Upper Red Lake. An area containing 4,477 acres of LUP lands in the Spina area within the Red Lake WMA has been identified as containing wilderness area values and characteristics. Both Alternatives B and C propose to manage the area to retain these wilderness area values and characteristics (see pages 151-152 and 219 {Objective 2.8]). Alternatives B and C do not differ significantly from Alternative A. Alternative A would continue current management under existing plans. It primarily differs from Alternatives B and C in that it lacks a vision for the desired future conditions of LUP lands and does not include a strategy for land exchanges. Alternative A also lacks a timeline for accomplishing some Departmental goals that are given a priority focus under Alternatives B and C. This plan should provide a clear understanding of LUP management directions to the public. It is written to avoid being overly prescriptive, so that it can be adaptive, especially in the face of uncertainty of the impacts climate change will have on the landscape. We invite you to review the CCMP and tell us what you think. Your comments on the draft plan will help us write a final plan that is both visionary and practical. We will host an open house meeting on June 27, 2012 from 4:00 -8:00 pm at the DNR Area Forestry Office, 804 Cherne Drive in Warroad to answer your questions and take your oral comments. Written comments will also be accepted by mail or email through July 25, 2012. Written comments should be sent to Michael North, Minnesota DNR, 1601 Minnesota Drive, Brainerd, MN 56401. Email comments should be addressed to [email protected]. Inset: LUP planning area, outlined in purple. 6 Chapter 1: Introduction and Background Introduction This document is a draft Comprehensive Conservation Management Plan (CCMP) for about 84,000 acres of state-leased federal lands known as the Beltrami Island Land Utilization Project (LUP). These lands, also referred to as the Beltrami Wildlife Management Area (WMA), are located in Roseau, Lake-of-the- Woods, and Beltrami counties in northern Minnesota. The Beltrami Wildlife Management Area was established by Executive Order 9091 by President Franklin Delano Roosevelt on March 6, 1942, and “reserved as a refuge and
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Lepidoptera of North America 5
    Lepidoptera of North America 5. Contributions to the Knowledge of Southern West Virginia Lepidoptera Contributions of the C.P. Gillette Museum of Arthropod Diversity Colorado State University Lepidoptera of North America 5. Contributions to the Knowledge of Southern West Virginia Lepidoptera by Valerio Albu, 1411 E. Sweetbriar Drive Fresno, CA 93720 and Eric Metzler, 1241 Kildale Square North Columbus, OH 43229 April 30, 2004 Contributions of the C.P. Gillette Museum of Arthropod Diversity Colorado State University Cover illustration: Blueberry Sphinx (Paonias astylus (Drury)], an eastern endemic. Photo by Valeriu Albu. ISBN 1084-8819 This publication and others in the series may be ordered from the C.P. Gillette Museum of Arthropod Diversity, Department of Bioagricultural Sciences and Pest Management Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80523 Abstract A list of 1531 species ofLepidoptera is presented, collected over 15 years (1988 to 2002), in eleven southern West Virginia counties. A variety of collecting methods was used, including netting, light attracting, light trapping and pheromone trapping. The specimens were identified by the currently available pictorial sources and determination keys. Many were also sent to specialists for confirmation or identification. The majority of the data was from Kanawha County, reflecting the area of more intensive sampling effort by the senior author. This imbalance of data between Kanawha County and other counties should even out with further sampling of the area. Key Words: Appalachian Mountains,
    [Show full text]
  • Rare Native Animals of RI
    RARE NATIVE ANIMALS OF RHODE ISLAND Revised: March, 2006 ABOUT THIS LIST The list is divided by vertebrates and invertebrates and is arranged taxonomically according to the recognized authority cited before each group. Appropriate synonomy is included where names have changed since publication of the cited authority. The Natural Heritage Program's Rare Native Plants of Rhode Island includes an estimate of the number of "extant populations" for each listed plant species, a figure which has been helpful in assessing the health of each species. Because animals are mobile, some exhibiting annual long-distance migrations, it is not possible to derive a population index that can be applied to all animal groups. The status assigned to each species (see definitions below) provides some indication of its range, relative abundance, and vulnerability to decline. More specific and pertinent data is available from the Natural Heritage Program, the Rhode Island Endangered Species Program, and the Rhode Island Natural History Survey. STATUS. The status of each species is designated by letter codes as defined: (FE) Federally Endangered (7 species currently listed) (FT) Federally Threatened (2 species currently listed) (SE) State Endangered Native species in imminent danger of extirpation from Rhode Island. These taxa may meet one or more of the following criteria: 1. Formerly considered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for Federal listing as endangered or threatened. 2. Known from an estimated 1-2 total populations in the state. 3. Apparently globally rare or threatened; estimated at 100 or fewer populations range-wide. Animals listed as State Endangered are protected under the provisions of the Rhode Island State Endangered Species Act, Title 20 of the General Laws of the State of Rhode Island.
    [Show full text]
  • Survey of the Lepidoptera Fauna in Birch Mountains Wildland Provincial Park
    Survey of the Lepidoptera Fauna in Birch Mountains Wildland Provincial Park Platarctia parthenos Photo: D. Vujnovic Prepared for: Alberta Natural Heritage Information Centre, Parks and Protected Areas Division, Alberta Community Development Prepared by: Doug Macaulay and Greg Pohl Alberta Lepidopterists' Guild May 10, 2005 Figure 1. Doug Macaulay and Gerald Hilchie walking on a cutline near site 26. (Photo by Stacy Macaulay) Figure 2. Stacey Macaulay crossing a beaver dam at site 33. (Photo by Doug Macaulay) I TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................... 1 METHODS .............................................................................................................................. 1 RESULTS ................................................................................................................................ 3 DISCUSSION .......................................................................................................................... 4 I. Factors affecting the Survey...........................................................................................4 II. Taxa of particular interest.............................................................................................5 A. Butterflies:...................................................................................................................... 5 B. Macro-moths ..................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Errata and First Update to the 2010 Checklist of the Lepidoptera Of
    Errata and first uppppdate to the 2010 checklist of the Lepidoptera of Alberta Gregory R. Pohl, Jason J Dombroskie, Jean‐François Landry, Charles D Bird, and Vazrick Nazari lead author contact: [email protected] Introduction: Since the Annotated list of the Lepidoptera of Alberta was published in March 2010 (Pohl et al. 2010), a few typographical and nomenclatural errors have come to the authors' attention, as well as three erroneous AB records that were inadvertently omitted from that publication. Additionally, a considerable number of new AB species records have been brought to our attention since that checklist went to press. As expected, most are microlepidoptera. We detail all these items below, in what we hope will be a regular series of addenda to the AB list. If you are aware of further errors or additions to the AB Lepidoptera list, please contact the authors. Wit hin the NidNoctuoidea, there are a few minor iiiinconsistencies in the order of species wihiithin genera, and in the order of genera within tribes or subtribes, as compared to the sequence published by Lafontaine & Schmidt (2010). As well, the sequence of tribes in the AB list does not exactly match that of Lafontaine & Schmidt (2010), particularly in the Erebinae. We are not detailing those minor differences here unless they involve a move to a new genus or new higher taxonomic category. Errata: Abstract, p. 2, line 10, should read "1530... annotations are given" 41 Nemapogon granella (p. 55). Add Kearfott (1905) to the AB literature records. 78 Caloptilia syringella (p. 60). This species should be placed in the genus Gracillaria as per De Prins & De Prins (2005).
    [Show full text]
  • Survey of Lepidoptera of the Wainwright Dunes Ecological Reserve
    SURVEY OF LEPIDOPTERA OF THE WAINWRIGHT DUNES ECOLOGICAL RESERVE Alberta Species at Risk Report No. 159 SURVEY OF LEPIDOPTERA OF THE WAINWRIGHT DUNES ECOLOGICAL RESERVE Doug Macaulay Alberta Species at Risk Report No.159 Project Partners: i ISBN 978-1-4601-3449-8 ISSN 1496-7146 Photo: Doug Macaulay of Pale Yellow Dune Moth ( Copablepharon grandis ) For copies of this report, visit our website at: http://www.aep.gov.ab.ca/fw/speciesatrisk/index.html This publication may be cited as: Macaulay, A. D. 2016. Survey of Lepidoptera of the Wainwright Dunes Ecological Reserve. Alberta Species at Risk Report No.159. Alberta Environment and Parks, Edmonton, AB. 31 pp. ii DISCLAIMER The views and opinions expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the policies of the Department or the Alberta Government. iii Table of Contents ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ............................................................................................... vi EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................... vi 1.0 Introduction ................................................................................................................... 1 2.0 STUDY AREA ............................................................................................................. 2 3.0 METHODS ................................................................................................................... 6 4.0 RESULTS ....................................................................................................................
    [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]
  • 2010 Season Summary Index NEW WOFTHE~ Zone 1: Yukon Territory
    2010 Season Summary Index NEW WOFTHE~ Zone 1: Yukon Territory ........................................................................................... 3 Alaska ... ........................................ ............................................................... 3 LEPIDOPTERISTS Zone 2: British Columbia .................................................... ........................ ............ 6 Idaho .. ... ....................................... ................................................................ 6 Oregon ........ ... .... ........................ .. .. ............................................................ 10 SOCIETY Volume 53 Supplement Sl Washington ................................................................................................ 14 Zone 3: Arizona ............................................................ .................................... ...... 19 The Lepidopterists' Society is a non-profo California ............... ................................................. .............. .. ................... 2 2 educational and scientific organization. The Nevada ..................................................................... ................................ 28 object of the Society, which was formed in Zone 4: Colorado ................................ ... ............... ... ...... ......................................... 2 9 May 1947 and formally constituted in De­ Montana .................................................................................................... 51 cember
    [Show full text]
  • The Annals of Scottish Natural History
    RETURN TO LIBRARY OF MARINE BIOLOGICAL LABORATORY WOODS HOLE, MASS. LOANED BY AMERICAN MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY t The Annals OF Scottish Natural History A QUARTERLY MAGAZINE \V1TH WHICH IS INCORPORATED CIjc Naturalist EDITED BY ]. A. HARV IE-BROWN, F.R.S.E., F.Z.S. MEMBER OF THE BRITISH ORNITHOLOGISTS' UNION JAMES W. H. TRAIL, M.A., M.D., F.R.S., F.L.S. PROFESSOR OF BOTANY IN THE UNIVERSITY OF ABERDEEN AND WILLIAM EAGLE CLARKE, F.L.S., MEM. BRIT. ORN. UNION NATURAL HISTORY DEPARTMENT, Ml'SEUM OF SCIENCE AND ART, EDINBURGH IQOO EDINBURGH DAVID DOUGLAS, CASTLE STREET LONDON: R. H. PORTER, 7 PRINCES ST., CAVENDISH SQUARE The Annals of Scottish Natural History NO. 33] 1900 [JANUARY A FEW NOTES ON THE WORKING OF THE WILD BIRDS PROTECTION ACT (1894) By WILLIAM BERRY, B.A., LL.B. THE Wild Birds Protection Act of 1894 has now been in operation within one district of Fifeshire for three complete seasons. Even after such a short period as this, though great results cannot yet be looked for, some distinct effect and are to be seen and it be improvement already ; may interesting, ' such as they are, to have them recorded in the Annals.' The district referred to lies in the north-east of the ' ' and is as the Tentsmuir about a third county, known ; of it has been under the writer's pretty constant supervision since the autumn of I 890. For some time before that this moor, which is naturally very attractive to many species of wild birds, had not been sufficiently watched or protected, and in the absence of this had become a happy hunting- ground for egg-gatherers, who regularly searched it for eggs, and gathered every egg they could find.
    [Show full text]
  • 46 E.I. Malikova, A.L. L'vovskii, E.A. Maksimenko, E.E. Malkov, A.N
    С.В. Василенко / ЭНТОМОЛОГИЯ E.I. Malikova, A.L. L’vovskii, E.A. Maksimenko, E.E. Malkov, A.N. Streltzov, S.G. Rudykh, D.A. Mil’ko. Biodiversity of the Sokhondo Nature Reserve. Arthropoda. Sokhondo Nature Reserve, Institute of Systematics and ecology of Animals SB RAS, Novosibirsk, Chita, 2004. P. 237–241. Ustjuzhanin P.Ya., Kovtunovich V.N. Familia Pterophoridae. In: // A.A. Shodotova, S.Yu. Gordeev, S.G. Rudykh, T.V. Gordeeva, P.Ya. Ustjuzhanin, V.N. Kovtunovich. Lepidopterans of Buryatia, a collective monograph. SB RAS Press, Novosibirsk. 2007a. P. 64–71. Ustjuzhanin P., Kovtunovich V. Fauna of Plume Moths (Lepidoptera, Pterophoridae) of the Altai Mts. Within the limits of Russia and Kazakhastan // Altai zoological journal. 2007b. Nr. 1. P. 43–51. Yano K. Taxonomic and biological studies of Pterophoridae of Japan // Pacific Insects. 1963. 5 (1). P. 65–209. Zaguljaev A.K. New data on the fauna of moth-like lepidopterans (Lepidoptera: Tineidae, Ochsenheimeriidae, Brachodidae, Ethmiidae, Pterophoridae) of Mongolia. Insects of Mongolia. 1989. Issue 10, Nauka, Leningrad, P. 512–520. Zaguljaev A.K., Pentschukovskaja T.A. Pterophorid moths (Lepidoptera, Pterophoridae) from Mongolia People’s Republic. Insects of Mongolia. Issue 1, Nauka, Leningrad, 1972. P. 687–692. Адреса для контактов: P. Ustjuzhanin, Siberian division of the Russian Entomological Society. Home address: P/O Box 169, Novosibirsk 630056, Russia. E-mail: [email protected] П.Я. Устюжанин, Сибирское отделение Русского энтомологического общества. Домаш- ний адрес: а.-я. 169, Новосибирск, 630056, Россия. E-mail: [email protected] V. Kovtunovich, Moscow Society of Nature Explorers. Home address: Malaya Filevskaya str., 24/1, app.
    [Show full text]
  • Download This Article in PDF Format
    Knowl. Manag. Aquat. Ecosyst. 2018, 419, 42 Knowledge & © K. Pabis, Published by EDP Sciences 2018 Management of Aquatic https://doi.org/10.1051/kmae/2018030 Ecosystems www.kmae-journal.org Journal fully supported by Onema REVIEW PAPER What is a moth doing under water? Ecology of aquatic and semi-aquatic Lepidoptera Krzysztof Pabis* Department of Invertebrate Zoology and Hydrobiology, University of Lodz, Banacha 12/16, 90-237 Lodz, Poland Abstract – This paper reviews the current knowledge on the ecology of aquatic and semi-aquatic moths, and discusses possible pre-adaptations of the moths to the aquatic environment. It also highlights major gaps in our understanding of this group of aquatic insects. Aquatic and semi-aquatic moths represent only a tiny fraction of the total lepidopteran diversity. Only about 0.5% of 165,000 known lepidopterans are aquatic; mostly in the preimaginal stages. Truly aquatic species can be found only among the Crambidae, Cosmopterigidae and Erebidae, while semi-aquatic forms associated with amphibious or marsh plants are known in thirteen other families. These lepidopterans have developed various strategies and adaptations that have allowed them to stay under water or in close proximity to water. Problems of respiratory adaptations, locomotor abilities, influence of predators and parasitoids, as well as feeding preferences are discussed. Nevertheless, the poor knowledge on their biology, life cycles, genomics and phylogenetic relationships preclude the generation of fully comprehensive evolutionary scenarios. Keywords: Lepidoptera / Acentropinae / caterpillars / freshwater / herbivory Résumé – Que fait une mite sous l'eau? Écologie des lépidoptères aquatiques et semi-aquatiques. Cet article passe en revue les connaissances actuelles sur l'écologie des mites aquatiques et semi-aquatiques, et discute des pré-adaptations possibles des mites au milieu aquatique.
    [Show full text]
  • Natural Heritage Program List of Rare Animal Species of North Carolina 2018
    Natural Heritage Program List of Rare Animal Species of North Carolina 2018 Carolina Northern Flying Squirrel (Glaucomys sabrinus coloratus) photo by Clifton Avery Compiled by Judith Ratcliffe, Zoologist North Carolina Natural Heritage Program N.C. Department of Natural and Cultural Resources www.ncnhp.org C ur Alleghany rit Ashe Northampton Gates C uc Surry am k Stokes P d Rockingham Caswell Person Vance Warren a e P s n Hertford e qu Chowan r Granville q ot ui a Mountains Watauga Halifax m nk an Wilkes Yadkin s Mitchell Avery Forsyth Orange Guilford Franklin Bertie Alamance Durham Nash Yancey Alexander Madison Caldwell Davie Edgecombe Washington Tyrrell Iredell Martin Dare Burke Davidson Wake McDowell Randolph Chatham Wilson Buncombe Catawba Rowan Beaufort Haywood Pitt Swain Hyde Lee Lincoln Greene Rutherford Johnston Graham Henderson Jackson Cabarrus Montgomery Harnett Cleveland Wayne Polk Gaston Stanly Cherokee Macon Transylvania Lenoir Mecklenburg Moore Clay Pamlico Hoke Union d Cumberland Jones Anson on Sampson hm Duplin ic Craven Piedmont R nd tla Onslow Carteret co S Robeson Bladen Pender Sandhills Columbus New Hanover Tidewater Coastal Plain Brunswick THE COUNTIES AND PHYSIOGRAPHIC PROVINCES OF NORTH CAROLINA Natural Heritage Program List of Rare Animal Species of North Carolina 2018 Compiled by Judith Ratcliffe, Zoologist North Carolina Natural Heritage Program N.C. Department of Natural and Cultural Resources Raleigh, NC 27699-1651 www.ncnhp.org This list is dynamic and is revised frequently as new data become available. New species are added to the list, and others are dropped from the list as appropriate. The list is published periodically, generally every two years.
    [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]