DOCSLIB.ORG

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Table of Contents INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................................................3-1 EFFECTS ANALYSIS INDICATORS AND ANALYSIS METHODS..................................................................3-1 DIRECT, INDIRECT AND CUMULATIVE EFFECTS—PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT.................................3-2 SOILS .........................................................................................................................................................................3-2 WATER RESOURCES ..................................................................................................................................................3-7 AIR QUALITY...........................................................................................................................................................3-26 MINERALS ...............................................................................................................................................................3-28 TRANSPORTATION ...................................................................................................................................................3-30 DIRECT, INDIRECT AND CUMULATIVE EFFECTS—BIOLOGICAL.........................................................3-37 VEGETATION ...........................................................................................................................................................3-37 TIMBER RESOURCES ................................................................................................................................................3-73 NON-NATIVE INVASIVE SPECIES .............................................................................................................................3-86 NATIVE PLANTS AND PLANTS OF MANAGEMENT CONCERN....................................................................................3-97 WILDLIFE ..............................................................................................................................................................3-105 RIPARIAN SPECIES OF VIABILITY CONCERN ..........................................................................................................3-164 FIRE MANAGEMENT ..............................................................................................................................................3-169 SPECIAL INTEREST AREAS .....................................................................................................................................3-173 RESEARCH NATURAL AREAS.................................................................................................................................3-178 DIRECT, INDIRECT AND CUMULATIVE EFFECTS—RECREATION, SOCIAL, AND ECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT ....................................................................................................................................................3-182 HERITAGE RESOURCES ..........................................................................................................................................3-182 RECREATION..........................................................................................................................................................3-185 SOCIAL ..................................................................................................................................................................3-198 ECONOMIC EFFECTS TO LOCAL COMMUNITIES......................................................................................................3-208 OTHER DISCLOSURES........................................................................................................................................3-224 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SHORT-TERM USES AND LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY ...................................................3-224 IRRETRIEVABLE OR IRREVERSIBLE COMMITMENT OF RESOURCES.........................................................................3-225 UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE EFFECTS AND MITIGATION............................................................................................3-226 List of Tables TABLE 3-1. 5TH LEVEL WATERSHEDS WITHIN THE OTTAWA ADMINISTRATIVE BOUNDARY.........................................3-9 TABLE 3-2. OTTAWA NATIONAL FOREST ROADS INFORMATION BY OBJECTIVE MAINTENANCE LEVEL .....................3-18 TABLE 3-3. ALTERNATIVE COMPARISON OF OHV USE FOR WATERSHED RESOURCES ...............................................3-19 TABLE 3-4. COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES FOR ASQ AND ROAD SEDIMENT YIELD ON WATERSHED RESOURCES ..3-23 TABLE 3-5. SURFACE AND SUBSURFACE OWNERSHIP WITHIN THE OTTAWA ADMINISTRATIVE BOUNDARY ...............3-29 TABLE 3-6. AVERAGE ROAD MILE POTENTIAL ON THE OTTAWA (MILES) ...................................................................3-36 TABLE 3-7. FOREST COMPOSITION, ACRES OF FORESTED LAND .................................................................................3-40 TABLE 3-8. NORTHERN HARDWOOD FOREST TYPES ....................................................................................................3-41 TABLE 3-9. NORTHERN HARDWOODS ON THE OTTAWA, ACRES OF FORESTED LAND .................................................3-42 TABLE 3-10. ASPEN/PAPER BIRCH FOREST TYPES .......................................................................................................3-44 TABLE 3-11. ASPEN/PAPER BIRCH ON THE OTTAWA, ACRES OF FORESTED LAND .......................................................3-45 TABLE 3-12. ACRES OF SHORT-LIVED CONIFER FOREST TYPE ON THE OTTAWA..........................................................3-46 TABLE 3-13. SHORT-LIVED CONIFER FOREST TYPES....................................................................................................3-46 TABLE 3-14. LONG-LIVED CONIFER FOREST TYPES .....................................................................................................3-48 TABLE 3-15. LONG-LIVED CONIFERS ON THE OTTAWA, ACRES OF FORESTED LAND ...................................................3-49 TABLE 3-16. ESTIMATED MIX OF EVEN AND UNEVEN-AGED MANAGEMENT IN NORTHERN HARDWOOD STANDS ......3-56 TABLE 3-17. ESTIMATED NUMBER OF SUITABLE ACRES MANAGED FOR NORTHERN HARDWOODS*...........................3-57 TABLE 3-18. ESTIMATED NUMBER OF ACRES MANAGED FOR ASPEN/PAPER BIRCH*..................................................3-59 TABLE 3-19. EXISTING AND DESIRED AGE CLASS DISTRIBUTION OF ASPEN ON SUITABLE ACRES* ............................3-60 TABLE 3-20. ESTIMATED NUMBER OF SUITABLE ACRES MANAGED FOR SHORT-LIVED CONIFERS* ............................3-61 TABLE 3-21. ESTIMATED NUMBER OF SUITABLE ACRES MANAGED FOR LONG-LIVED CONIFERS*..............................3-62 TABLE 3-22. LAND OWNERSHIP BREAKDOWN OF THE WESTERN UPPER PENINSULA OF MICHIGAN ............................3-69 TABLE 3-23. 50-YEAR HARVEST TRENDS ON THE OTTAWA .........................................................................................3-74 TABLE 3-24. AVERAGE ANNUAL GROWTH, MORTALITY, AND REMOVALS, 1980-1992 (MCF) ...................................3-75 TABLE 3-25. AVERAGE ANNUAL ACRES SOLD BY METHODS OF CUT, 1987-2003 .......................................................3-75 TABLE 3-26. AVERAGE ANNUAL REFORESTATION AND TIMBER STAND IMPROVEMENT ACCOMPLISHMENTS, 1987-2001 (ACRES)..............................................................................................................................................................3-76 TABLE 3-27. AVERAGE ANNUAL TIMBER SOLD BY TIMBER SPECIES PRODUCT GROUP, 1987-2001............................3-76 TABLE 3-28. SPECIAL FOREST PRODUCT GATHERING ON THE OTTAWA, 5-YEAR AVERAGE .........................................3-78 TABLE 3-29. ACRES OF LAND SUITABLE FOR TIMBER PRODUCTION BY ALTERNATIVE*..............................................3-78 TABLE 3-30. SUITED ACRES ALLOCATED TO FOREST TYPE (ACRES ROUNDED TO NEAREST THOUSAND) ....................3-79 TABLE 3-31. PROJECT ANNUAL ACRES AND PERCENT OF TOTAL ACRES OF TIMBER HARVEST BY CUTTING METHOD* 80 TABLE 3-32. PROJECT ANNUAL ACRES OF REFORESTATION AND TIMBER STAND IMPROVEMENT*.............................3-80 TABLE 3-33. PROJECTED ANNUAL HARVEST BY PRODUCT GROUP FOR THE FIRST AND SECOND DECADE AND THE TWO DECADE AVERAGE (MMCF)* ............................................................................................................................3-82 TABLE 3-34. AVERAGE ANNUAL ALLOWABLE SALE QUANTITY (ASQ) FOR THE FIRST FIVE DECADES BY ALTERNATIVE* ...........................................................................................................................................................................3-83 TABLE 3-35. NON-NATIVE INVASIVE PLANTS OF HIGH CONCERN...............................................................................3-88 TABLE 3-36. NON-NATIVE INVASIVE ANIMALS KNOWN TO OCCUR ON THE OTTAWA .................................................3-90 TABLE 3-37. NON-NATIVE INVASIVE ANIMALS THAT PRESENT IMMINENT THREATS ..................................................3-91 TABLE 3-38. SPECIES OF MANAGEMENT CONCERN (PLANTS OR PLANT GROUPS) .......................................................3-97 TABLE 3-39. PROPOSED ACRES OF ASPEN/PAPER BIRCH MAINTAINED ON SUITED LANDS........................................3-108 TABLE 3-40. ESTIMATED ACRES OF MANAGEMENT AREAS 1.1 AND 1.1A
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Biodiversity Work Group Report: Appendices
    Biodiversity Work Group Report: Appendices A: Initial List of Important Sites..................................................................................................... 2 B: An Annotated List of the Mammals of Albemarle County........................................................ 5 C: Birds ......................................................................................................................................... 18 An Annotated List of the Birds of Albemarle County.............................................................. 18 Bird Species Status Tables and Charts...................................................................................... 28 Species of Concern in Albemarle County............................................................................ 28 Trends in Observations of Species of Concern..................................................................... 30 D. Fish of Albemarle County........................................................................................................ 37 E. An Annotated Checklist of the Amphibians of Albemarle County.......................................... 41 F. An Annotated Checklist of the Reptiles of Albemarle County, Virginia................................. 45 G. Invertebrate Lists...................................................................................................................... 51 H. Flora of Albemarle County ...................................................................................................... 69 I. Rare
    [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]
  • Odonatological Abstract Service
    Odonatological Abstract Service published by the INTERNATIONAL DRAGON FLY FUND (IDF) in cooperation with the WORLDWIDE DRAGONFLY ASSOCIATION (WDA) Editors: Dr. Mart in Lindeboom, Landhausstr. 10, D-72074 Tübingen, Germany. Tel. ++49 (0)7071 552928; E-mail: Lindeboom @aol.com and Martin Schorr, Waldfrieden 25, D-54314 Zerf, Germany. Tel. ++49 (0)6587 1025; E-mail: [email protected] Published in Rheinfelden, Germany and printed in Tübingen, Germany. ISSN 1438-0269 1997 1986. Endersby, I.D. (1998): Dragonflies of Mount Buffalo National Park. Victorian Entomologist 28(5): 83- 85. (in English). [At 6 localities situated within the Mount 1983. Paternoster, T. (1997): 1996 une année Baffalo National Park, Victoria, Australia, 12 odonate exceptionelle pour l'observation des odonates du species were recorded. The habitats of Synthemis marais d'Harchies-Hensies-Pommeroeul. Naturalistes eustalacta and Austroaeschna flavomaculata are de Mons et du Borinage 99: 8-15. (in French). [27 shortly discussed.] Address: Endersby, I., 56 Looker odonate species are recorded in 1996 in the swamps of Rd, Montgomery, Victoria 3094, Australia. E-mail: Harchies, Belgium. Of special interest are the records of endersby@ Brachytron pratense (supposed extinct in the Wallonia), werple.net.au Aeshna affinis, Anax parthenope, and Sympetrum 1987. Holusa, O. (1998): On the occurrence of fonscolombii. The distribution of these species in dragonfly Leucorrhinia pectoralis (Charpentier, 1825) Belgium und Luxemburg is mapped.] Address: (Odonata: Libellulidae) in the Czech and Slovak Paternoster, T., Direc tion Générale des Resources Republics. Sbornik Prírodovedného klubu v Uh. Hradisti naturelles et de l'environement, Centre Recherche de la 3: 45-53. (in Czech with extensive English summary).
    [Show full text]
  • Panama, by Nick Donnelly
    ISSN 1061-8503 TheA News Journalrgia of the Dragonfly Society of the Americas Volume 23 14 October 2011 Number 3 Published by the Dragonfly Society of the Americas http://www.DragonflySocietyAmericas.org/ ARGIA Vol. 23, No. 3, 14 October 2011 In This Issue .................................................................................................................................................................1 DSA is on Facebook ....................................................................................................................................................1 Calendar of Events ......................................................................................................................................................1 2011 Annual Meeting of DSA held in Fort Collins, Colorado, by Dave Leatherman ...............................................2 Northeast Regional DSA Meeting, by Joshua Rose ...................................................................................................8 2011 Annual Oregon Aeshna Blitz Sets New Records, by Steve Gordon .................................................................10 2012 Annual DSA Meeting: Baldcypress Swamps, Sandy Ponds, Blackwater Rivers, and Clubtails, by Chris Hill ....................................................................................................................................................................12 Northeast Meetings Update, by Bryan Pfeiffer .........................................................................................................12
    [Show full text]
  • Three New State Records of Odonata from Ohio, with Additional County Records Ohio Historical Society, 1985 Velma Avenue, Columbu
    Ohio Biological Survey Notes 2: 25-33, 1999. © Ohio Biological Survey Three New State Records of Odonata from Ohio, with Additional County Records ROBERT C. GLOTZHOBER Ohio Historical Society, 1985 Velma Avenue, Columbus, Oh 43211 Abstract. Since 1995 the members of the Ohio Odonata Survey have newly recorded three dragonfly species to the state list: Lanthus vernalis, Neurocordulia molesta, and Somatochlora incurvata. In addition, survey workers have collected a total of 712 new county records. The total Odonata species and subspecies in Ohio now numbers 159. History and Acknowledgements The Ohio Odonata Survey was initiated in 1991 and supported in part with funds from the Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Division of Wildlife’s income tax check-off funds with additional assistance from the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, the Ohio Biological Survey, and the Crane Hollow Foundation. The mostly volunteer members of the survey donated substantial amounts of time and expertise. Many of the volunteers who have found new county records appear in Table 1 along with other individuals whose records were shared. A complete list of survey volunteers will appear in the appendix to a future publication. Several members of the Ohio Odonata Survey deserve special mention here. Thirteen members helped found the survey and/ or later joined the steering committee. These individuals made major contributions in helping to identify potential survey locations, summarizing characteristics of “targeted species” to assist survey volunteers, and identifying specimens collected by non-professional volunteers. These members include: Robert W. Alrutz, John Bater, Eric G. Chapman, Stephen W. Chordas III, Bernie Counts, Susan Heady, David McShaffrey, Dwight L.
    [Show full text]
  • Prioritizing Odonata for Conservation Action in the Northeastern USA
    APPLIED ODONATOLOGY Prioritizing Odonata for conservation action in the northeastern USA Erin L. White1,4, Pamela D. Hunt2,5, Matthew D. Schlesinger1,6, Jeffrey D. Corser1,7, and Phillip G. deMaynadier3,8 1New York Natural Heritage Program, State University of New York College of Environmental Science and Forestry, 625 Broadway 5th Floor, Albany, New York 12233-4757 USA 2Audubon Society of New Hampshire, 84 Silk Farm Road, Concord, New Hampshire 03301 USA 3Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife, 650 State Street, Bangor, Maine 04401 USA Abstract: Odonata are valuable biological indicators of freshwater ecosystem integrity and climate change, and the northeastern USA (Virginia to Maine) is a hotspot of odonate diversity and a region of historical and grow- ing threats to freshwater ecosystems. This duality highlights the urgency of developing a comprehensive conser- vation assessment of the region’s 228 resident odonate species. We offer a prioritization framework modified from NatureServe’s method for assessing conservation status ranks by assigning a single regional vulnerability metric (R-rank) reflecting each species’ degree of relative extinction risk in the northeastern USA. We calculated the R-rank based on 3 rarity factors (range extent, area of occupancy, and habitat specificity), 1 threat factor (vulnerability of occupied habitats), and 1 trend factor (relative change in range size). We combine this R-rank with the degree of endemicity (% of the species’ USA and Canadian range that falls within the region) as a proxy for regional responsibility, thereby deriving a list of species of combined vulnerability and regional management responsibility. Overall, 18% of the region’s odonate fauna is imperiled (R1 and R2), and peatlands, low-gradient streams and seeps, high-gradient headwaters, and larger rivers that harbor a disproportionate number of these species should be considered as priority habitat types for conservation.
    [Show full text]
  • Odonatological Abstract Service
    Odonatological Abstract Service published by the INTERNATIONAL DRAGONFLY FUND (IDF) in cooperation with the WORLDWIDE DRAGONFLY ASSOCIATION (WDA) Editors: Dr. Martin Lindeboom, Silberdistelweg 11, D-72113 Ammerbuch, Germany. Tel. ++49 (0)7073 300770; E-mail: [email protected] Dr. Klaus Reinhardt, Dept Animal and Plant Sciences, University of Sheffield, Sheffield S10 2TN, UK. Tel. ++44 114 222 0105; E-mail: [email protected] Martin Schorr, Schulstr. 7B, D-54314 Zerf, Germany. Tel. ++49 (0)6587 1025; E-mail: [email protected] Published in Rheinfelden, Germany and printed in Trier, Germany. ISSN 1438-0269 1997 than 500 taxa below the family level were inventoried, and each listing includes relative frequency of en- 7574. He, J.-r.; Jiang B.-h.; Chen, T.-s. (1997): The counter, life stages collected, and dominant role in the aquatic insects of Rainbow Lake. Conservation Quar- greenleaf manzanita community. Specific host relation- terly, summer quarterly, June,1997,18: 37-41. (in Chi- ships are included for some predators and parasitoids. nese) [Rainbow Lake is an alpine Lake in Taiwan. The Herbivores, predators, and parasitoids comprised the paper provides brief information on Aeshna petalura majority (80 percent) of identified insects and related and Polycanthagyna erythromelas. (Abstract by Hao- taxa." (Authors) The list of Odonata includes the follow- miao Zhang)] ing taxa: Aeshna palmata, Anax junius, Cordulegaster dorsalis, Libellula sp., Pantala hymenea, Tarnetrum cor- 7575. Liebherr, J.K.; Polhemus, D.A. (1997): R.C.L. rupturn, Lestidae species undet., and Coenagrionidae Perkins: 100 years of Hawaiian entomology. Pacif. Sci. species undet..] Address: http://www.fs.fed.us/psw/pub- 51(4): 343-355, 1 pl.
    [Show full text]
  • Download Download
    Proceedings of the Indiana Academy of Science 217 (1996) Volume 105 p. 217-223 AN UPDATED CHECKLIST OF INDIANA DRAGONFLIES (ODONATA: ANISOPTERA) James R. Curry Department of Biology Franklin College Franklin, Indiana 46131 ABSTRACT: Published reports of Indiana Odonata appeared more or less regularly from the turn of the century until 1971. Two workers, E.B. Williamson and B.E. Montgomery, were largely responsible for this work, and between them, they reported 100 species of dragonflies (Anisoptera) for Indiana. Williamson published an annotated list of Indiana Odonata in 1917 in which he gave each species a number from 1 to 125. As new species were reported, they were added to the list at the appropriate taxonomic position by adding an a, b, c, and so on to an existing number. Since 1971, no additional published reports have appeared, and changes in classification and nomenclature make an update of the State list of dragonflies necessary. Williamson's numbering system does not fit well with the changes that have occurred, and the author recommends that it be dropped in favor of a more up-to-date listing. Several species reported for the State are no longer recognized, and one species new to Indiana has recently been recorded. Currently, 98 species of dragonflies are recorded for Indiana. KEYWORDS: Anisoptera, Indiana dragonflies, Indiana records, Odonata. INTRODUCTION Systematic surveys of Indiana Odonata, conducted almost annually from the turn of the century by Williamson, Montgomery, and others, ceased in the late 1960s. The surveys were resumed four years ago by the author with the intent to update State records and to develop a field guide to the common species in the State.
    [Show full text]
  • List of Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Animals of Maryland
    List of Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Animals of Maryland December 2016 Maryland Wildlife and Heritage Service Natural Heritage Program Larry Hogan, Governor Mark Belton, Secretary Wildlife & Heritage Service Natural Heritage Program Tawes State Office Building, E-1 580 Taylor Avenue Annapolis, MD 21401 410-260-8540 Fax 410-260-8596 dnr.maryland.gov Additional Telephone Contact Information: Toll free in Maryland: 877-620-8DNR ext. 8540 OR Individual unit/program toll-free number Out of state call: 410-260-8540 Text Telephone (TTY) users call via the Maryland Relay The facilities and services of the Maryland Department of Natural Resources are available to all without regard to race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, age, national origin or physical or mental disability. This document is available in alternative format upon request from a qualified individual with disability. Cover photo: A mating pair of the Appalachian Jewelwing (Calopteryx angustipennis), a rare damselfly in Maryland. (Photo credit, James McCann) ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The Maryland Department of Natural Resources would like to express sincere appreciation to the many scientists and naturalists who willingly share information and provide their expertise to further our mission of conserving Maryland’s natural heritage. Publication of this list is made possible by taxpayer donations to Maryland’s Chesapeake Bay and Endangered Species Fund. Suggested citation: Maryland Natural Heritage Program. 2016. List of Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Animals of Maryland. Maryland Department of Natural Resources, 580 Taylor Avenue, Annapolis, MD 21401. 03-1272016-633. INTRODUCTION The following list comprises 514 native Maryland animals that are among the least understood, the rarest, and the most in need of conservation efforts.
    [Show full text]
  • Implementation Guide to the DRAFT
    2015 Implementation Guide to the DRAFT As Prescribed by The Wildlife Conservation and Restoration Program and the State Wildlife Grant Program Illinois Wildlife Action Plan 2015 Implementation Guide Table of Contents I. Acknowledgments IG 1 II. Foreword IG 2 III. Introduction IG 3 IV. Species in Greatest Conservation Need SGCN 8 a. Table 1. SummaryDRAFT of Illinois’ SGCN by taxonomic group SGCN 10 V. Conservation Opportunity Areas a. Description COA 11 b. What are Conservation Opportunity Areas COA 11 c. Status as of 2015 COA 12 d. Ways to accomplish work COA 13 e. Table 2. Summary of the 2015 status of individual COAs COA 16 f. Table 3. Importance of conditions for planning and implementation COA 17 g. Table 4. Satisfaction of conditions for planning and implementation COA 18 h. Figure 1. COAs currently recognized through Illinois Wildlife Action Plan COA 19 i. Figure 2. Factors that contribute or reduce success of management COA 20 j. Figure 3. Intersection of COAs with Campaign focus areas COA 21 k. References COA 22 VI. Campaign Sections Campaign 23 a. Farmland and Prairie i. Description F&P 23 ii. Goals and Current Status as of 2015 F&P 23 iii. Stresses and Threats to Wildlife and Habitat F&P 27 iv. Focal Species F&P 30 v. Actions F&P 32 vi. Focus Areas F&P 38 vii. Management Resources F&P 40 viii. Performance Measures F&P 42 ix. References F&P 43 x. Table 5. Breeding Bird Survey Data F&P 45 xi. Figure 4. Amendment to Mason Co. Sands COA F&P 46 xii.
    [Show full text]
  • The Dragonflies and Damselflies (Odonata) of Canadian Grasslands
    231 Chapter 8 The Dragonfl ies and Damselfl ies (Odonata) of Canadian Grasslands Robert A. Cannings Royal British Columbia Museum, 675 Belleville Street Victoria, British Columbia, V8W 9W2 [email protected] Abstract. The Odonata are energetic aerial predators of other insects; the aquatic larvae are voracious predators of invertebrates and small vertebrates. As of 2010, 5,952 species of the order were described worldwide; 211 species are known from Canada. Grasslands across the country support about 59% of the national fauna. A checklist and systematic overview of 124 species in nine families are presented. Species totals in these families are as follows: Calopterygidae, 2; Lestidae, 7; Coenagrionidae, 31; Aeshnidae, 16; Gomphidae, 15; Cordulegastridae, 1; Macromiidae, 2; Corduliidae, 13; and Libellulidae, 37. The geographical ranges of the species are defi ned and summarized; according to the defi nitions herein, 20 species have boreal ranges, 17 are transition species, 12 are Cordilleran, 1 is Pacifi c coastal, 10 are western, 4 are more or less restricted to the Great Plains, 16 have southern ranges, 38 are considered eastern, and 6 are widespread species. A summary of studies on grassland Odonata and recommendations for inventory and taxonomic research are provided. The geographical scope of the Canadian grassland fauna is described briefl y with respect to lotic and lentic habitats in grasslands of the Cordillera, the Great Plains, and southern Ontario. Résumé. Les odonates sont de féroces prédateurs aériens d’autres insectes ; leurs larves aquatiques sont aussi des prédateurs voraces d’autres invertébrés et petits vertébrés. En 2010, 5 952espèces d’odonates avaient été décrites dans le monde.
    [Show full text]
  • New Hampshire Dragonfly Survey Final Report
    The New Hampshire Dragonfly Survey: A Final Report Pamela D. Hunt, Ph.D. New Hampshire Audubon March 2012 Executive Summary The New Hampshire Dragonfly Survey (NHDS) was a five year effort (2007-2011) to document the distributions of all species of dragonflies and damselflies (insect order Odonata) in the state. The NHDS was a partnership among the New Hampshire Department of Fish and Game (Nongame and Endangered Wildlife Program), New Hampshire Audubon, and the University of New Hampshire Cooperative Extension. In addition to documenting distribution, the NHDS had a specific focus on collecting data on species of potential conservation concern and their habitats. Core funding was provided through State Wildlife Grants to the New Hampshire Fish and Game Department. The project relied extensively on the volunteer efforts of citizen scientists, who were trained at one of 12 workshops held during the first four years of the project. Of approximately 240 such trainees, 60 went on to contribute data to the project, with significant data submitted by another 35 observers with prior experience. Roughly 50 people, including both trained and experienced observers, collected smaller amounts of incidental data. Over the five years, volunteers contributed a minimum of 6400 hours and 27,000 miles. Separate funding facilitated targeted surveys along the Merrimack and Lamprey rivers and at eight of New Hampshire Audubon’s wildlife sanctuaries. A total of 18,248 vouchered records were submitted to the NHDS. These represent 157 of the 164 species ever reported for the state, and included records of four species not previously known to occur in New Hampshire.
    [Show full text]