DOCSLIB.ORG

Using a Biotic Index to Evaluate Water Quality in Streams. No. 132 1982

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Using a Biotic Index to Evaluate Water Quality in Streams. No. 132 1982 Using a biotic index to evaluate water quality in streams. No. 132 1982 Hilsenhoff, William L. Madison, Wisconsin: Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, 1982 https://digital.library.wisc.edu/1711.dl/HCLDETM7D4AT282 http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/ For information on re-use see: http://digital.library.wisc.edu/1711.dl/Copyright The libraries provide public access to a wide range of material, including online exhibits, digitized collections, archival finding aids, our catalog, online articles, and a growing range of materials in many media. When possible, we provide rights information in catalog records, finding aids, and other metadata that accompanies collections or items. However, it is always the user's obligation to evaluate copyright and rights issues in light of their own use. 728 State Street | Madison, Wisconsin 53706 | library.wisc.edu . \ ff jes said ; Wal ‘ 3: \ ; 129 k coe f 4 te Ai \ ig “4, i j WA C=e-<@ - *%, = ee A A eee ry =~ < ie ee < 4 tp aes ow s YIN te STREAMS i Te \ WATER ee SN ae, hy, : Sh, oe J wa \. * a a oi Fi . we aS ie Ab AN oe eS | 4 rae STATE pretome nt SOCIETY Gs, jeC 81982 uUPY iI. sy JW Ee pervwoiivnl > Technical Bulletin No. 132 “ty ; ee DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES © LAR Madison, Wisconsin ah 7 1982 se a ys ‘ She Soe Hae ie idee Bs IY Sen ater AR aN EE Bache ae Nets bts ieee feria ne Rae AA bse at can Re a Mens i ce re eeu ee ee es aan: ee Sa PS aReN PNR ie Bh he ae eG : 7 tea ue ee ey re ea a, as SNS AU ee eee eee Vee, Re LiL A re ae ie Pease ao eee Beno: ot a ieee abs Pc eee anes Rieke Be Gaeta uses oe eau Male aa eae eas pea ees Rese ee ee eae tt Nee AI es oa. Leia ee Sh ae ne eee a oe ans eae et: eae . oe ay ae hes Ce " ee a ee ag es ee SNe a at ia oe a PL ea Ee ae ee oe Be ay ee ye LN x Pree ast. oe Bip ne Noes ea Ps oe a ae ne oe ee coe ee se a ee oe ee ae re oe es ee ce ie ah eer ea PN SAN be en nade Ns CEA Ae AES Seis ye PEW eo Rac Aes Saas SoH UE aE Ay ee? oe en ee aN a ee ey ee ee cat: ne We aes oe hate Bk Gata ae es Meee ny ae a hie i eh ee ie wee fee ea salar ae Be aa a al saa ya ci ie Se aes ee. San ee ae Rhee SPR CaN aed oe Pee iain Se Hone ane tam she oedd: Lay fag ee Ns oes oon gee te Site mee ig eG oe a Di Nasal ie Maes afte a EEN Mi 4 oe OS ea . Jee Pe ce nit Sa Ge i ae US tone aeNe Ln Sai oy — ee pes oe Pap on Pegs Paes ree Se ae 1 ie ae ae : ate es Si Cee es Oe os slea 4 een ees os a Phe. Se. ae aM ae ee aa a eceaaes eee ins Bie a . hee ee oe eee iG Baa ss NCEA rina cen Pie ye) aS iganes Nye ae Ie MA eaten St us essen CA Sar Sali eae ie Men Steines ncaa i ioiin carat saree, Pe. ia ae ibs Nan ie PN ee ae Bee See CHT Sie Seer : Ree sere oe vee - i ee eg Peace e. os Sane co RNG a ae nee a Bae le Ove... Be es Oe a our he aa an ee es a. ie meres ae aye. Big patie ai 25" ee ue ke eed Se Bar esas eiru Bee Re ale ai PSO Seas aaa ae Scales Pi Pe a BS say Coches Tse a RS ak ay Gee Sree ea Oe gs Me) sae Sauer tiie SA Shae ag a PI a ae taa ee et - ie eS Ree ae ere es pi a Gs ee Gaia eats a a oe oe Cia sae oh (AS eS a ea ay 2 as ake Boas Re Rept Sea rete oN tr! 4 a aay tits sg |e ee ie elie Pe SaaS ee a a Nagata es PS, Gea AN Ns: ine Ree a ate en eRe eee TAG eee It Bue co Rea eee gy Hacer ease Vain FAG er Bevan alte See Po pa ie wes i) Pee is 7 ae peccn ae as i ea Oh Gieanytpae a we ss ee en ee ane a ey Bynes ee RO pee pa ieee PORES ee COR RN NS ence Ie a ena Be at Sista: eee a Meares oo eines cee pales Bee te eva Sar aetna tow Gene iit wea pa atat Rap HOG 1 aa Sica: Per ee ea BS een on aN Ue ea co oo ean ee ae Ct aU an as ee ls nas A ee Ratton. eae Bet Sas a i ae ee ae Ge ae an ae! ee x Dae Me "hi is I ok Te ae PrN a els ate Petia Ms ne aa Seay Wes g ss rcs sche SO ara ay ae eee teas betes 3 i NR We Bay AR ta CU ean MMR Sata ts iat a a ese i aga rane aie sae ora Bee, a ae ee a ae mk em ee Sages ae eS a fe cs ae ek ants % ic BG a a tenes si fe Wes cee Beet ce inoue ae. SPU eth eS: a Rade ites (Sie ated ete ae Co OaGe catia eee oa cei oe CO ae Sa st ee i eo ene ae , ae eda et ee ailing eae, Aes Sane PON Cae ae eRe Sa eee ee as Be a : ee oo ee ae ae ro ye 8 aoa py Sa Ayan Le ce Mee Oe ee i cs Lo ey tee ee ee : a oo ane ao Ug a oa) i eas ig nae elie ze oe Pa oe ok ee a ie nen oe oe ae Po De Ba ara Rie eee oes sae HE ies Err Lay een Laer tia ae Lee Nae eek gs, oo ean ag Teo all KG ea Cae iccallshists rN Cae pees pone na at Sane Bete Bee pie Le Ne . pee once plist Coe aa ie Ae ee RS ee eos ae Nae cae es a bets: Siti Omens ae PR. Baie ios aig Se aay wie Snes ee 3 A Biles a ae Sen oe aS Rea Sy ae Reco Dea peg eo Neg ica ef A ine ieee See eites oy Res Bs es pele aes A ‘es ae UE EET ues ate ay oe ee Ea age A one Pe he ee ceriae o : S : ns ne es pat ie fine y ae oe ei See. i, Re ae 8 ies a Seem! i ee e Ne Bh os esta ee en Yea i Kees cee! conn are cea be Pecans Lee Cee ine i x aaa Ba SU sia es ea iad B)5 site ue es Ty anton yee it HN SR ta GEN Byres ar eran Re Roh ey eae one ea ite ey Hee BS a ls ana bag ee we tat Ak = Sey HE Rito oe eas ae yee ae ee a oe oe i oe aie oe anise Fe a eae ae egy aga EES Ge Te . ace “y AT wy (ts et ee ae Re eae ae sok eK es oe eee Ne adeaee edna oR Ua bd iG es ee as oe © D5 ee Sais a ay Gay Aaa ig Broke aaely ea iat ee aaa: i en is me ek HES Ne a ie Soh ame ie KO, See ee cee - a ae Ne ee Peas ee Bae oe phe pita aes ess Bath i arenes ara eS Aaa POS as Nr a a iS lh eae ae eae ‘ Be Wes Nippamabyn gat yy ea ine pee been & a an ROSES Me age pene ue ea punaaete eee as ee pecioomameen er il Weta ie. ans sehr ERY ae he Ate ie oes ee, ie ee ae ee ee ae 2: oS ie ee ce Sete ee sont Fie oo oo eho dea oe eed gaa ok tee oo oy ic ee route ie rae apie gae) ee oo ee ee a eer pate ee es vig a eee oe ee Aa a le ee ae re aM pay ee : ae Le ee eae ee ee A Fae Ne Roe ee : es ee AN ae oe oa " a as: oe Tekeae an tae be oe a Pa ae CN oe gate Sm berate Bec ibegere pa ia ee ea Ave vhs Seeliates Ne encase as Sees Hees re ina Mens a apres! aa eee ea Cosi Si rea SNe ee ea i hea cae) ge : Lye Seen! fia. fie is Say as | Ste 2a eae ee Sa aie gt Uhre ae Bast eae ies rea ae aol Ce erat a ea UAE Cera et ea oe e Pes coe : ae ne Ne ees oe es oe oe i te ee. Ae eae Lape ene eerie ie es eae ey five eR so Sete Pee dag ce hoe Roe. a Se cl igen Res i ae an a ie Gnas ae Ce es Boe Eee Rea ee eS sie aa We gee Sa Pe ee eo Lee Lage a a ag .
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Research Report110
    ~ ~ WISCONSIN DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES A Survey of Rare and Endangered Mayflies of Selected RESEARCH Rivers of Wisconsin by Richard A. Lillie REPORT110 Bureau of Research, Monona December 1995 ~ Abstract The mayfly fauna of 25 rivers and streams in Wisconsin were surveyed during 1991-93 to document the temporal and spatial occurrence patterns of two state endangered mayflies, Acantha­ metropus pecatonica and Anepeorus simplex. Both species are candidates under review for addition to the federal List of Endang­ ered and Threatened Wildlife. Based on previous records of occur­ rence in Wisconsin, sampling was conducted during the period May-July using a combination of sampling methods, including dredges, air-lift pumps, kick-nets, and hand-picking of substrates. No specimens of Anepeorus simplex were collected. Three specimens (nymphs or larvae) of Acanthametropus pecatonica were found in the Black River, one nymph was collected from the lower Wisconsin River, and a partial exuviae was collected from the Chippewa River. Homoeoneuria ammophila was recorded from Wisconsin waters for the first time from the Black River and Sugar River. New site distribution records for the following Wiscon­ sin special concern species include: Macdunnoa persimplex, Metretopus borealis, Paracloeodes minutus, Parameletus chelifer, Pentagenia vittigera, Cercobrachys sp., and Pseudiron centra/is. Collection of many of the aforementioned species from large rivers appears to be dependent upon sampling sand-bottomed substrates at frequent intervals, as several species were relatively abundant during only very short time spans. Most species were associated with sand substrates in water < 2 m deep. Acantha­ metropus pecatonica and Anepeorus simplex should continue to be listed as endangered for state purposes and receive a biological rarity ranking of critically imperiled (S1 ranking), and both species should be considered as candidates proposed for listing as endangered or threatened as defined by the Endangered Species Act.
    [Show full text]
  • Biological Monitoring of Surface Waters in New York State, 2019
    NYSDEC SOP #208-19 Title: Stream Biomonitoring Rev: 1.2 Date: 03/29/19 Page 1 of 188 New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Division of Water Standard Operating Procedure: Biological Monitoring of Surface Waters in New York State March 2019 Note: Division of Water (DOW) SOP revisions from year 2016 forward will only capture the current year parties involved with drafting/revising/approving the SOP on the cover page. The dated signatures of those parties will be captured here as well. The historical log of all SOP updates and revisions (past & present) will immediately follow the cover page. NYSDEC SOP 208-19 Stream Biomonitoring Rev. 1.2 Date: 03/29/2019 Page 3 of 188 SOP #208 Update Log 1 Prepared/ Revision Revised by Approved by Number Date Summary of Changes DOW Staff Rose Ann Garry 7/25/2007 Alexander J. Smith Rose Ann Garry 11/25/2009 Alexander J. Smith Jason Fagel 1.0 3/29/2012 Alexander J. Smith Jason Fagel 2.0 4/18/2014 • Definition of a reference site clarified (Sect. 8.2.3) • WAVE results added as a factor Alexander J. Smith Jason Fagel 3.0 4/1/2016 in site selection (Sect. 8.2.2 & 8.2.6) • HMA details added (Sect. 8.10) • Nonsubstantive changes 2 • Disinfection procedures (Sect. 8) • Headwater (Sect. 9.4.1 & 10.2.7) assessment methods added • Benthic multiplate method added (Sect, 9.4.3) Brian Duffy Rose Ann Garry 1.0 5/01/2018 • Lake (Sect. 9.4.5 & Sect. 10.) assessment methods added • Detail on biological impairment sampling (Sect.
    [Show full text]
  • Appendices Brown, Adams, and Scioto Counties OHIO EPA Technical Report EAS/2016-EAGLE-2
    Biological and Water Quality Study of Southwest Ohio River Tributaries - Appendices Brown, Adams, and Scioto Counties OHIO EPA Technical Report EAS/2016-EAGLE-2 Division of Surface Water Ecological Assessment Section August 2020 Appendices Appendix A – Notice to Users, Biosurvey Background Information, Mechanisms for Water Quality Impairment, and Methods Appendix B – Macroinvertebrate Collection Results Appendix C – Macroinvertebrate ICI Scores and Metrics Appendix D – Fish Species and Abundance for Each Sampling Locaiton Appendix E – Fish IBI Scores and Metrics Appendix F – Qualitative Habitat Evaluation Index Scores and Attributes Appendix G – Surface Water Organic Chemical Results Appendix H – Surface Water Inorganic Chemical Results Appendix I ‐ Datasonde® Continuous Recorder Results Appendix J – Surface Water Bacteriological Results Appendix K - Lake Reports Appendix L - NPDES Permitted Facilities Appendix M - Atrazine, Nitrate, and Cyanotoxin Results For Assessing Public Drinking Water Beneficial Use Appendix N - Stream Chlorophyll a Results Appendix O - Supplemental Field Meter Readings, 2015 Appendix P - Lake Sampling Results Appendix A Notice to Users, Biosurvey Background information, Mechanisms for Water Quality Impairment, and Methods NOTICE TO USERS Ohio EPA incorporated biological criteria into the Ohio Water Quality Standards (WQS; Ohio Administrative Code 3745‐1) regulations in February 1990 (effective May 1990). These criteria consist of numeric values for the Index of Biotic Integrity (IBI) and Modified Index of Well‐Being (MIwb), both of which are based on fish assemblage data, and the Invertebrate Community Index (ICI), which is based on macroinvertebrate assemblage data. Criteria for each index are specified for each of Ohio's five ecoregions (as described by Omernik and Gallant 1988), and are further organized by organism group, index, site type, and aquatic life use designation.
    [Show full text]
  • Aquatic Macroinvertebrates Section a Aquatic Macroinvertebrates (Exclusive of Mosquitoes)
    I LLINOI S UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT URBANA-CHAMPAIGN PRODUCTION NOTE University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Library Large-scale Digitization Project, 2007. \oc iatural History Survey. Library iiAOs (ClSCi;; ILLINOIS - NATURAL HISTORY Ai . .ý . - I-w. Iv mk U16 OL SURVEY CHAPTER 9 AQUATIC MACROINVERTEBRATES SECTION A AQUATIC MACROINVERTEBRATES (EXCLUSIVE OF MOSQUITOES) Final Report October, 1985 Section of Faunistic Surveys and Insect Identification Technical Report by Allison R. Brigham, Lawrence M. Page, John D. Unzicker Mark J. Wetzel, Warren U. Brigham, Donald W. Webb, and Liane Suloway Prepared for Wetlands Research, Inc. 53 West Jackson Boulevard Chicago, IL 60604 Arjpp, Section of Faunistic Surveys and Insect Identification Technical Report 1985 (6) 6'Wa- CHAPTER 9 AQUATIC MACROINVERTEBRATES SECTION A AQUATIC MACROINVERTEBRATES (EXCLUSIVE OF MOSQUITOES) Allison R. Brigham, Lawrence M. Page, John D. Unzicker Mark J. Wetzel, Warren U. Brigham, Donald W. Webb, and Liane Suloway INTRODUCTION Aquatic macroinvertebrates are primary and secondary level consumers that play an important role in transferring energy through the different trophic levels of the food chains of aquatic ecosystems. These animals feed upon submerged and emergent macrophytes, plankton, and organic material suspended in the water column. Burrowing and feeding activities aid in the decomposition of plant and animal matter and the eventual recycling of nutrients. In addition, these organisms prey upon each other and serve as food for fishes, certain birds, and other animals. In general, aquatic macroinvertebrates have not been systematically surveyed in Illinois, and rarely have individual species been studied ecologically. This is due, in part, to the inconspicuous nature of most freshwater inverte- brates and the many taxonomic problems which preclude distributional, ecologi- cal, and other studies.
    [Show full text]
  • Investigations in Fish Control
    INVESTIGATIONS IN FISH CONTROL 80. Effects of Antimycin A and Rotenone on Macrobenthos in Ponds 81. Aquatic Macroinvertebrates in a Small Wisconsin Trout Stream Before, During, and Two Years After Treatment with the Fish Toxicant Antimycin UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE Investigations in Fish Control, published by the Fish and Wildlife Service, include reports on the results of work at the Service's Fish Control Laboratories at La Crosse, Wis., and Warm Springs, Ga., and reports of other studies related to that work. Though each report is regarded as a separate publication, several may be issued under a single cover, for economy. [See Investigations in Fish Control 47-50 (in one cover) for list of issues published prior to 1970.] (Reports 41 through 43 are in one cover.) 41. Identification of MS-222 Residues in Selected Fish Tissues by Thin Layer Chromatography, by John L. Alien, Charles W. Luhning, and Paul D. Harman. 1970. 7 pp. 42. Dynamics of MS-222 in the Blood and Brain of Freshwater Fishes During Anesthesia, by Joseph B. Hunn. 1970. 8 pp. 43. Effect of MS-222 on Electrolyte and Water Content in the Brain of Rainbow Trout, by Wayne A. Willford. 1970. 7 pp. 44. A Review of Literature on TFM (3-trifluormethyl-4-nitrophenol) as a Lamprey Larvicide, by Rosalie A. Schnick. 1972. 31 pp. (Reports 45 and 46 are in one cover.) 45. Residues of MS-222 in Northern Pike, Muskellunge, and Walleye, by John L. Alien, Charles W. Luhning, and Paul D. Harman. 1972. 8 pp.
    [Show full text]
  • Wiscoy Creek, 2015
    WISCOY CREEK Biological Stream Assessment April 1, 2015 STREAM BIOMONITORING UNIT 425 Jordan Rd, Troy, NY 12180 P: (518) 285-5627 | F: (518) 285-5601 | [email protected] www.dec.ny.gov BIOLOGICAL STREAM ASSESSMENT Wiscoy Creek Wyoming and Allegany Counties, New York Genesee River Basin Survey date: June 25-26, 2014 Report date: April 1, 2015 Alexander J. Smith Elizabeth A. Mosher Mirian Calderon Jeff L. Lojpersberger Diana L. Heitzman Brian T. Duffy Margaret A. Novak Stream Biomonitoring Unit Bureau of Water Assessment and Management Division of Water NYS Department of Environmental Conservation Albany, New York www.dec.ny.gov For additional information regarding this report please contact: Alexander J. Smith, PhD New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Stream Biomonitoring Unit 425 Jordan Road, Troy, NY 12180 [email protected] ph 518-285-5627 fx 518-285-5601 Table of Contents Stream ............................................................................................................................................. 1 River Basin...................................................................................................................................... 1 Reach............................................................................................................................................... 1 Background ..................................................................................................................................... 1 Results and Conclusions ................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Drift of Aquatic Insects in the Brazos River, Texas
    DRIFT OF AQUATIC INSECTS IN THE BRAZOS RIVER, TEXAS APPROVED: ^ai€rvPr of e s s or Minor Professor Director of the Department of Biology Dean of the Graduate School Cloud Jr., Thomas J., Drift of Aquatic Insects in the Brazos River, Texas. Master of Science (Biology), August, 1973, 88 pp., 4 tables, 35 illustrations, bibliography, 68 titles. The objective of this study was to elucidate the nature and extent of drift by the aquatic insect populations of the Brazos River, Texas; such information has been heretofore unavailable for a major Southwestern United States river. The establishment of drift densities, nocturnal periodicities, and seasonal variations of drifting populations was deter- mined from April, 1972 to February, 1973. The findings of this investigation were (1) Drift was expressed as drift density; highest peak densities were 494, 397, and 144/100 m3, respectively, for the three dominant insects in the river, Choroterpes sp., Chaoborus sp., and Simulium sp. Peak drift densities of other populations 3 varied from 2 to 92.5/100 m . (2) Total drift estimates were calculated for six dom- inant riverine insects, Choroterpes sp., Cheumatopsyche spp., Chaoborus sp., Simulium sp., Chironomidae, and Baetis sp. Total numbers drifting 1-hr before sunset to 1-hr after sunrise in June were 5.31 x 10^ (maximum estimate during study), ^8.53 x 104, 5.39 x 105, 7.13 x 104, 8.44 x 104, and 5.63 x 104, respec- tively. High estimates were also noted for these species in August, with lower totals drifting during sample dates in other months.
    [Show full text]
  • Bureau of Water Quality Annual Macroinvertebrate Community Report 2017
    Indiana Scientific Purpose License Number: 17-149 Bureau of Water Quality Annual Macroinvertebrate Community Report 2017 Bureau of Water Quality 5150 W. Kilgore Ave. Muncie, IN 47304 Phone: 765-747-4896 Prepared by: Fax: 765-213-6444 Laura Bowley, Macroinvertebrate Biologist, BWQ March 2018 www.munciesanitary.org/bwq 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................................ 3 PREFACE .................................................................................................................................... 5 INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................... 5 West Fork White River and the Bureau of Water Quality ...................................................... 5 Mussels as Biomonitors ............................................................................................................... 6 Macroinvertebrates as Biomonitors ........................................................................................... 6 MUSSEL METHODS ................................................................................................................. 6 Mussels- Field Sampling.............................................................................................................. 6 Figure 1.— Macroinvertebrate and mussel sites, 2017. ................................................................ 7 Table 1.—mIBI submetrics and their response to disturbance
    [Show full text]
  • Wisconsin's Strategy for Wildlife Species of Greatest Conservation Need
    Prepared by Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources with Assistance from Conservation Partners Natural Resources Board Approved August 2005 U.S. Fish & Wildlife Acceptance September 2005 Wisconsin’s Strategy for Wildlife Species of Greatest Conservation Need Governor Jim Doyle Natural Resources Board Gerald M. O’Brien, Chair Howard D. Poulson, Vice-Chair Jonathan P Ela, Secretary Herbert F. Behnke Christine L. Thomas John W. Welter Stephen D. Willet Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources Scott Hassett, Secretary Laurie Osterndorf, Division Administrator, Land Paul DeLong, Division Administrator, Forestry Todd Ambs, Division Administrator, Water Amy Smith, Division Administrator, Enforcement and Science Recommended Citation: Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. 2005. Wisconsin's Strategy for Wildlife Species of Greatest Conservation Need. Madison, WI. “When one tugs at a single thing in nature, he finds it attached to the rest of the world.” – John Muir The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources provides equal opportunity in its employment, programs, services, and functions under an Affirmative Action Plan. If you have any questions, please write to Equal Opportunity Office, Department of Interior, Washington D.C. 20240. This publication can be made available in alternative formats (large print, Braille, audio-tape, etc.) upon request. Please contact the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Bureau of Endangered Resources, PO Box 7921, Madison, WI 53707 or call (608) 266-7012 for copies of this report. Pub-ER-641 2005
    [Show full text]
  • Survey of the Shale and Cobble Zone Macroinvertebrate Community 1994
    REPORT Survey of the Shale and Cobble Zone Macroinvertebrate Community 1994 Prepared By: Steven Fiske and Richard Levey Vermont Agency of Natural Resources Department of Environmental Conservation Water Quality Division Environmental Sciences Branch Biomonitoring and Aquatic Studies Section 103 So. Main St. DEC Lab Building Waterbury, Vermont 05671 (802) 244-4520 August 1, 1995 Prepared for: Lake Champlain Basin Program and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Regions 1 and 2 Acknowledgments-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- This survey would not have been possible without the expertise and dedication of the following individuals: Micheala Stickney for her waterlogged days in the field and persistence in processing the samples in the laboratory; Dr. Douglas G. Smith of the University of Massachusetts at Amherst for verifying the taxa of the Crustacea and Mollusca; The Biomonitoring and Aquatic Studies Section: Douglas Burnham- Section Chief for reviewing the many revisions of this report and guiding us through the grant process, Rich Langdon, Alan Quackenbush, Jim Kellogg, and Jim Pease-Biologists who helped identify over 5,000 macroinvertebrate individuals representing 177 taxa. This report was funded and prepared under the authority of the Lake Champlain Special Designation Act of 1990, P.L. 101-596, through the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency . Publication of this report does not signify that the contents necessarily reflect the views of the States of New York and Vermont, the Lake Champlain Basin Program, or the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation is an equal opportunity agency and offers all persons the benefits of participating in each of its programs and competing in all areas of employment regardless of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, disability, or other non-merit factors.
    [Show full text]
  • Universiv Miaxsilms International
    INFORMATION TO USERS This was produced from a copy of a document sent to us for microfilming. While the most advanced technological means to photograph and reproduce this document have been used, the quality is heavily dependent upon the quality of the material submitted. The following explanation of techniques is provided to help you understand markings or notations which may appear on this reproduction. 1. The sign or “ target” for pages apparently lacking from the document photographed is “Missing Page(s)”. I f it was possible to obtain the missing page(s) or section, they are spliced into the Him along with adjacent pages. This may have necessitated cutting through an image and duplicating adjacent pages to assure you of complete continuity. 2. When an image on the Him is obliterated with a round black mark it is an indication that the Him inspector noticed either blurred copy because of movement during exposure, or duplicate copy. Unless we meant to delete copyrighted materials that should not have been filmed, you will Hnd a good image of the page in the adjacent frame. 3. When a map, drawing or chart, etc., is part of the material being photo­ graphed the photographer has followed a deHnite method in “sectioning” the material. It is customary to begin Hlming at the upper left hand comer of a large sheet and to continue from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. I f necessary, sectioning is continued again—beginning below the Hrst row and continuing on until complete. 4. For any illustrations that cannot be reproduced satisfactorily by xerography, photographic prints can be purchased at additional cost and tipped into your xerographic copy.
    [Show full text]
  • Coleoptera: Insecta) of Saskatchewan
    1 CHECKLIST OF BEETLES (COLEOPTERA: INSECTA) OF SASKATCHEWAN R. R. Hooper1 and D. J. Larson2 1 – Royal Saskatchewan Museum, Regina, SK. Deceased. 2 – Box 56, Maple Creek, SK. S0N 1N0 Introduction A checklist of the beetles of Canada (Bousquet 1991) was published 20 years ago in order to provide a list of the species known from Canada and Alaska along with their correct names and a indication of their distribution by major political units (provinces, territories and state). A total of 7447 species and subspecies were recognized in this work. British Columbia and Ontario had the most diverse faunas, 3628 and 3843 taxa respectively, whereas Saskatchewan had a relatively poor fauna (1673 taxa) which was about two thirds that its neighbouring provinces (Alberta – 2464; Manitoba – 2351). This raises the question of whether the Canadian beetle fauna is distributed like a doughnut with a hole in the middle, or is there some other explanation. After assembling available literature records as well as the collection records available to us, we present a list of 2312 species (generally only single subspecies of a species are recognized in the province) suggesting that the Canadian distribution pattern of species is more like that of a Bismark, the dough may be a little thinner in the center but there is also a core of good things. This list was largely R. Hopper’s project. He collected Saskatchewan insects since at least the 1960’s and over the last decade before his death he had compiled a list of the species he had collected along with other records from the literature or given him by other collectors (Hooper 2001).
    [Show full text]