DOCSLIB.ORG

Wake-Johnston Collaborative Local Watershed Plan

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Wake-Johnston Collaborative Local Watershed Plan Wake-Johnston Collaborative Local Watershed Plan Phase I: Preliminary Findings and Recommendations Neuse River Basin Wake & Johnston Counties, North Carolina August 2013 WAKE-JOHNSTON COLLABORATIVE LOCAL WATERSHED PLAN Section 1 PHASE 1: PRELIMINARY FINDINGS REPORT INTRODUCTION PREFACE The Wake-Johnston Collaborative Local Watershed Plan (LWP) was initiated as a collaborative effort between the Counties of Wake and Johnston and the NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP). Staff and stakeholders from each interest represented on the General Advisory Committee have participated by actively contributing to project tasks and/or providing input on critical preliminary priorities developed during this first planning phase. In August 2011, the NC Department of Transportation agreed to sponsor a new planning effort, the Neuse 01 Regional Watershed Plan (RWP). This large planning area (580 square miles) encompasses the entire Wake-Johnston Collaborative LWP area, the Upper Swift Creek LWP area, as well as 370 square miles of watershed area not included in a previously studied LWP area. This plan represents the first regional scale plan to be undertaken by EEP and will identify traditional and non-traditional restoration projects to help provide mitigation opportunities generated by the I-540 highway construction within the planning area. Because most elements of the RWP mirror those of the LWP, Phase II and III tasks of the Wake-Johnston Collaborative LWP will be completed as subtasks of the RWP. In Section 6 of this report, the General Advisory Committee proposes recommendations on how best to integrate this local plan into the greater Neuse 01 Regional Watershed Plan. i WAKE-JOHNSTON COLLABORATIVE LOCAL WATERSHED PLAN ACRONYMS PHASE 1: PRELIMINARY FINDINGS REPORT ACRONYMS Below is a list of acronyms used in this document with their corresponding full names. For more complete definitions and explanations of these and other terms, refer to the glossary in Appendix C. AOP Aquatic Organism Passage ATU Aquatic Toxicity Unit ASL Above Sea Level BAU Biological Assessment Unit BEHI Bank Erosion Hazard Index BMP Best Management Practice CU Catalog Unit CWMTF Clean Water Management Trust Fund DBB Design-Bid-Build DEM Digital Elevation Model DENR Department of Environment and Natural Resources DMF Division of Marine Fisheries DSW Division of Soil and Water DWQ Division of Water Quality EEP Ecosystem Enhancement Program EPT Ephemeroptera Plecoptera Trichoptera GAC General Advisory Committee GIS Geographic Information System HU Hydrologic Unit LUP Land Use Plan LIDAR Light Detection and Ranging LWP Local Watershed Plan NCDOT North Carolina Department of Transportation NCFS North Carolina Forest Service NCSU North Carolina State University NHEO Natural Heritage Element Occurrence NHP Natural Heritage Program NLCD National Land Cover Database NPS Non-point Source NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service NSW Nutrient Sensitive Waters NWI National Wetlands Inventory PFR Preliminary Findings Report PA Project Atlas RBRP River Basin Restoration Priorities ROW Right-of-Way RTE Rare, Threatened, or Endangered RWP Regional Watershed Plan ii WAKE-JOHNSTON COLLABORATIVE LOCAL WATERSHED PLAN ACRONYMS PHASE 1: PRELIMINARY FINDINGS REPORT S&EC Sediment and Erosion Control SNHA Significant Natural Heritage Area SWCD Soil and Water Conservation District TAC Technical Advisory Committee TIP Transportation Improvement Program TLC Triangle Land Conservancy UDO Unified Development Ordinance USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service USGS United States Geological Survey UT Unnamed Tributary WAR Watershed Assessment Report WAT Watershed Assessment Team WMP Watershed Management Plan WRC Wildlife Resources Commission WSW Water Supply Watershed WWTP Waste Water Treatment Plant iii WAKE-JOHNSTON COLLABORATIVE LOCAL WATERSHED PLAN CONTENTS PHASE 1: PRELIMINARY FINDINGS REPORT Table of Contents 1 INTRODUCTION 1 1.1 Purpose of Assessment 1 1.2 Description of Local Watershed Planning Area 2 1.3 Approach 6 2 LWP STUDY AREA FEATURES 9 2.1 Geographic Location and Description 9 2.2 Topography, Ecoregions, and Related Features 9 2.3 Previous Studies 9 2.4 Watershed History 10 3 LOCAL REGULATIONS AND PLANNING 12 3.1 Wake County 12 3.2 Johnston County 14 3.3 Town of Knightdale 14 3.4 Town of Wendell 15 3.5 Town of Zebulon 16 3.6 City of Raleigh 16 3.7 State of North Carolina 17 4 SUBWATERSHED DELINEATION 18 5 PRELIMINARY CHARACTERIZATION AND FUNCTIONAL ASSESSMENT 21 5.1 Watershed Characterization 21 5.1.1 Land Use and Cover 21 5.1.2 Watershed Impervious Surface Area 223 5.1.3 Hydric Soils, Hydrology, and Wetlands 24 5.1.4 Riparian Buffers, Riparian Zone Condition, and Floodplain Disturbance 267 5.1.5 Channel Condition 30 5.1.6 Preliminary Field Assessment 30 5.1.7 Water Quality and Biological Data 40 iv WAKE-JOHNSTON COLLABORATIVE LOCAL WATERSHED PLAN CONTENTS PHASE 1: PRELIMINARY FINDINGS REPORT 5.2 PRELIMINARY IDENTIFICATION OF PROBLEMS & ASSETS 45 5.2.1 Stressors (Preliminary Functional Assessment Maps) 45 5.2.2 Assets (Preliminary Functional Assessment Maps) 51 6 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE ASSESSMENT 523 6.1 Data Gaps 53 6.2 Objectives and Focus Areas for Future Study 55 6.3 Recommended Assessment Approach 56 6.4 Modeling 57 6.5 General Recommendations 58 7 RESTORATION AND PROTECTION OPPORTUNITIES 61 7.1 Degraded Buffer Opportunities 61 7.2 Stream Opportunities 66 7.3 Wetland Opportunities 70 7.4 BMP Opportunities 74 References 76 Appendix A. Existing Water Quality Data Summary 80 Appendix B. Benthic Macroinvertebrate Water Quality Investigation 147 Appendix C. Glossary of Terms 165 List of Figures Figure 1. Local Watershed Planning Area. ...................................................................................................................... 3 Figure 2. EEP Phase I Local Watershed Planning Process. ........................................................................................ 6 Figure 3. Digital Elevation Model of the LWP Study Area. ...................................................................................... 19 Figure 4. Subwatershed Delineations. ........................................................................................................................... 20 Figure 5. Land Cover in the Wake-Johnston Collaborative LWP Area. .............................................................. 22 Figure 6. Impervious Surface. ........................................................................................................................................... 23 Figure 7. Hydric Soils. .......................................................................................................................................................... 25 Figure 8. Streams and Wetlands. ..................................................................................................................................... 26 Figures 9a – 9d. Comparison of Subwatersheds based on Extent of Denuded Buffers. ............................... 28 Figure 10. Comparison of Percentage of Floodplain Disturbance....................................................................... 29 v WAKE-JOHNSTON COLLABORATIVE LOCAL WATERSHED PLAN CONTENTS PHASE 1: PRELIMINARY FINDINGS REPORT Figure 11. Example of Field Reconnaissance Form used for Windshield Surveys. ....................................... 31 Figure 12. Beddingfield Creek at Shotwell Road. ...................................................................................................... 32 Figure 13. Marks Creek. ......................................................................................................................................................... 33 Figure 14. Lower Buffalo Creek, (a) Upstream and (b) Downstream ................................................................ 34 Figure 15. Little River. ............................................................................................................................................................ 35 Figure 16. Snipe Creek, (a) Downstream and (b) Riparian Zone showing clear-cutting. .................................... 36 Figure 17. Rocky Branch. ....................................................................................................................................................... 37 Figure 18. Hominy Creek. ...................................................................................................................................................... 38 Figure 19. Upper Buffalo Creek. .......................................................................................................................................... 39 Figure 20. Impaired Streams from the 2010 303(d) List. ............................................................................................. 40 Figure 21. High Priority Subwatersheds for Hydrologic Issues ........................................................................... 46 Figure 22. High Priority Subwatersheds for Erosion and Sedimentation Issues........................................... 47 Figure 23. High Priority Subwatersheds for Stormwater Issues. ........................................................................ 48 Figure 24. High Priority Subwatersheds for Agricultural Issues. ........................................................................ 49 Figure 25. High Priority Subwatersheds for Water Quality Issues. .................................................................... 50 Figure 26. High Priority Subwatersheds for Rare Species. ...................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Docket No. FWS–HQ–ES–2019–0009; FF09E21000 FXES11190900000 167]
    This document is scheduled to be published in the Federal Register on 10/10/2019 and available online at https://federalregister.gov/d/2019-21478, and on govinfo.gov DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Fish and Wildlife Service 50 CFR Part 17 [Docket No. FWS–HQ–ES–2019–0009; FF09E21000 FXES11190900000 167] Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Review of Domestic and Foreign Species That Are Candidates for Listing as Endangered or Threatened; Annual Notification of Findings on Resubmitted Petitions; Annual Description of Progress on Listing Actions AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior. ACTION: Notice of review. SUMMARY: In this candidate notice of review (CNOR), we, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), present an updated list of plant and animal species that we regard as candidates for or have proposed for addition to the Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. Identification of candidate species can assist environmental planning efforts by providing advance notice of potential listings, and by allowing landowners and resource managers to alleviate threats and thereby possibly remove the need to list species as endangered or threatened. Even if we subsequently list a candidate species, the early notice provided here could result in more options for species management and recovery by prompting earlier candidate conservation measures to alleviate threats to the species. This document also includes our findings on resubmitted petitions and describes our 1 progress in revising the Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants (Lists) during the period October 1, 2016, through September 30, 2018.
    [Show full text]
  • 374 Species in Substantial 90-Day Petition Finding
    U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service 374 Species in Substantial 90-Day Petition Finding Scientific Name Common Name Taxon/Validity Reported Range Ambystoma barbouri Streamside salamander Amphibian IN, OH, KY, TN, WV Amphiuma pholeter One-Toed Amphiuma Amphibian FL, AL, GA, MS Cryptobranchus alleganiensis Hellbender Amphibian IN, OH, WV, NY, PA, MD, GA, SC, MO, AR Desmognathus abditus Cumberland Dusky Salamander Amphibian TN Desmognathus aeneus Seepage Salamander Amphibian NC, TN, AL, SC, GA Eurycea chamberlaini Chamberlain's Dwarf Salamander Amphibian NC, SC, AL, GA, FL Eurycea tynerensis Oklahoma Salamander Amphibian OK, MO, AR Gyrinophilus palleucus Tennessee Cave Salamander Amphibian TN, AL, GA Gyrinophilus subterraneus West Virginia Spring Salamander Amphibian WV Haideotriton wallacei Georgia Blind Salamander Amphibian GA, FL (NW) Necturus lewisi Neuse River Waterdog (salamander) Amphibian NC Pseudobranchus striatus lustricolus Gulf Hammock Dwarf Siren Amphibian FL Urspelerpes brucei Patch-nosed Salamander Amphibian GA, SC Crangonyx grandimanus Florida Cave Amphipod Amphipod FL (N. and NW) Crangonyx hobbsi Hobb's Cave Amphipod Amphipod FL (N. FL) Stygobromus cooperi Cooper's Cave Amphipod Amphipod WV Stygobromus indentatus Tidewater Amphipod Amphipod NC, VA Stygobromus morrisoni Morrison's Cave Amphipod Amphipod VA Stygobromus parvus Minute Cave Amphipod Amphipod WV Cicindela marginipennis Cobblestone Tiger Beetle Beetle AL, IN, OH, NH, VT, NJ, PA Pseudanophthalmus avernus Avernus Cave Beetle Beetle VA Pseudanophthalmus cordicollis Little
    [Show full text]
  • The Giant Salamanders (Cryptobranchidae): Part B
    Copyright: © This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution–NonCommercial– NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License, which permits conditional use for non-commercial and education purposes, provided the Amphibian and Reptile Conservation 5(4): 30-50. original author and source are credited, and prohibits the deposition of material from www.redlist-arc.org, including PDFs, images, or text onto other websites without permission of the International Chapter at www.redlist-arc.org. The giant salamanders (Cryptobranchidae): Part B. Biogeography, ecology and reproduction 1Robert K Browne, 2Hong Li, 3Zhenghuan Wang, 4Sumio Okada, 5Paul Hime, 6Amy McMillan, 7Minyao Wu, 8Raul Diaz, 9Dale McGinnity, 10Jeffrey T. Briggler 1Sustainability America, Sarteneja, Belize. 2Polytechnic Institute of New York University, NYC, USA. 3School of Life Sciences, East China Normal University, 200062, Shanghai, Peoples Republic of China. 4Laboratory of Biology, Department of Regional Environment, Tottori University, Tottori 680-8551, Japan. 5Department of Biology, University of Kentucky, Department of Biology, Lexington, Kentucky 40506, USA. 6SUNY Buffalo State, Buffalo, New York 14222, USA. 7Shaanxi Normal University, Xi’an, 710062, Shaanxi Province, Peoples Republic of China. 8La Sierra University, Department of Biology, 4500 Riverwalk Parkway, Riverside, California 92515, USA 9Nashville Zoo, Nashville, Tennessee 37189, USA. 10Missouri Department of Conservation, Jefferson City, Missouri 65109, USA. Abstract - The Chinese (Andrias davidianus) and Japanese (A. japonicus) giant salamanders far exceed any other living amphibians in size, with the North American giant salamander (Hellbender; Cryptobranchus alleganiensis) also being one of the world’s largest amphibians. The sustainable management of cryptobranchids requires knowledge of cryptobranchid biogeography, ecology and reproduction in concert with other scientific fields.
    [Show full text]
  • Natural Heritage Program List of Rare Animal Species of North Carolina 2020
    Natural Heritage Program List of Rare Animal Species of North Carolina 2020 Hickory Nut Gorge Green Salamander (Aneides caryaensis) Photo by Austin Patton 2014 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 2020 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]
  • Uwharrie National Forest
    BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION REPORT FOR THE NATIONAL FOREST SERVICE NC 24/27 WIDENING – UWHARRIE NATIONAL FOREST MONTGOMERY COUNTY, NC TIP NO. R-2527 WBS ELEMENT 35572.1.1 APRIL 2019 Contact Person: Matthew M. Haney Environmental Program Specialist North Carolina Department of Transportation Natural Environment Section Biological Surveys Group 1598 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699 919.707.6122 [email protected] Table of Contents I. INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................... 1 II. POTENTIAL IMPACTS CONSIDERED ................................................................................. 1 III. SPECIES CONSIDERED AND METHODS ........................................................................... 2 IV. EXISTING BIOLOGICAL CONDITION ............................................................................... 2 A. BIOLOGICAL ANALYSIS AREA................................................................................................................. 2 B. STUDY AREA .......................................................................................................................................... 7 C. TIMING OF FIELD SURVEYS ................................................................................................................... 7 D. THREATENED, ENDANGERED, FEDERAL SPECIES OF CONCERN, AND NORTH CAROLINA LISTED SPECIES .....................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • NC Herps -14- April 2019
    NC Herps -14- April 2019 SPEAKERS Dave Beamer is the Lead Researcher and a Biology Instructor at Nash Community College in Rocky Mount, NC, where he teaches Introduction to Biology for science majors’ students. In addition, he teaches Regional Natural History and Field Biology courses that provide an opportunity to showcase the spectacular floral and faunal diversity of North Carolina to students. He is dedicated to providing opportunities to undergraduate students to conduct original research projects that help forward the knowledge and understanding of North Carolina’s salamander diversity. One of his goals as an instructor and mentor is to foster an appreciation of biodiversity and a stronger understanding of science and the scientific process amongst his students. He is currently funded by the National Science Foundation to study speciation processes in dusky salamanders. As part of the broader impacts of this grant, and through support by a Duke Energy grant, he has been conducting a year-long after school K-12 program entitled “Using Biotechnology to Uncover Biodiversity.” Jeff Beane is Herpetology Collection Manager for the North Carolina State Museum of Natural Sciences in Raleigh, where he has been employed since 1985. A native of Asheboro, he holds a B.S. in Zoology from North Carolina State University (1982). A hard-core member of NCHS since 1982, he has served as its newsletter editor since 1986, and has served on most of the Society’s committees. An old-school naturalist, he is active in several other natural history and conservation groups and initiatives, including NCPARC, Wake Audubon, and Sandhills Natural History Society.
    [Show full text]
  • TROPHIC RELATIONS of AQUATIC INSECTS 185 the Available Food Substances
    Copyright 1973. All TIghts reserved TROPIDC RELATIONS OF AQUATIC INSECTSl 6046 KENNETH W. CuMMINS2 Kellogg Biological Station Michigan State University Hickory Corners, Michigan INTRODUCTION One of the most ubiquitous features of freshwater habitats is their present rate of change in response to man-engendered perturbations. Any rehabilita­ tive or management strategy characterized by a high probability for success must rely on fundamental knowledge of the intricacies of freshwater ecosys­ tem structure and function. A basic facet of this structure and function is material cycling and energy flow. In turn, a significant portion of such cy­ cling and flow involves the processing of various forms of organic matter by freshwater invertebrate animals, especially insects. This constitutes a basis for interest in aquatic insect trophic relations-food intake, tissue assimilation, and waste release-with implications ranging from theoretical questions, such as th efficiency of energy transfer, to very specific practical problems: for e example, population control of "pest" species represented either by the food or the feeder. As Bates (2) put it, trophic relationships constitute the "ce­ ment" holding biological communities together. Aquatic ecologists have noted (e.g. 31) that the diversity of the ingested food greatly exceeds the diversity of the aquatic insects. Since the majority of species appear to be generalists (polyphagous) rather than specialists (mono­ or oligophagous), statements about food habits are subject to considerable variation and require qualification with regard to habitat- and age-specific differences. Therefore, the present focus is on the level at which generaliza­ tions are possible and the ecological importance of such generalizations, rather Annu.
    [Show full text]
  • Download the Parcas Criteria and Implementation Plan Here!
    Model Criteria and Implementation Guidance for a Priority Amphibian and Reptile Conservation Area (PARCA) System in the U.S.A. V.4 October 2012 PARCA Task Team Prepared by Ron Sutherland and Phillip deMaynadier In collaboration with National PARC’s "Priority Amphibian and Reptile Conservation Areas" Task Team: Co-Leads: Ron Sutherland , Wildlands Network Phillip deMaynadier, Maine Dept. of Inland Fisheries & Wildlife Team Members: Margaret Trani Griep, U.S. Forest Service Southern Region Audrey Hatch, formerly Oregon Dept. of Fish and Wildlife Randy Jennings, Western New Mexico University Karen Kinkead , Iowa Dept. of Natural Resources Priya Nanjappa, Assoc. of Fish & Wildlife Agencies Cover Photographs: Blanding’s Turtle (Emydoidea blandingii) – J. Mays Coastal Tailed Frog (Ascaphus truei) – B. McCreary Eastern Indigo Snake (Drymarchon couperi) – J.D. Willson Blue-spotted Salamander (Ambystoma laterale) – L. Kenney Reticulate Gila Monster (Heloderma s. suspectum) – K. Stohlgren Suggested citation: R. Sutherland and P. deMaynadier. 2012. Model Criteria and Implementation Guidance for a Priority Amphibian and Reptile Conservation Area (PARCA) System in the USA. Partners in Amphibian and Reptile Conservation, Technical Publication PARCA-1. 28 pp. 2 V.4 October 2012 PARCA Task Team Contents: Acknowledgments ………………………………………………………………………….....................…...3 Introduction…………..……. ……………………………………………………………………………………3 Criteria for PARCA Selection…………………… …………………………………………………………5 Criteria Overview and PARCA Scale.............……………………………………………………….…..8
    [Show full text]
  • Federal Register/Vol. 86, No. 109/Wednesday, June 9, 2021
    30688 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 9, 2021 / Rules and Regulations DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR from which the maps are generated are present or threatened destruction, included in the administrative record modification, or curtailment of its Fish and Wildlife Service and are available at http:// habitat or range; (B) overutilization for www.regulations.gov at Docket No. commercial, recreational, scientific, or 50 CFR Part 17 FWS–R4–ES–2018–0092, and at the educational purposes; (C) disease or [Docket No. FWS–R4–ES–2018–0092; Raleigh Ecological Services Field Office predation; (D) the inadequacy of FF09E21000 FXES11110900000 212] (https://www.fws.gov/raleigh; street existing regulatory mechanisms; or (E) address provided above). Any other natural or manmade factors RIN 1018–BC28 additional tools or supporting affecting its continued existence. We have determined that habitat Endangered and Threatened Wildlife information that we developed for this degradation (Factor A), resulting from and Plants; Threatened Species Status critical habitat designation will also be available at the Fish and Wildlife the cumulative impacts of land use With Section 4(d) Rule for Neuse River change and associated watershed-level Waterdog, Endangered Species Status Service website and Field Office identified above, and may also be effects on water quality, water quantity, for Carolina Madtom, and Designations habitat connectivity, and instream of Critical Habitat included in the preamble and at http:// www.regulations.gov. habitat suitability, poses the largest risk AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Pete to the future viability of both species. Interior. Benjamin, Field Supervisor, U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • The Caddisflies(Insecta: Trichoffera)Of the Lake Itasca Region, Minnesota, and a Preliminary Assessment of the Conservation Status of Minnesota Trichoptera
    THE CADDISFLIES(INSECTA: TRICHOFFERA)OF THE LAKE ITASCA REGION, MINNESOTA, AND A PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT OF THE CONSERVATION STATUS OF MINNESOTA TRICHOPTERA A THESIS SUBMMTD TO THE FACULTY OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA BY MARGOT PECK MONSON IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE SEPTEMBER, 1994 .2:-?, FISHERIES, I WELLAAVE LIBRARY p El 6 if 9? JAN12 3 T 0 Margot Peck Monson 1994 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to express my sincere gratitude to my major advisor, Dr. Ralph Holzenthal, for taking me on as his student and for his time, effort, and patient guidance in helping me pursue this project. I also wish to thank Dr. Roger Moon for his helpful counsel and encouragement, as well as the other members of my examination committee, Dr. William Miller and Dr. Francesca Cuthbert, for their support. I am grateful to Dr. 0. J. Flint, Dr. Steve Harris, Dr. David Etnier, and the Illinois Natural History Survey for their assistance in making specimens available and for verification of some determinations. Dr. Etnier was also most generous in making several donations to the University of Minnesota Insect Collection. I am thankful for the partial funding for this project, contributed by the Nongame Wildlife Program of the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources and the Minnesota Chapter of The Nature Conservancy. The helpfulness of Dr. Phil Clausen, Curator of the University of Minnesota Insect Collection, was most appreciated (as was his willingness to answer my many questions). The friendship and good humor extended by my colleagues in the lab, Roger, Atilano, Jolanda, Sonia, John, and Marc, as well as Sue, Paul, Sujaya, and Diann will be fondly remembered.
    [Show full text]
  • The Caddisflies (Insecta: Trichoptera) of the Lake Itasca Region, Minnesota, and a Preliminary Assessment of the Conservation Status of Minnesota Trichoptera
    Conservation Biology Research Grants Program Nongame Wildlife Program Division of Ecological Services Minnesota Department of Natural Resources THE CADDISFLIES (INSECTA: TRICHOPTERA) OF THE LAKE ITASCA REGION, MINNESOTA, AND A PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT OF THE CONSERVATION STATUS OF MINNESOTA TRICHOPTERA A THESIS SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA BY MARGOT PECK MONSON IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER MASTER OF SCIENCE SEPTEMBER 1994 1 © Margot Peck Monson 1994 2 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to express my sincere gratitude to my major advisor, Dr. Ralph Holzenthal, for taking me on as his student and for his time, effort, and patient guidance in helping me pursue this project. I also wish to thank Dr. Roger Moon for his helpful counsel and encouragement, as well as the other members of my examination committee, Dr. William Miller and Dr. Francesca Cuthbert, for their support. I am grateful to Dr. O. J. Flint, Dr. Steve Harris, Dr. David Etnier, and the Illinois Natural History Survey for their assistance in making specimens available and for verification of some determinations. Dr. Etnier was also most generous in making several donations to the University of Minnesota Insect Collection. I am thankful for the partial funding for this project, contributed by the Nongame Wildlife Program of the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources and the Minnesota Chapter of The Nature Conservancy. The helpfulness of Dr. Phil Clausen, Curator of the University of Minnesota Insect Collection, was most appreciated (as was his willingness to answer my many questions). The friendship and good humor extended by my colleagues in the lab, Roger, Atilano, Jolanda, Sonia, John, and Marc, as well as Sue, Paul, Sujaya, and Diann will be fondly remembered.
    [Show full text]
  • Inventory of Natural Areas and Wildlife Habitats for Orange County, North Carolina
    Inventory of Natural Areas and Wildlife Habitats for Orange County, North Carolina Dawson Sather and Stephen Hall (1988) Updated by Bruce Sorrie and Rich Shaw (2004) December 2004 Orange County Environment & Resource Conservation Department North Carolina Natural Heritage Program NC Natural Heritage Trust Fund Inventory of Natural Areas and Wildlife Habitats for Orange County, North Carolina Dawson Sather and Stephen Hall (1988) Updated by Bruce Sorrie and Rich Shaw (2004) December 2004 Orange County Environment & Resource Conservation Department North Carolina Natural Heritage Program Funded by Orange County, North Carolina NC Natural Heritage Trust Fund Prepared by Rich Shaw and Margaret Jones Orange County Environment and Resource Conservation Department Hillsborough, North Carolina For further information or to order copies of the inventory, please contact: Orange County ERCD P.O. Box 8181 Hillsborough, NC 27278 919/245-2590 or The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program 1601 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1601 www.ncnhp.org Table of Contents Page PREFACE....................................................................................................................................... i ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS....................................................................................................... ii INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................................ 1 Information Sources............................................................................................................
    [Show full text]