DOCSLIB.ORG

Standard Operating Procedure EAP124, Version 1.4: Vertebrate

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Standard Operating Procedure EAP124, Version 1.4: Vertebrate Standard Operating Procedure EAP124, Version 1.4 Watershed Health Monitoring: Standard Operating Procedures for Vertebrate Assemblage Sampling November 2018 Publication 18-03-228 Purpose of this document The Washington State Department of Ecology develops Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) to document agency practices related to sampling, field and laboratory analysis, and other aspects of the agency’s technical operations. Publication information This SOP is available on the Department of Ecology’s website at https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/publications/SummaryPages/1803228.html. Ecology’s Activity Tracker Code for this SOP is 18-052. Contact information For more information contact: Communications Consultant Environmental Assessment Program P.O. Box 47600, Olympia, WA 98504-7600 Phone: 360-407-6764 Washington State Department of Ecology – ecology.wa.gov. Location of Ecology Offices Phone Headquarters, Lacey 360-407-6000 Northwest Regional Office, Bellevue 425-649-7000 Southwest Regional Office, Lacey 360-407-6300 Central Regional Office, Union Gap 509-575-2490 Eastern Regional Office, Spokane 509-329-3400 Any use of product or firm names in this publication is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the author or the Department of Ecology. To request ADA accommodation for disabilities, or printed materials in a format for the visually impaired, call Ecology at 360-407-6764 or visit https://ecology.wa.gov/accessibility. People with impaired hearing may call Washington Relay Service at 711. People with speech disability may call TTY at 877-833-6341. Washington State Department of Ecology Environmental Assessment Program Watershed Health Monitoring: Standard Operating Procedures for Vertebrate Assemblage Sampling Version 1.4 Author -Glenn Merritt Date – Reviewer – Shannon Hubler (Oregon DEQ), George Onwumere, and Meghan Rosewood-Thurman Date – QA Approval – Tom Gries, Acting Ecology Quality Assurance Officer Date – September 6, 2018 EAP124 EAP 124 – Vertebrate Assemblage Sampling – V1.4 – 9/6/18 – Page 1 of 32 Uncontrolled copy when printed Please note that the Washington State Department of Ecology’s Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) are adapted from published methods, or developed by in-house technical and administrative experts. Their primary purpose is for internal Ecology use, although sampling and administrative SOPs may have a wider utility. Our SOPs do not supplant official published methods. Distribution of these SOPs does not constitute an endorsement of a particular procedure or method. Any reference to specific equipment, manufacturer, or supplies is for descriptive purposes only and does not constitute an endorsement of a particular product or service by the author or by the Department of Ecology. Although Ecology follows the SOP in most instances, there may be instances in which Ecology uses an alternative methodology, procedure, or process. EAP 124 – Vertebrate Assemblage Sampling – V1.4 – 9/6/18 – Page 2 of 32 Uncontrolled copy when printed SOP Revision History Revision Date Version Summary of changes Sections Reviser(s) number 3/10/17 1.1 Updated title, removed draft dates, All Meghan added footers, general formatting, Rosewood- updated glossary terms and references Thurman 3/23/17 1.2 For DCEs with vertebrate data 2.1 Glenn Merritt Last sentence edited 2.2 Reynolds, 1983 3.9 Whiteman, 1994 3.15 Reynolds, 2008 3.16 Refined life stage definition 3.22 Reynolds, 2008 3.27 vertebrate assemblage data 4.1 know the protocol to be used 4.3 wide protocol (if fishing is performe) 6.0 renumbered for raft-based fishing 7.0 added note that method is optional 2017 11.9,11.10 Added link 11.31 Reynolds, 1983 11.34 Reynolds, 2008 11.36 3/27/17 1.3 General formatting All Meghan Rosewood- Thurman 12/11/17 1.4 Clarified wording, added temperature 6.1.4.1 Meghan Added “process salmonids first” and 6.2.2.3 Rosewood- “well aerated” Thurman 9/6/18 1.4 Minor changes (e.g. updated references) Various Gries 11/16/18 1.4 Updated formatting for accessibility, All Ponzetti added cover page EAP 124 – Vertebrate Assemblage Sampling – V1.4 – 9/6/18 – Page 3 of 32 Uncontrolled copy when printed Environmental Assessment Program Watershed Health Monitoring: Standard Operating Procedures for Vertebrate Assemblage Sampling 1.0 Purpose and Scope 1.1 This document is the Environmental Assessment Program’s (EAP) Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for vertebrate assemblage sampling for the Watershed Health Monitoring (WHM) program. It includes methods for both WHM protocols: the Narrow Protocol and the Wide Protocol. Note: This document is derived in large part from methods of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program, Western Pilot (EMAP-W; see the two Peck et al. manuals (2005a, 2005b) cited in Stoddard et.al., 2005). EAP 124 – Vertebrate Assemblage Sampling – V1.4 – 9/6/18 – Page 4 of 32 Uncontrolled copy when printed 2.0 Applicability 2.1 This SOP should be followed when performing data collection events (DCEs) involving vertebrate community data to be submitted to the WHM Database (see Janisch, 2017). 2.2 This SOP explains how to sample fishes and amphibians to estimate the relative abundance of vertebrate taxa inhabiting a sampling site during a DCE. It is applicable only to projects that also collect a complete set of WHM habitat data, including 11 major transects and 100 thalweg stations. Precede this SOP by defining the site dimensions (Merritt, 2017 or Hartman, 2017a). 3.0 Definitions 3.1 Ambient conductivity: Conductivity (μS/cm) of the water for the ambient water temperature. Electrofishing success depends on ambient conductivity (Ca) rather than specific conductivity (Cs). It can be estimated from specific conductivity with this ( ) formula from Reynolds (1996): = /[1.02 ] where Ts = 25°C and Ta= the ambient water temperature in °C. Ambient conductivity− is the most important habitat factor affecting electrofishing efficiency. 3.2 DCE: The Data Collection Event is the sampling event for the given protocol. Data for a DCE are indexed using a code which includes the site ID followed by the year, month, day, and the time (military) for the start time of the sampling event. For example: WAM06600-000222-DCE-YYYY-MMDD-HH:MM. One DCE should be completed within one working day, lasting 4-6 hours, on average. 3.3 Duty cycle: Duty cycle is the percentage of time that the output pulse is “on” during the time period between pulse cycles. On the Smith-Root LR-20 electrofisher, the duty cycle switch is located on the upper left center of the control panel (Figure 1). Increasing duty cycle might increase stress to fish. Duty cycle is not a feature that can be adjusted on the raft-based electrofisher (Smith-Root GPP, 2007). EAP 124 – Vertebrate Assemblage Sampling – V1.4 – 9/6/18 – Page 5 of 32 Uncontrolled copy when printed Figure 1. The control panel of the Smith-Root LR-20. EAP 124 – Vertebrate Assemblage Sampling – V1.4 – 9/6/18 – Page 6 of 32 Uncontrolled copy when printed 3.4 EAP: Environmental Assessment Program 3.5 Ecology: Washington State Department of Ecology 3.6 e-forms: Electronic data forms. Term for an application saved into a web browser cache on a device such as a tablet computer. E-forms allow collection and storage of data at remote locations when disconnected from the internet. 3.7 EIM: The Environmental Information Management System (EIM) is the Department of Ecology's main database for environmental monitoring data. EIM contains records on physical, chemical, and biological analyses and measurements. Supplementary information about the data (metadata) is also stored, including information about environmental studies, monitoring locations, and data quality. The “Search by map” feature enables plotting coordinates over orthophotographic imagery. 3.8 Frequency: This describes the pulse rate per second or Hertz (Hz). On the Smith-Root LR-20 electrofisher, the frequency switch is located on upper left of the control panel (Figure 1). Most pulsed DC backpack electrofishing is done at 30-60 Hz. 3.9 Galvanotaxis: This is electrically-induced movement (toward the anode or cathode). When pulsed DC current is supplied to water, fish are electrically induced to swim toward the electrode. This is called galvanotaxis (Reynolds, 1983). 3.10 Habitat units: As assessed for WHM, all habitat units are part of the main channel. They are based on the Hawkins et al. (1993) classification system. Habitat units are “quasi-discrete areas of relatively homogeneous depth and flow that are bounded by sharp physical gradients… Different types of units are usually in close enough proximity to one another that mobile stream organisms can select the type of unit that provides the most suitable habitat” (Hawkins et al. 1993). For WHM, any unit (with two exceptions) must be at least as long as half their wetted width and they must include the thalweg. Plunge pools and dry channels are the exceptions. Plunge pools can be shorter than half their width. Dry channels have no wetted width and only need to occupy a single thalweg station to be counted. Note: When deciding if a feature is long enough to constitute a habitat unit, the length is compared to the wetted width of the full main-channel (exclude side-channels and exclude edge pools). 3.11 HUC: Hydrologic Unit Code assigned by the United States Geological Survey (USGS, 2016b). Scale depends on number of digits. In Washington State, 4-digit HUCS (also known as subregions) reside within the Pacific Northwest Region (2-digit = HUC 17). Four-digit HUCs that overlap Washington are listed below. • 1701 Kootenai-Pend Oreille-Spokane • 1702 Upper Columbia • 1703 Yakima • 1706 Lower Snake • 1707 Middle Columbia • 1708 Lower Columbia • 1710 Coastal EAP 124 – Vertebrate Assemblage Sampling – V1.4 – 9/6/18 – Page 7 of 32 Uncontrolled copy when printed • 1711 Puget Sound These 4-digit HUCs are NOT a basis for how WHM allocates monitoring; we use Status and Trends Regions (STRs).
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Eastslope Sculpin (Cottus Sp.) in Alberta
    COSEWIC Assessment and Status Report on the "Eastslope" Sculpin Cottus sp. in Canada St. Mary and Milk River populations THREATENED 2005 COSEWIC COSEPAC COMMITTEE ON THE STATUS OF COMITÉ SUR LA SITUATION ENDANGERED WILDLIFE DES ESPÈCES EN PÉRIL IN CANADA AU CANADA COSEWIC status reports are working documents used in assigning the status of wildlife species suspected of being at risk. This report may be cited as follows: COSEWIC 2005. COSEWIC assessment and status report on the "eastslope" sculpin (St. Mary and Milk River population) Cottus sp. in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. vi + 30 pp. (www.sararegistry.gc.ca/status/status_e.cfm). Production note: This document is based on a report by Susan M. Pollard prepared for Alberta Sustainable Resource Development, Fish and Wildlife Division and the Alberta Conservation Association. The original report was published as Alberta Wildlife Status Report No. 51, February 2004, and is entitled Status of the St. Mary Shorthead Sculpin (provisionally Cottus bairdi punctulatus) in Alberta. Funding for the preparation of the original status report was provided by the Alberta Conservation Association and the Fish and Wildlife Division of Alberta Sustainable Resource Development. This document was overseen and edited by Bob Campbell, the COSEWIC Freshwater Fish Species Specialist Subcommittee Co- chair. For additional copies contact: COSEWIC Secretariat c/o Canadian Wildlife Service Environment Canada Ottawa, ON K1A 0H3 Tel.: (819) 997-4991 / (819) 953-3215 Fax: (819) 994-3684 E-mail: COSEWIC/[email protected] http://www.cosewic.gc.ca Ếgalement disponible en français sous le titre Ếvaluation et Rapport de situation du COSEPAC sur le chabot du versant est (populations des rivières St.
    [Show full text]
  • Shorthead Sculpin (Cottus Confusus) Is a Small, Freshwater Sculpin (Cottidae)
    COSEWIC Assessment and Status Report on the Shorthead Sculpin Cottus confusus in Canada SPECIAL CONCERN 2010 COSEWIC status reports are working documents used in assigning the status of wildlife species suspected of being at risk. This report may be cited as follows: COSEWIC. 2010. COSEWIC assessment and status report on the Shorthead Sculpin Cottus confusus in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. xii + 28 pp. (www.sararegistry.gc.ca/status/status_e.cfm). Previous report(s): Production note: COSEWIC acknowledges Don McPhail for writing the provisional status report on the Shorthead Sculpin, Cottus confusus, prepared under contract with Environment Canada. The contractor’s involvement with the writing of the status report ended with the acceptance of the provisional report. Any modifications to the status report during the subsequent preparation of the 6-month interim status and 2-month interim status reports were overseen by Eric Taylor, COSEWIC Freshwater Fishes Specialist Subcommittee Co- chair. For additional copies contact: COSEWIC Secretariat c/o Canadian Wildlife Service Environment Canada Ottawa, ON K1A 0H3 Tel.: 819-953-3215 Fax: 819-994-3684 E-mail: COSEWIC/[email protected] http://www.cosewic.gc.ca Également disponible en français sous le titre Ếvaluation et Rapport de situation du COSEPAC sur le chabot à tête courte (Cottus confusus) au Canada. Cover illustration/photo: Shorthead Sculpin — illustration by Diana McPhail Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, 2011. Catalogue No. CW69-14/251-2011E-PDF ISBN 978-1-100-18592-7 Recycled paper COSEWIC Assessment Summary Assessment Summary – November 2010 Common name Shorthead Sculpin Scientific name Cottus confusus Status Special Concern Reason for designation In Canada, this small freshwater fish is endemic to the Columbia River basin where it has a very small geographic distribution.
    [Show full text]
  • List of Animal Species with Ranks October 2017
    Washington Natural Heritage Program List of Animal Species with Ranks October 2017 The following list of animals known from Washington is complete for resident and transient vertebrates and several groups of invertebrates, including odonates, branchipods, tiger beetles, butterflies, gastropods, freshwater bivalves and bumble bees. Some species from other groups are included, especially where there are conservation concerns. Among these are the Palouse giant earthworm, a few moths and some of our mayflies and grasshoppers. Currently 857 vertebrate and 1,100 invertebrate taxa are included. Conservation status, in the form of range-wide, national and state ranks are assigned to each taxon. Information on species range and distribution, number of individuals, population trends and threats is collected into a ranking form, analyzed, and used to assign ranks. Ranks are updated periodically, as new information is collected. We welcome new information for any species on our list. Common Name Scientific Name Class Global Rank State Rank State Status Federal Status Northwestern Salamander Ambystoma gracile Amphibia G5 S5 Long-toed Salamander Ambystoma macrodactylum Amphibia G5 S5 Tiger Salamander Ambystoma tigrinum Amphibia G5 S3 Ensatina Ensatina eschscholtzii Amphibia G5 S5 Dunn's Salamander Plethodon dunni Amphibia G4 S3 C Larch Mountain Salamander Plethodon larselli Amphibia G3 S3 S Van Dyke's Salamander Plethodon vandykei Amphibia G3 S3 C Western Red-backed Salamander Plethodon vehiculum Amphibia G5 S5 Rough-skinned Newt Taricha granulosa
    [Show full text]
  • Distribution, Abundance, and Genetic Population Structure of Wood River Sculpin, Cottus Leiopomus
    Western North American Naturalist Volume 68 Number 4 Article 10 12-31-2008 Distribution, abundance, and genetic population structure of Wood River sculpin, Cottus leiopomus Kevin A. Meyer Idaho Department of Fish and Game, Nampa, Idaho, [email protected] Daniel J. Schill Idaho Department of Fish and Game, Eagle, Idaho, [email protected] Matthew R. Campbell Idaho Department of Fish and Game, Eagle, Idaho, [email protected] Christine C. Kozfkay Idaho Department of Fish and Game, Eagle, Idaho, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/wnan Recommended Citation Meyer, Kevin A.; Schill, Daniel J.; Campbell, Matthew R.; and Kozfkay, Christine C. (2008) "Distribution, abundance, and genetic population structure of Wood River sculpin, Cottus leiopomus," Western North American Naturalist: Vol. 68 : No. 4 , Article 10. Available at: https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/wnan/vol68/iss4/10 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Western North American Naturalist Publications at BYU ScholarsArchive. It has been accepted for inclusion in Western North American Naturalist by an authorized editor of BYU ScholarsArchive. For more information, please contact [email protected], [email protected]. Western North American Naturalist 68(4), © 2008, pp. 508–520 DISTRIBUTION, ABUNDANCE, AND GENETIC POPULATION STRUCTURE OF WOOD RIVER SCULPIN, COTTUS LEIOPOMUS Kevin A. Meyer1,3, Daniel J. Schill1, Matthew R. Campbell2, and Christine C. Kozfkay2 ABSTRACT.—The Wood River sculpin Cottus leiopomus is endemic to the Wood River Basin in central Idaho and is a nongame species of concern because of its limited distribution. However, status and genetic population structure, 2 factors often central to the conservation and management of species of concern, have not been assessed for this species.
    [Show full text]
  • Endangered Species
    FEATURE: ENDANGERED SPECIES Conservation Status of Imperiled North American Freshwater and Diadromous Fishes ABSTRACT: This is the third compilation of imperiled (i.e., endangered, threatened, vulnerable) plus extinct freshwater and diadromous fishes of North America prepared by the American Fisheries Society’s Endangered Species Committee. Since the last revision in 1989, imperilment of inland fishes has increased substantially. This list includes 700 extant taxa representing 133 genera and 36 families, a 92% increase over the 364 listed in 1989. The increase reflects the addition of distinct populations, previously non-imperiled fishes, and recently described or discovered taxa. Approximately 39% of described fish species of the continent are imperiled. There are 230 vulnerable, 190 threatened, and 280 endangered extant taxa, and 61 taxa presumed extinct or extirpated from nature. Of those that were imperiled in 1989, most (89%) are the same or worse in conservation status; only 6% have improved in status, and 5% were delisted for various reasons. Habitat degradation and nonindigenous species are the main threats to at-risk fishes, many of which are restricted to small ranges. Documenting the diversity and status of rare fishes is a critical step in identifying and implementing appropriate actions necessary for their protection and management. Howard L. Jelks, Frank McCormick, Stephen J. Walsh, Joseph S. Nelson, Noel M. Burkhead, Steven P. Platania, Salvador Contreras-Balderas, Brady A. Porter, Edmundo Díaz-Pardo, Claude B. Renaud, Dean A. Hendrickson, Juan Jacobo Schmitter-Soto, John Lyons, Eric B. Taylor, and Nicholas E. Mandrak, Melvin L. Warren, Jr. Jelks, Walsh, and Burkhead are research McCormick is a biologist with the biologists with the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • ECOLOGY of NORTH AMERICAN FRESHWATER FISHES
    ECOLOGY of NORTH AMERICAN FRESHWATER FISHES Tables STEPHEN T. ROSS University of California Press Berkeley Los Angeles London © 2013 by The Regents of the University of California ISBN 978-0-520-24945-5 uucp-ross-book-color.indbcp-ross-book-color.indb 1 44/5/13/5/13 88:34:34 AAMM uucp-ross-book-color.indbcp-ross-book-color.indb 2 44/5/13/5/13 88:34:34 AAMM TABLE 1.1 Families Composing 95% of North American Freshwater Fish Species Ranked by the Number of Native Species Number Cumulative Family of species percent Cyprinidae 297 28 Percidae 186 45 Catostomidae 71 51 Poeciliidae 69 58 Ictaluridae 46 62 Goodeidae 45 66 Atherinopsidae 39 70 Salmonidae 38 74 Cyprinodontidae 35 77 Fundulidae 34 80 Centrarchidae 31 83 Cottidae 30 86 Petromyzontidae 21 88 Cichlidae 16 89 Clupeidae 10 90 Eleotridae 10 91 Acipenseridae 8 92 Osmeridae 6 92 Elassomatidae 6 93 Gobiidae 6 93 Amblyopsidae 6 94 Pimelodidae 6 94 Gasterosteidae 5 95 source: Compiled primarily from Mayden (1992), Nelson et al. (2004), and Miller and Norris (2005). uucp-ross-book-color.indbcp-ross-book-color.indb 3 44/5/13/5/13 88:34:34 AAMM TABLE 3.1 Biogeographic Relationships of Species from a Sample of Fishes from the Ouachita River, Arkansas, at the Confl uence with the Little Missouri River (Ross, pers. observ.) Origin/ Pre- Pleistocene Taxa distribution Source Highland Stoneroller, Campostoma spadiceum 2 Mayden 1987a; Blum et al. 2008; Cashner et al. 2010 Blacktail Shiner, Cyprinella venusta 3 Mayden 1987a Steelcolor Shiner, Cyprinella whipplei 1 Mayden 1987a Redfi n Shiner, Lythrurus umbratilis 4 Mayden 1987a Bigeye Shiner, Notropis boops 1 Wiley and Mayden 1985; Mayden 1987a Bullhead Minnow, Pimephales vigilax 4 Mayden 1987a Mountain Madtom, Noturus eleutherus 2a Mayden 1985, 1987a Creole Darter, Etheostoma collettei 2a Mayden 1985 Orangebelly Darter, Etheostoma radiosum 2a Page 1983; Mayden 1985, 1987a Speckled Darter, Etheostoma stigmaeum 3 Page 1983; Simon 1997 Redspot Darter, Etheostoma artesiae 3 Mayden 1985; Piller et al.
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix A: Common and Scientific Names for Fish and Wildlife Species Found in Idaho
    APPENDIX A: COMMON AND SCIENTIFIC NAMES FOR FISH AND WILDLIFE SPECIES FOUND IN IDAHO. How to Read the Lists. Within these lists, species are listed phylogenetically by class. In cases where phylogeny is incompletely understood, taxonomic units are arranged alphabetically. Listed below are definitions for interpreting NatureServe conservation status ranks (GRanks and SRanks). These ranks reflect an assessment of the condition of the species rangewide (GRank) and statewide (SRank). Rangewide ranks are assigned by NatureServe and statewide ranks are assigned by the Idaho Conservation Data Center. GX or SX Presumed extinct or extirpated: not located despite intensive searches and virtually no likelihood of rediscovery. GH or SH Possibly extinct or extirpated (historical): historically occurred, but may be rediscovered. Its presence may not have been verified in the past 20–40 years. A species could become SH without such a 20–40 year delay if the only known occurrences in the state were destroyed or if it had been extensively and unsuccessfully looked for. The SH rank is reserved for species for which some effort has been made to relocate occurrences, rather than simply using this status for all elements not known from verified extant occurrences. G1 or S1 Critically imperiled: at high risk because of extreme rarity (often 5 or fewer occurrences), rapidly declining numbers, or other factors that make it particularly vulnerable to rangewide extinction or extirpation. G2 or S2 Imperiled: at risk because of restricted range, few populations (often 20 or fewer), rapidly declining numbers, or other factors that make it vulnerable to rangewide extinction or extirpation. G3 or S3 Vulnerable: at moderate risk because of restricted range, relatively few populations (often 80 or fewer), recent and widespread declines, or other factors that make it vulnerable to rangewide extinction or extirpation.
    [Show full text]
  • Management Plan for the Columbia Sculpin (Cottus Hubbsi) in Canada
    Species at Risk Act FINAL Management Plan Series Management Plan for the Columbia Sculpin (Cottus hubbsi) in Canada Columbia Sculpin 2012 About the Species at Risk Act Management Plan Series What is the Species at Risk Act (SARA)? SARA is the Act developed by the federal government as a key contribution to the common national effort to protect and conserve species at risk in Canada. SARA came into force in 2003, and one of its purposes is “to manage species of special concern to prevent them from becoming endangered or threatened.” What is a species of special concern? Under SARA, a species of special concern is a wildlife species that could become threatened or endangered because of a combination of biological characteristics and identified threats. Species of special concern are included in the SARA List of Wildlife Species at Risk. What is a management plan? Under SARA, a management plan is an action-oriented planning document that identifies the conservation activities and land use measures needed to ensure, at a minimum, that a species of special concern does not become threatened or endangered. For many species, the ultimate aim of the management plan will be to alleviate human threats and remove the species from the List of Wildlife Species at Risk. The plan sets goals and objectives, identifies threats, and indicates the main areas of activities to be undertaken to address those threats. Management plan development is mandated under Sections 65–72 of SARA (http://www.sararegistry.gc.ca/approach/act/default_e.cfm). A management plan has to be developed within three years after the species is added to the List of Wildlife Species at Risk.
    [Show full text]
  • LATE MIOCENE FISHES of the CACHE VALLEY MEMBER, SALT LAKE FORMATION, UTAH and IDAHO By
    LATE MIOCENE FISHES OF THE CACHE VALLEY MEMBER, SALT LAKE FORMATION, UTAH AND IDAHO by PATRICK H. MCCLELLAN AND GERALD R. SMITH MISCELLANEOUS PUBLICATIONS MUSEUM OF ZOOLOGY, UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN, 208 Ann Arbor, December 17, 2020 ISSN 0076-8405 P U B L I C A T I O N S O F T H E MUSEUM OF ZOOLOGY, UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN NO. 208 GERALD SMITH, Editor The publications of the Museum of Zoology, The University of Michigan, consist primarily of two series—the Miscellaneous Publications and the Occasional Papers. Both series were founded by Dr. Bryant Walker, Mr. Bradshaw H. Swales, and Dr. W. W. Newcomb. Occasionally the Museum publishes contributions outside of these series. Beginning in 1990 these are titled Special Publications and Circulars and each is sequentially numbered. All submitted manuscripts to any of the Museum’s publications receive external peer review. The Occasional Papers, begun in 1913, serve as a medium for original studies based principally upon the collections in the Museum. They are issued separately. When a sufficient number of pages has been printed to make a volume, a title page, table of contents, and an index are supplied to libraries and individuals on the mailing list for the series. The Miscellaneous Publications, initiated in 1916, include monographic studies, papers on field and museum techniques, and other contributions not within the scope of the Occasional Papers, and are published separately. Each number has a title page and, when necessary, a table of contents. A complete list of publications on Mammals, Birds, Reptiles and Amphibians, Fishes, I nsects, Mollusks, and other topics is available.
    [Show full text]
  • 2010 Animal Species of Concern
    MONTANA NATURAL HERITAGE PROGRAM Animal Species of Concern Species List Last Updated 08/05/2010 219 Species of Concern 86 Potential Species of Concern All Records (no filtering) A program of the University of Montana and Natural Resource Information Systems, Montana State Library Introduction The Montana Natural Heritage Program (MTNHP) serves as the state's information source for animals, plants, and plant communities with a focus on species and communities that are rare, threatened, and/or have declining trends and as a result are at risk or potentially at risk of extirpation in Montana. This report on Montana Animal Species of Concern is produced jointly by the Montana Natural Heritage Program (MTNHP) and Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife, and Parks (MFWP). Montana Animal Species of Concern are native Montana animals that are considered to be "at risk" due to declining population trends, threats to their habitats, and/or restricted distribution. Also included in this report are Potential Animal Species of Concern -- animals for which current, often limited, information suggests potential vulnerability or for which additional data are needed before an accurate status assessment can be made. Over the last 200 years, 5 species with historic breeding ranges in Montana have been extirpated from the state; Woodland Caribou (Rangifer tarandus), Greater Prairie-Chicken (Tympanuchus cupido), Passenger Pigeon (Ectopistes migratorius), Pilose Crayfish (Pacifastacus gambelii), and Rocky Mountain Locust (Melanoplus spretus). Designation as a Montana Animal Species of Concern or Potential Animal Species of Concern is not a statutory or regulatory classification. Instead, these designations provide a basis for resource managers and decision-makers to make proactive decisions regarding species conservation and data collection priorities in order to avoid additional extirpations.
    [Show full text]
  • Project Description Document Climate, Community & Biodiversity Standards
    PROJECT DESCRIPTION DOCUMENT CLIMATE, COMMUNITY & BIODIVERSITY STANDARDS The Nature Conservancy of Canada DARKWOODS FOREST CARBON PROJECT v. 1.6 Darkwoods Forest Carbon Project July 11, 2013 Version 1.6 3GreenTree Ecosystem Services Ltd. For The Nature Conservancy of Canada Copyright ©2013 3GreenTree Ecosystem Services Ltd./Nature Conservancy of Canada Table of Contents G1. GENERAL SECTION ......................................................................................................................................... 5 G1a. Original Conditions in the Project Area ......................................................................................................... 5 G1b. Community Information .............................................................................................................................. 15 G1c. Biodiversity Information .............................................................................................................................. 26 G2. BASELINE PROJECTIONS ............................................................................................................................. 28 G2.1. Baseline Scenario Selection ...................................................................................................................... 29 G2.2. Additionality ............................................................................................................................................... 29 G2.3. Baseline Carbon Stock Changes ..............................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Fishes As a Template for Reticulate Evolution
    University of Arkansas, Fayetteville ScholarWorks@UARK Theses and Dissertations 12-2016 Fishes as a Template for Reticulate Evolution: A Case Study Involving Catostomus in the Colorado River Basin of Western North America Max Russell Bangs University of Arkansas, Fayetteville Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarworks.uark.edu/etd Part of the Evolution Commons, Molecular Biology Commons, and the Terrestrial and Aquatic Ecology Commons Recommended Citation Bangs, Max Russell, "Fishes as a Template for Reticulate Evolution: A Case Study Involving Catostomus in the Colorado River Basin of Western North America" (2016). Theses and Dissertations. 1847. http://scholarworks.uark.edu/etd/1847 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by ScholarWorks@UARK. It has been accepted for inclusion in Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks@UARK. For more information, please contact [email protected], [email protected]. Fishes as a Template for Reticulate Evolution: A Case Study Involving Catostomus in the Colorado River Basin of Western North America A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Biology by Max Russell Bangs University of South Carolina Bachelor of Science in Biological Sciences, 2009 University of South Carolina Master of Science in Integrative Biology, 2011 December 2016 University of Arkansas This dissertation is approved for recommendation to the Graduate Council. _____________________________________ Dr. Michael E. Douglas Dissertation Director _____________________________________ ____________________________________ Dr. Marlis R. Douglas Dr. Andrew J. Alverson Dissertation Co-Director Committee Member _____________________________________ Dr. Thomas F. Turner Ex-Officio Member Abstract Hybridization is neither simplistic nor phylogenetically constrained, and post hoc introgression can have profound evolutionary effects.
    [Show full text]