DOCSLIB.ORG

Field-Based-Conductivity-Report.Pdf

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Field-Based-Conductivity-Report.Pdf Office of Water EPA-822-R-07-010 4304T December 2016 Public Review Draft Field-Based Methods for Developing Aquatic Life Criteria for Specific Conductivity U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water, Washington, DC DRAFT December 2016 DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE Public Review Draft PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT Field-Based Methods for Developing Aquatic Life Criteria for Specific Conductivity U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water Office of Science and Technology Washington, DC ii CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES ....................................................................................................................... viii LIST OF FIGURES .........................................................................................................................x LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS .................................................................... xiv NOTICES .......................................................................................................................................xv FOREWORD ............................................................................................................................... xvi AUTHORS, CONTRIBUTORS, AND REVIEWERS .............................................................. xvii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ......................................................................................................... xix GLOSSARY ............................................................................................................................... xxii 1. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND ....................................................................... 1-1 2. PROBLEM FORMULATION ........................................................................................... 2-1 2.1. PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION ................................................................................ 2-1 2.2. STRESSOR OF CONCERN―SALTS ..................................................................... 2-2 2.2.1. Sources of Ions ............................................................................................... 2-3 2.2.2. Conceptual Model .......................................................................................... 2-8 2.2.3. Environmental Transport and Fate of Ions in the Aquatic Environment ....... 2-9 2.3. MEASURE OF EXPOSURE ................................................................................... 2-11 2.4. NATURE OF THE EFFECT ................................................................................... 2-13 2.5. MECHANISMS AND MODES OF ACTION ........................................................ 2-16 2.5.1. Physiological Mechanisms........................................................................... 2-17 2.5.2. Mortality, Growth, and Reproduction .......................................................... 2-19 2.5.3. Emigration.................................................................................................... 2-19 2.5.4. Failure to Recruit ......................................................................................... 2-19 2.5.5. Community Interactions............................................................................... 2-20 2.6. ASSESSMENT ENDPOINTS AND MEASURES OF EFFECT ........................... 2-20 2.6.1. Assessment Endpoints ................................................................................. 2-20 2.6.2. Measures of Effect ....................................................................................... 2-22 2.7. SELECTION OF A FIELD-BASED METHOD ..................................................... 2-25 3. ANALYSIS PLAN: FIELD-BASED METHODS TO DEVELOP SPECIFIC CONDUCTIVITY CRITERIA ........................................................................................... 3-1 3.1. DERIVING A CRITERION CONTINUOUS CONCENTRATION (CCC) ............ 3-1 3.1.1. Establishing the Data Set ............................................................................... 3-4 3.1.1.1. Information Sources ........................................................................ 3-4 3.1.1.2. Selection and Adequacy of Data Sets ............................................. 3-5 3.1.1.3. Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC) .............................. 3-10 3.1.2. Calculating Genus Extirpation Concentrations (XC95) ................................ 3-11 3.1.2.1. Assigning Qualifying Designation to Extirpation Concentration (XC95) Values ........................................................ 3-14 3.1.3. Calculating the Community-Level Effect Estimate Hazardous Concentration (HC05) ................................................................................... 3-15 3.1.3.1. Validating the Effect Estimate Hazardous Concentration (HC05) by Bootstrapping ............................................................... 3-16 iii CONTENTS (continued) 3.1.4. Assessing Seasonality, Life History, and Sampling Methods ..................... 3-18 3.2. DERIVING A CRITERION MAXIMUM EXPOSURE CONCENTRATION (CMEC) ................................................................................................................... 3-20 3.3. ESTIMATION OF CRITERIA DURATION .......................................................... 3-22 3.3.1. Summary of Recommended Duration for Criterion Continuous Concentration (CCC) and Criterion Maximum Exposure Concentration (CMEC)........................................................................................................ 3-25 3.4. ESTIMATION OF CRITERIA FREQUENCY....................................................... 3-25 3.4.1. Recovery Rates in Literature Reviews ......................................................... 3-27 3.4.2. Life History Considerations ......................................................................... 3-29 3.4.3. Summary for Field-Based Frequency for Criterion Continuous Concentration (CCC) and Criterion Maximum Exposure Concentration (CMEC)........................................................................................................ 3-30 3.5. ASSESSING CAUSATION .................................................................................... 3-30 3.6. ASSESSING WATERBODY APPLICABILITY ................................................... 3-32 3.6.1. Stream pH .................................................................................................... 3-32 3.6.2. Waterbody Type........................................................................................... 3-32 3.7. METHODS FOR APPLICATIONS TO NEW AREAS ......................................... 3-35 3.7.1. Application within an Ecoregion―Background Matching ......................... 3-36 3.7.1.1. Obtaining a Data Set ..................................................................... 3-40 3.7.1.2. Estimating Background Specific Conductivity (SC) .................... 3-40 3.7.1.3. Background-Matching Approach.................................................. 3-41 3.7.1.4. Options When Background in New Area is Different than in Original Area ................................................................................ 3-42 3.7.1.5. Summary of Background Matching Method ................................ 3-42 3.7.2. Developing a Criterion Using Background-to-Criterion Regression Method ......................................................................................................... 3-43 3.7.2.1. Using Background to Calculate a Hazardous Concentration th of the 5 centile (HC05) of a Taxonomic Extirpation Concentration Distribution (XCD) ............................................... 3-46 3.7.2.2. Formula for Calculating the Hazardous Concentration of the 5th centile of a Taxonomic Extirpation Concentration Distribution (HC05) from the Background-to-Criterion Model .... 3-48 3.7.2.3. Formula for Calculating the Lower and Upper 10% Prediction Limits........................................................................... 3-48 3.7.2.4. Criterion Continuous Concentration (CCC) with <200 Paired Biological Data ............................................................................. 3-50 3.7.2.5. Criterion Continuous Concentration (CCC) with 200 to 500 Paired Biological Data .................................................................. 3-50 3.7.2.6. Calculation of the Criterion Maximum Exposure Concentration (CMEC) ................................................................. 3-50 3.7.2.7. Summary ....................................................................................... 3-50 iv CONTENTS (continued) 4. CASE STUDY I: EXAMPLE USING EXTIRPATION CONCENTRATION DISTRIBUTION (XCD) METHOD IN A LOW BACKGROUND SPECIFIC CONDUCTIVITY ECOREGION ...................................................................................... 4-1 4.1. DATA SET CHARACTERISTICS ........................................................................... 4-1 4.1.1. Background Specific Conductivity ................................................................ 4-6 4.1.2. Ionic Composition .......................................................................................... 4-9 4.1.3. Seasonal Specific Conductivity Regime ...................................................... 4-11 4.2. RESULTS ................................................................................................................ 4-12 4.2.1. Extirpation Concentration (XC95) and Hazardous Concentration (HC05) Values (Example Criterion Continuous Concentration [CCC]) .................. 4-12 4.2.2. Example Criterion Maximum Exposure Concentration
Load more

Recommended publications
  • New Alien Crayfish Species in Central Europe
    NEW ALIEN CRAYFISH SPECIES IN CENTRAL EUROPE Introduction pathways, life histories, and ecological impacts DISSERTATION zur Erlangung des Doktorgrades Dr. rer. nat. der Fakultät für Naturwissenschaften der Universität Ulm vorgelegt von Christoph Chucholl aus Rosenheim Ulm 2012 NEW ALIEN CRAYFISH SPECIES IN CENTRAL EUROPE Introduction pathways, life histories, and ecological impacts DISSERTATION zur Erlangung des Doktorgrades Dr. rer. nat. der Fakultät für Naturwissenschaften der Universität Ulm vorgelegt von Christoph Chucholl aus Rosenheim Ulm 2012 Amtierender Dekan: Prof. Dr. Axel Groß Erstgutachter: Prof. Dr. Manfred Ayasse Zweitgutachter: Prof. apl. Dr. Gerhard Maier Tag der Prüfung: 16.7.2012 Cover picture: Orconectes immunis male (blue color morph) (photo courtesy of Dr. H. Bellmann) Table of contents Part 1 – Summary Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 1 Invasive alien species – a global menace ....................................................................... 1 “Invasive” matters .......................................................................................................... 2 Crustaceans – successful invaders .................................................................................. 4 The case of alien crayfish in Europe .............................................................................. 5 New versus Old alien crayfish .......................................................................................
    [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]
  • Threatened and Endangered Species List
    Effective April 15, 2009 - List is subject to revision For a complete list of Tennessee's Rare and Endangered Species, visit the Natural Areas website at http://tennessee.gov/environment/na/ Aquatic and Semi-aquatic Plants and Aquatic Animals with Protected Status State Federal Type Class Order Scientific Name Common Name Status Status Habit Amphibian Amphibia Anura Gyrinophilus gulolineatus Berry Cave Salamander T Amphibian Amphibia Anura Gyrinophilus palleucus Tennessee Cave Salamander T Crustacean Malacostraca Decapoda Cambarus bouchardi Big South Fork Crayfish E Crustacean Malacostraca Decapoda Cambarus cymatilis A Crayfish E Crustacean Malacostraca Decapoda Cambarus deweesae Valley Flame Crayfish E Crustacean Malacostraca Decapoda Cambarus extraneus Chickamauga Crayfish T Crustacean Malacostraca Decapoda Cambarus obeyensis Obey Crayfish T Crustacean Malacostraca Decapoda Cambarus pristinus A Crayfish E Crustacean Malacostraca Decapoda Cambarus williami "Brawley's Fork Crayfish" E Crustacean Malacostraca Decapoda Fallicambarus hortoni Hatchie Burrowing Crayfish E Crustacean Malocostraca Decapoda Orconectes incomptus Tennessee Cave Crayfish E Crustacean Malocostraca Decapoda Orconectes shoupi Nashville Crayfish E LE Crustacean Malocostraca Decapoda Orconectes wrighti A Crayfish E Fern and Fern Ally Filicopsida Polypodiales Dryopteris carthusiana Spinulose Shield Fern T Bogs Fern and Fern Ally Filicopsida Polypodiales Dryopteris cristata Crested Shield-Fern T FACW, OBL, Bogs Fern and Fern Ally Filicopsida Polypodiales Trichomanes boschianum
    [Show full text]
  • At-Risk Species Assessment on Southern National Forests, Refuges, and Other Protected Areas
    David Moynahan | St. Marks NWR At-Risk Species Assessment on Southern National Forests, Refuges, and Other Protected Areas National Wildlife Refuge Association Mark Sowers, Editor October 2017 1001 Connecticut Avenue NW, Suite 905, Washington, DC 20036 • 202-417-3803 • www.refugeassociation.org At-Risk Species Assessment on Southern National Forests, Refuges, and Other Protected Areas Table of Contents Introduction and Methods ................................................................................................3 Results and Discussion ......................................................................................................9 Suites of Species: Occurrences and Habitat Management ...........................................12 Progress and Next Steps .................................................................................................13 Appendix I: Suites of Species ..........................................................................................17 Florida Panhandle ............................................................................................................................18 Peninsular Florida .............................................................................................................................28 Southern Blue Ridge and Southern Ridge and Valley ...............................................................................................................................39 Interior Low Plateau and Cumberland Plateau, Central Ridge and Valley ...............................................................................................46
    [Show full text]
  • Sensitive Species That Are Not Listed Or Proposed Under the ESA Sorted By: Major Group, Subgroup, NS Sci
    Forest Service Sensitive Species that are not listed or proposed under the ESA Sorted by: Major Group, Subgroup, NS Sci. Name; Legend: Page 94 REGION 10 REGION 1 REGION 2 REGION 3 REGION 4 REGION 5 REGION 6 REGION 8 REGION 9 ALTERNATE NATURESERVE PRIMARY MAJOR SUB- U.S. N U.S. 2005 NATURESERVE SCIENTIFIC NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME(S) COMMON NAME GROUP GROUP G RANK RANK ESA C 9 Anahita punctulata Southeastern Wandering Spider Invertebrate Arachnid G4 NNR 9 Apochthonius indianensis A Pseudoscorpion Invertebrate Arachnid G1G2 N1N2 9 Apochthonius paucispinosus Dry Fork Valley Cave Invertebrate Arachnid G1 N1 Pseudoscorpion 9 Erebomaster flavescens A Cave Obligate Harvestman Invertebrate Arachnid G3G4 N3N4 9 Hesperochernes mirabilis Cave Psuedoscorpion Invertebrate Arachnid G5 N5 8 Hypochilus coylei A Cave Spider Invertebrate Arachnid G3? NNR 8 Hypochilus sheari A Lampshade Spider Invertebrate Arachnid G2G3 NNR 9 Kleptochthonius griseomanus An Indiana Cave Pseudoscorpion Invertebrate Arachnid G1 N1 8 Kleptochthonius orpheus Orpheus Cave Pseudoscorpion Invertebrate Arachnid G1 N1 9 Kleptochthonius packardi A Cave Obligate Pseudoscorpion Invertebrate Arachnid G2G3 N2N3 9 Nesticus carteri A Cave Spider Invertebrate Arachnid GNR NNR 8 Nesticus cooperi Lost Nantahala Cave Spider Invertebrate Arachnid G1 N1 8 Nesticus crosbyi A Cave Spider Invertebrate Arachnid G1? NNR 8 Nesticus mimus A Cave Spider Invertebrate Arachnid G2 NNR 8 Nesticus sheari A Cave Spider Invertebrate Arachnid G2? NNR 8 Nesticus silvanus A Cave Spider Invertebrate Arachnid G2? NNR
    [Show full text]
  • Hi1!' NEW SPECIES of CAMBARUS;
    "a^fi Hi1!' CONTRIBUTIONS FROM THE ZOOLOGICAL LABORATORY OF THE MUSEUM OF COMPARATIVE ZOOLOGY AT HARVARD COLLEGE. DESCRIPTIONS OF NEW SPECIES OF CAMBARUS; TO WHICH IS ADDED A STNONTMCAL LIST OF THE KNOWN SPECIES OF CAMBARUS AND ASTACUS. BY WALTER FAXON. [REPRINTED FROM THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY OF ARTS AND SCIENCES, VOL. XX.] OF ARTS AND SCIENCES. 10T VII. CONTRIBUTIONS FROM THE ZOOLOGICAL LABORATORY OF THE MUSEUM OF COMPARATIVE ZOOLOGY AT HARVARD COLLEGE. No. VII. —DESCRIPTIONS OF NEW SPECIES OF GAM- jy - rrn m^v TTTTTT/lir Tfl 1 T^T^T^T^ A CVATAATA^MTr A T. cal rev accessil Zoolog Acadei ences c ington, Bruns\ the pri 0. P.l A. S. ton, D, of Loc Only t a thon for th( * 111 1868, al 108 PROCEEDINGS OF TIIE AMERICAN ACADEMY all the Crayfishes found in the Northern hemisphere, viz. the family Potamobiidce of Huxley. Owing to unavoidable delay in the publi- cation of the full Revision in the Memoirs of the Museum of Com- parative Zoology, illustrated by quarto lithographic plates, it is thought advisable to publish the following descriptions of the new species. All of them will be figured in the final Memoir. GENUS CAMBARUS. § 1. Third and fourth pairs of legs of male furnished vdth hooks on the third segment. First abdominal appendages of the male with outer part truncate at the tip and furnished with one to three small recurved teeth, inner part ending in an acute spine which is gen- erally directed outwards. a. Rostrum with ante-apical lateral spines. 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Appendices Include ICRMP? Comment Involved in the Management ….” Management the in Involved TNARNG
    APPENDIX A ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE REVISED INTEGRATED NATURAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR THE VOLUNTEER TRAINING SITE – CATOOSA TENNESSEE ARMY NATIONAL GUARD CATOOSA COUNTY, GEORGIA PREPARED BY Tennessee Military Department Environmental Office February 2012 Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan A-1 VTS-Catoosa Appendix A Environmental Assessment This page intentionally left blank. Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan A-2 VTS-Catoosa Appendix A Environmental Assessment ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF THE REVISED INTEGRATED NATURAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT PLAN, VOLUNTEER TRAINING SITE CATOOSA TENNESSEE ARMY NATIONAL GUARD REVIEWED BY: DATE: __________________________________________ ________________________ TERRY M. HASTON MG, TNARNG The Adjutant General __________________________________________ ________________________ ISAAC G. OSBORNE, JR. BG, TNARNG Assistant Adjutant General, Army __________________________________________ ________________________ DARRELL D. DARNBUSH COL, TNARNG Deputy Chief of Staff, Operations __________________________________________ ________________________ GARY B. HERR LTC, TNARNG Training Site Commander _________________________________________ ________________________ STEPHEN B. LONDON COL, TNARNG Environmental Officer Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan A-3 VTS-Catoosa Appendix A Environmental Assessment Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan A-4 VTS-Catoosa Appendix A Environmental Assessment TABLE OF CONTENTS Table of Contents A-5
    [Show full text]
  • Review of Special Provisions and Other Conditions Placed on Gdot Projects for Imperiled Species Protection
    GEORGIA DOT RESEARCH PROJECT 18-06 FINAL REPORT REVIEW OF SPECIAL PROVISIONS AND OTHER CONDITIONS PLACED ON GDOT PROJECTS FOR IMPERILED SPECIES PROTECTION VOLUME III OFFICE OF PERFORMANCE-BASED MANAGEMENT AND RESEARCH 600 WEST PEACHTREE STREET NW ATLANTA, GA 30308 TECHNICAL REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE 1. Report No.: 2. Government Accession No.: 3. Recipient's Catalog No.: FHWA-GA-20-1806 Volume III N/A N/A 4. Title and Subtitle: 5. Report Date: Review of Special Provisions and Other Conditions Placed on January 2021 GDOT Projects For Imperiled Aquatic Species Protection, 6. Performing Organization Code: Volume III N/A 7. Author(s): 8. Performing Organization Report No.: Jace M. Nelson, Timothy A. Stephens, Robert B. Bringolf, Jon 18-06 Calabria, Byron J. Freeman, Katie S. Hill, William H. Mattison, Brian P. Melchionni, Jon W. Skaggs, R. Alfie Vick, Brian P. Bledsoe, (https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0779-0127), Seth J. Wenger (https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7858-960X) 9. Performing Organization Name and Address: 10. Work Unit No.: Odum School of Ecology N/A University of Georgia 11. Contract or Grant No.: 140 E. Green Str. PI#0016335 Athens, GA 30602 208-340-7046 or 706-542-2968 [email protected] 12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address: 13. Type of Report and Period Covered: Georgia Department of Transportation Final; September 2018–January 2021 Office of Performance-based 14. Sponsoring Agency Code: Management and Research N/A 600 West Peachtree St. NW Atlanta, GA 30308 15. Supplementary Notes: Conducted in cooperation with the U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration.
    [Show full text]
  • Non-Native Invasive Plant Control Decision Notice
    United States Forest National Forests in North Carolina 160 ZILLICOA ST STE A Department of Service Supervisor’s Office ASHEVILLE NC 28801-1082 Agriculture 828-257-4200 File Code: 1950-2 Date: February 24, 2009 Dear Interested Parties: The Decision Notice for the Nantahala and Pisgah National Forests Non-Native Invasive Plant Environmental Assessment (EA) was signed on February 23, 2009. I have chosen to implement Alternative 3 of the EA. The selected alternative proposes up to 1,100 acres of non-native invasive plant treatment across the Nantahala and Pisgah National Forests. Treatments will include an integrated combination of herbicide, manual, mechanical, and fire methods to treat identified infestations. A copy of the Decision Notice (DN) and Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) is enclosed. The DN and FONSI discuss the decision in detail and rationale for reaching that decision. I am also enclosing a copy of the Environmental Assessment for this project. This decision is subject to appeal pursuant to 36 CFR 215.11. A written appeal, including attachments, must be postmarked or received within 45 days after the date this notice is published in The Asheville Citizens Times. The Appeal shall be sent to USDA, Forest Service, ATTN: Appeals Deciding Officer, 1720 Peachtree Rd, N.W., Suite 811N, Atlanta, Georgia 30309-9102. Appeals may be faxed to (540) 265-5145. Hand-delivered appeals must be received within normal business hours of 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Appeals may also be mailed electronically in a common digital format to [email protected] Appeals must meet content requirements of 36 CFR 215.14.
    [Show full text]
  • Conservation
    CONSERVATION ecapod crustaceans in the families Astacidae, recreational and commercial bait fisheries, and serve as a Cambaridae, and Parastacidae, commonly known profitable and popular food resource. Crayfishes often make as crayfishes or crawfishes, are native inhabitants up a large proportion of the biomass produced in aquatic of freshwater ecosystems on every continent systems (Rabeni 1992; Griffith et al. 1994). In streams, sport except Africa and Antarctica. Although nearly worldwide fishes such as sunfishes and basses (family Centrarchidae) in distribution, crayfishes exhibit the highest diversity in may consume up to two-thirds of the annual production of North America north of Mexico with 338 recognized taxa crayfishes, and as such, crayfishes often comprise critical (308 species and 30 subspecies). Mirroring continental pat- food resources for these fishes (Probst et al. 1984; Roell and terns of freshwater fishes (Warren and Burr 1994) and fresh- Orth 1993). Crayfishes also contribute to the maintenance of water mussels (J. D. Williams et al. 1993), the southeastern food webs by processing vegetation and leaf litter (Huryn United States harbors the highest number of crayfish species. and Wallace 1987; Griffith et al. 1994), which increases avail- Crayfishes are a significant component of aquatic ecosys- ability of nutrients and organic matter to other organisms. tems. They facilitate important ecological processes, sustain In some rivers, bait fisheries for crayfishes constitute an Christopher A. Taylor and Melvin L. Warren, Jr. are cochairs of the Crayfish Subcommittee of the AFS Endangered Species Committee. They can be contacted at the Illinois Natural History Survey, Center for Biodiversity, 607 E. Peabody Drive, Champaign, IL 61820, and U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Tennessee Natural Heritage Program Rare Species Observations for Tennessee Counties 2009
    Tennessee Natural Heritage Program Rare Species Observations For Tennessee Counties This document provides lists of rare species known to occur within each of Tennessee's counties. If you are viewing the list in its original digital format and you have an internet connection, you may click the scientific names to search the NatureServe Explorer Encyclopedia of Life for more detailed species information. The following lists were last updated in July 2009 and are based on rare species observations stored in the Tennessee Natural Heritage Biotics Database maintained by the TDEC Natural Heritage Program. For definitions of ranks and protective status, or for instructions on obtaining a site specific project review, please visit our website: http://state.tn.us/environment/na/data.shtml If you need assistance using the lists or interpreting data, feel free to contact us: Natural Heritage Program Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation 7th Floor L&C Annex 401 Church Street Nashville, Tennessee 37243 (615) 532-0431 The lists provided are intended for use as planning tools. Because many areas of the state have not been searched for rare species, the lists should not be used to determine the absence of rare species. The lists are best used in conjunction with field visits to identify the types of rare species habitat that may be present at a given location. For projects that are located near county boundaries or are in areas of the state that have been under-surveyed (particularly in western Tennessee), we recommend that you check rare species lists for adjacent counties or watersheds as well.
    [Show full text]
  • Fisheries Conservation Status of Crayfish Species Paddlefish Conservation Case Study
    VOL 32 NO 8 AUGUST 2007 Fish News Legislative Update Journal Highlights FisheriesFisheries Calendar American Fisheries Society • www.fisheries.org Job Center Conservation Status of Crayfish Species Paddlefish Conservation Case Study Fisheries • VOL 32 NO 8 • AUGUST 2007 • WWW.FISHERIES.ORG 365 Northwest Marine Tcchnology, Inc. 366 Fisheries • VOL 32 NO 8 • AUGUST 2007 • WWW.FISHERIES.ORG VOL 32 NO 8 AUGUST 2007 372 AMERIFisheriescan FIshERIES SOCIETY • WWW.FIshERIES.ORG EDitOriaL / SUbsCriPtiON / CirCULatiON OffiCES 5410 Grosvenor Lane, Suite 110 • Bethesda, MD 20814-2199 301/897-8616 • fax 301/897-8096 • [email protected] The American Fisheries Society (AFS), founded in 1870, is the oldest and largest professional society representing fisheries scientists. The AFS promotes scientific research and enlightened management of aquatic resources 390 for optimum use and enjoyment by the public. It also XXX encourages comprehensive education of fisheries scientists and continuing on-the-job training. AFS OFFICERS FISHERIES EDITORS Contents STAFF PRESIDENT SENIOR EDITOR SCIENCE Jennifer L. Nielsen Ghassan “Gus” N. EDITORS COLUMN: COLUMN: PRESIDENT ElECT Rassam Madeleine 368 PRESIDENT’S HOOK 398 GUEST DIRECTOR’S LINE Mary C. Fabrizio DIRECTOR OF Hall-Arber New Features for AFS Publications FIRST PUBLICATIONS Ken Ashley Thanks for an Incredible Year VICE PRESIDENT Aaron Lerner Doug Beard As part of an ongoing effort to make AFS William G. Franzin MANAGING Ken Currens Through commitment and hardwork the AFS publications more and more useful for fisheries SECOND EDITOR William E. Kelso volunteer membership has accomplished professionals, several new features have been VICE PRESIDENT Beth Beard Deirdre M. Kimball Donald C. Jackson PRODUCTION Robert T.
    [Show full text]