DOCSLIB.ORG

Field Operations Manual

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Field Operations Manual United States Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water Office of Environmental Information Washington, DC EPA-841-B-07-009 National Rivers and Streams Assessment Field Operations Manual April 2009 National Rivers and Streams Assessment Final Manual Field Operations Manual Date: April 2009 Page ii This page is intentionally blank National Rivers and Streams Assessment Final Manual Field Operations Manual Date: April 2009 Page iii NOTICE The intention of the National Rivers and Streams Assessment project is to provide a comprehensive “State of the Flowing Waters” assessment for rivers and streams across the United States. The complete documentation of overall project management, design, methods, and standards is contained in four companion documents: National Rivers and Streams Assessment: Quality Assurance Project Plan (EPA- 841-B-07-007) National Rivers and Streams Assessment: Site Evaluation Guidelines (EPA-841-B- 07-008) National Rivers and Streams Assessment: Field Operations Manual (EPA-841-B-07- 009) National Rivers and Streams Assessment: Laboratory Methods Manual (EPA-841-B- 07-010) This document (Field Operations Manual) contains a brief introduction and procedures to follow at the base location and on-site, including methods for sampling water chemistry (grabs and in situ measurements), periphyton, benthic macroinvertebrates, sediment enzymes, fish composition, fish tissue (at non-wadeable sites), a fecal indicator, and physical habitat. These methods are based on the guidelines developed and followed in the Western Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program (Baker, et al., 1997), the methods outlined in Concepts and Approaches for the Bioassessment of Non-wadeable Streams and Rivers (Flotemersch, et al., 2006), and methods employed by several key states that were involved in the planning phase of this project. Methods described in this document are to be used specifically in work relating to the National Rivers and Streams Assessment. All Project Cooperators must follow these guidelines. Mention of trade names or commercial products in this document does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use. Details on specific methods for site evaluation and sample processing can be found in the appropriate companion document. The citation for this document is: USEPA. 2007. National Rivers and Streams Assessment: Field Operations Manual. EPA-841-B-07-009. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. National Rivers and Streams Assessment Final Manual Field Operations Manual Date: April 2009 Page iv This page is intentionally blank National Rivers and Streams Assessment Final Manual Field Operations Manual Date: April 2009 Page v TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS ................................................................................................................ v LIST OF TABLES ......................................................................................................................... xi LIST OF FIGURES ..................................................................................................................... xv ACRONYMS/ABBREVIATIONS ................................................................................................ xvii CONTACT LIST ........................................................................................................................ xviii 1.0 BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................ 1 1.1 Survey Design ....................................................................................................... 1 1.1.1 Target Population and Sample Frame ....................................................... 2 1.1.2 Replacing Sites .......................................................................................... 2 1.2 Selection of NRSA Indicators ................................................................................ 3 1.3 Description of NRSA Indicators ............................................................................. 3 1.4 Supplemental Material to the Field Operations Manual ......................................... 7 2.0 DAILY OPERATIONS SUMMARY .................................................................................... 9 2.1 Sampling Scenario ................................................................................................ 9 2.1.1 Non-wadeable Sites ................................................................................... 9 2.1.2 Wadeable Sites .......................................................................................... 9 2.2 Recording Data and Other Information................................................................ 13 2.3 Safety and Health ................................................................................................ 15 2.3.1 General Considerations ........................................................................... 15 2.3.2 Safety Equipment .................................................................................... 18 2.3.3 Safety Guidelines for Field Operations .................................................... 18 3.0 BASE SITE ACTIVITIES ................................................................................................. 21 3.1 Predeparture Activities ........................................................................................ 21 3.1.1 Daily Itineraries ........................................................................................ 22 3.1.2 Instrument Checks and Calibration .......................................................... 22 3.1.3 Equipment and Supply Preparation ......................................................... 22 3.2 Post Sampling Activities ...................................................................................... 23 3.2.1 Review Data Forms and Labels ............................................................... 23 3.2.2 Inspect and Prepare Samples.................................................................. 23 3.2.3 Equipment Cleanup and Check ............................................................... 24 3.2.4 Supply Inventory ...................................................................................... 24 3.2.5 Shipment of Samples and Forms ............................................................. 26 3.2.6 Status Reports and Communications ...................................................... 26 4.0 INITIAL SITE PROCEDURES ......................................................................................... 33 4.1 Site Verification Activities .................................................................................... 33 4.1.1 Locating the X-Site .................................................................................. 33 4.1.2 Determining the Sampling Status of a Stream ......................................... 37 4.1.3 Sampling During or After Rain Events ..................................................... 40 4.1.4 Site Photographs ..................................................................................... 40 4.2 Laying out the sampling reach ............................................................................ 40 4.3 Modifying Sample Protocols for High or Low Flows ............................................ 47 4.3.1 Streams with Interrupted Flow ................................................................. 47 4.3.2 Partially Wadeable Sites .......................................................................... 48 4.3.3 Braided Rivers and Streams .................................................................... 48 National Rivers and Streams Assessment Final Manual Field Operations Manual Date: April 2009 Page vi 5.0 NON-WADEABLE RIVERS ............................................................................................. 49 5.1 Water Quality ....................................................................................................... 49 5.1.1 In Situ Measurements of Dissolved Oxygen, pH, Temperature, and Conductivity ............................................................................................. 49 5.1.1.1 Summary of Method..................................................................... 49 5.1.1.2 Equipment and Supplies .............................................................. 49 5.1.1.3 Multi-Probe Sonde ....................................................................... 49 5.1.1.4 Sampling Procedure .................................................................... 51 5.1.2 Water Chemistry Sample Collection and Preservation ............................ 52 5.1.2.1 Summary of Method .................................................................... 52 5.1.2.2 Equipment and Supplies .............................................................. 52 5.1.2.3 Sampling Procedure .................................................................... 54 5.1.3 Secchi Disk Transparency at Non-Wadeable Sites ................................. 54 5.1.3.1 Summary of Method .................................................................... 54 5.1.3.2 Equipment and Supplies ............................................................. 55 5.1.3.3 Sampling Procedure .................................................................... 55 5.1.4 Sediment Enzymes .................................................................................. 56 5.1.4.1 Summary of Method ...................................................................
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]
  • 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]
  • Part IV: Scoring Criteria for the Index of Biotic Integrity to Monitor
    Part IV: Scoring Criteria for the Index of Biotic Integrity to Monitor Fish Communities in Wadeable Streams in the Coosa and Tennessee Drainage Basins of the Ridge and Valley Ecoregion of Georgia Georgia Department of Natural Resources Wildlife Resources Division Fisheries Management Section 2020 Table of Contents Introduction………………………………………………………………… ……... Pg. 1 Map of Ridge and Valley Ecoregion………………………………..……............... Pg. 3 Table 1. State Listed Fish in the Ridge and Valley Ecoregion……………………. Pg. 4 Table 2. IBI Metrics and Scoring Criteria………………………………………….Pg. 5 References………………………………………………….. ………………………Pg. 7 Appendix 1…………………………………………………………………. ………Pg. 8 Coosa Basin Group (ACT) MSR Graphs..………………………………….Pg. 9 Tennessee Basin Group (TEN) MSR Graphs……………………………….Pg. 17 Ridge and Valley Ecoregion Fish List………………………………………Pg. 25 i Introduction The Ridge and Valley ecoregion is one of the six Level III ecoregions found in Georgia (Part 1, Figure 1). It is drained by two major river basins, the Coosa and the Tennessee, in the northwestern corner of Georgia. The Ridge and Valley ecoregion covers nearly 3,000 square miles (United States Census Bureau 2000) and includes all or portions of 10 counties (Figure 1), bordering the Piedmont ecoregion to the south and the Blue Ridge ecoregion to the east. A small portion of the Southwestern Appalachians ecoregion is located in the upper northwestern corner of the Ridge and Valley ecoregion. The biotic index developed by the GAWRD is based on Level III ecoregion delineations (Griffith et al. 2001). The metrics and scoring criteria adapted to the Ridge and Valley ecoregion were developed from biomonitoring samples collected in the two major river basins that drain the Ridge and Valley ecoregion, the Coosa (ACT) and the Tennessee (TEN).
    [Show full text]
  • Fish Survey for Calhoun, Gordon County, Georgia
    Blacktail Redhorse (Moxostoma poecilurum) from Oothkalooga Creek Fish Survey for Calhoun, Gordon County, Georgia Prepared by: DECATUR, GA 30030 www.foxenvironmental.net January 2018 Abstract Biological assessments, in conjunction with habitat surveys, provide a time-integrated evaluation of water quality conditions. Biological and habitat assessments for fish were conducted on 3 stream segments in and around Calhoun, Gordon County, Georgia on October 3 and 5, 2017. Fish, physical habitat, and water chemistry data were evaluated according to Georgia Department of Natural Resources (GADNR), Wildlife Resources Division (WRD) – Fisheries Section protocol entitled “Standard Operating Procedures for Conducting Biomonitoring on Fish Communities in Wadeable Streams in Georgia”. All of the water quality parameters at all sites were within the typical ranges for streams although conductivity was somewhat high across the sites. Fish habitat scores ranged from 80 (Tributary to Oothkalooga Creek) to 132.7 (Oothkalooga Creek). Native fish species richness ranged from 6 species (Tributary to Oothkalooga Creek) to 17 (Oothkalooga and Lynn Creeks). Index of biotic integrity (IBI) scores ranged from 16 (Tributary to Oothkalooga Creek; “Very Poor”) to 34 (Lynn Creek; “Fair”). Overall, the results demonstrate that Oothkalooga and Lynn Creeks are in fair condition whereas the Tributary to Oothkalooga Creek is highly impaired. Although the data are only a snapshot of stream conditions during the sampling events, they provide a biological characterization from which to evaluate the effect of future changes in water quality and watershed management in Calhoun. We recommend continued monitoring of stream sites throughout the area to ensure that the future ecological health of Calhoun’s water resources is maintained.
    [Show full text]
  • Acknowledgments
    Acknowledgments Many people contributed to the various sections of this report. The contributions of these authors, reviewers, suppliers of data, analysts, and computer systems operators are gratefully acknowl- edged. Specific contributions are mentioned in connection with the individual chapters. Chapter 1 Chapter 4 Authors: Jack Holcomb, USDA Forest Service Jack Holcomb, Team co-leader, John Greis, USDA Forest Service USDA Forest Service Patricia A. Flebbe, USDA Forest Service, Chapter 5 Southern Research Station Lloyd W. Swift, Jr., USDA Forest Service, Richard Burns, USDA Forest Service Southern Research Station Morris Flexner, U.S. Environmental Chapter 2 Protection Agency Authors: Richard Burns, USDA Forest Service Patricia A. Flebbe, USDA Forest Service, Bill Melville, U.S. Environmental Southern Research Station Protection Agency Jim Harrison, Team co-leader, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Chapter 6 Gary Kappesser, USDA Forest Service Jack Holcomb, USDA Forest Service Dave Melgaard, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Chapter 7 Jeanne Riley, USDA Forest Service Patricia A. Flebbe, USDA Forest Service, Lloyd W. Swift, USDA Forest Service, Southern Research Station Southern Research Station Jack Holcomb, USDA Forest Service Chapter 3 Jim Harrison, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Jim Harrison, U.S. Environmental Lloyd W. Swift, USDA Forest Service, Protection Agency Southern Research Station Geographic Information System Liaison (graphic and database development): Dennis Yankee, Tennessee Valley Authority Neal Burns, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Jim Wang, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Don Norris, USDA Forest Service Many people, in addition to the authors and their colleagues, contributed to the preparation of this report. Special thanks are given to the people who worked on various sub-teams and to the many reviewers and scientists who helped along the way.
    [Show full text]
  • * This Is an Excerpt from Protected Animals of Georgia Published By
    Common Name: CHEROKEE DARTER Scientific Name: Etheostoma scotti Other Commonly Used Names: none Previously Used Scientific Names: Etheostoma coosae Family: Percidae Rarity Ranks: G2/S2 State Legal Status: Threatened Federal Legal Status: Threatened Description: The Cherokee darter has a rounded snout, a distinct dark bar beneath the eye, and 7-8 dorsal blotches that may fuse with the 7-8 lateral blotches. The lateral blotches elongate into slightly oblique greenish-olive bars in breeding males. The anterior lateral line pores are usually outlined in black. Breeding males have an anterior red window and a single broad reddish band in the first dorsal fin, red in the second dorsal fin, and a green-edged anal fin. The caudal fin may also be edged in green dorsally and ventrally. Adult size of the Cherokee darter is 40-65 mm (1.6-2.6 in) total length. A recent population genetic study of the Cherokee darter identified three distinct evolutionarily significant units (ESUs) that are geographically separated. These ESUs are genetically distinct from one another, suggesting isolation from one another for at least tens of thousands of years. A male from the Richland Creek system (lower ESU) is pictured above. A male from the uppermost ESU and a female from the middle ESU are shown at the bottom of this account. Similar Species: The Cherokee darter belongs to the subgenus Ulocentra, commonly known as snubnose darters. Two other snubnose darters occur in the upper Coosa River basin, the Coosa darter (E. coosae) and holiday darter (E. brevirostrum). Breeding males of the three snubnose darters can be distinguished based on fin pigmentation: the Coosa darter has five discrete bands in the first dorsal fin; the holiday darter has a red band appearing over bluish or gray pigment in the second dorsal fin and anal fin; the Cherokee darter has a red wash in both the first and second dorsal fins, without banding (except lower ESU).
    [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]
  • Management Indicator Species Population and Habitat Trends
    United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service Management Indicator Species Southern Region Population and Habitat Trends Chattahoochee-Oconee National Forests Revised and Updated May 2003 i CONTENTS Page Introduction......................................................................................................................... 1 Documentation of Management Indicator Species Selection ......................................... 1 Management Indicator Species Habitat Relationships............................................. 8 Forestwide Management Indicator Species Habitat Monitoring and Evaluation ............. 10 Forestwide Management Indicator Species Population Trend Monitoring and Evaluation ....................................................................................................................... 13 White-tailed Deer.......................................................................................................... 15 Black Bear..................................................................................................................... 19 Eastern Wild Turkey..................................................................................................... 23 Ruffed Grouse............................................................................................................... 27 Bobwhite Quail ............................................................................................................. 31 Gray Squirrel................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Misgurnus) Species in Austria Verified by Molecular Data
    BioInvasions Records (2020) Volume 9, Issue 2: 375–383 CORRECTED PROOF Rapid Communication Oriental or not: First record of an alien weatherfish (Misgurnus) species in Austria verified by molecular data Lukas Zangl1,2,*, Michael Jung3, Wolfgang Gessl1, Stephan Koblmüller1 and Clemens Ratschan3 1University of Graz, Institute of Biology, Universitätsplatz 2, 8010 Graz, Austria 2Universalmuseum Joanneum, Studienzentrum Naturkunde, Weinzöttlstraße 16, 8045 Graz, Austria 3ezb–TB Zauner GmbH, Marktstraße 35, 4090 Engelhartszell, Austria *Corresponding author E-mail: [email protected] Citation: Zangl L, Jung M, Gessl W, Koblmüller S, Ratschan C (2020) Oriental Abstract or not: First record of an alien weatherfish Weatherfishes of the genus Misgurnus are natively distributed across large parts of (Misgurnus) species in Austria verified by th molecular data. BioInvasions Records 9(2): Eurasia. Since the end of the 20 century, two alien weatherfish species, the oriental 375–383, https://doi.org/10.3391/bir.2020.9.2.23 weatherfish, Misgurnus anguillicaudatus, and the large-scaled loach, Paramisgurnus Received: 9 October 2019 dabryanus, have been reported from Europe. Here, we provide a first record of alien Accepted: 2 March 2020 Misgurnus for Austria (Inn river). Based on morphology and DNA barcoding in combination with sequences of the nuclear RAG1 gene we found that this alien Published: 30 March 2020 Austrian weatherfish is neither M. anguillicaudatus nor P. dabryanus, but Misgurnus Thematic editor: Michal Janáč bipartitus, the northern weatherfish. Fish from further upstream the Inn in Germany, Copyright: © Zangl et al. previously identified as M. anguillicaudatus, share their COI haplotype with the This is an open access article distributed under terms Austrian samples and other M.
    [Show full text]
  • Photo Images, 3D Models and CT Scanned Data of Loaches (Botiidae, Cobitidae and Nemacheilidae) of Japan
    Biodiversity Data Journal 6: e26265 doi: 10.3897/BDJ.6.e26265 Data Paper Photo images, 3D models and CT scanned data of loaches (Botiidae, Cobitidae and Nemacheilidae) of Japan Yuichi Kano‡§, Jun Nakajima , Takeshi Yamasaki|, Jyun-ichi Kitamura¶#, Ryoichi Tabata ‡ Kyushu University, Fukuoka, Japan § Fukuoka Institute of Health and Environmental Sciences, Dazaifu, Japan | Yamashina Institute for Ornithology, Konoyama, Japan ¶ Mie Prefectural Museum, Tsu, Japan # Lake Biwa Museum, Kusatsu, Japan Corresponding author: Yuichi Kano ([email protected]) Academic editor: Yasen Mutafchiev Received: 29 Apr 2018 | Accepted: 11 Jun 2018 | Published: 09 Jul 2018 Citation: Kano Y, Nakajima J, Yamasaki T, Kitamura J, Tabata R (2018) Photo images, 3D models and CT scanned data of loaches (Botiidae, Cobitidae and Nemacheilidae) of Japan. Biodiversity Data Journal 6: e26265. https://doi.org/10.3897/BDJ.6.e26265 ZooBank: urn:lsid:zoobank.org:pub:997E6DE7-09B7-4352-9D78-861689F018DC Abstract Background Loach is one of the major cypriniform fishes in freshwater habitats of Japan; 35 taxa/clades have, until now, been recognised. Parallel to genetic studies, morphological examinations are needed for further development of loach study, eventually ichthyology and fish biology. Digital archiving, concerning taxonomy, ecology, ethology etc., is one of the progressive challenges for the open science of biology. This paper aimed to online publish photo images, 3D models and CT scanned data of all the known clades of loaches inhabiting Japan (103 individuals in total with several type specimens), contributing to ichthyology and public interest of biodiversity/biology. © Kano Y et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
    [Show full text]
  • The Hoosier- Shawnee Ecological Assessment Area
    United States Department of Agriculture The Hoosier- Forest Service Shawnee Ecological North Central Assessment Research Station General Frank R. Thompson, III, Editor Technical Report NC-244 Thompson, Frank R., III, ed 2004. The Hoosier-Shawnee Ecological Assessment. Gen. Tech. Rep. NC-244. St. Paul, MN: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, North Central Research Station. 267 p. This report is a scientific assessment of the characteristic composition, structure, and processes of ecosystems in the southern one-third of Illinois and Indiana and a small part of western Kentucky. It includes chapters on ecological sections and soils, water resources, forest, plants and communities, aquatic animals, terrestrial animals, forest diseases and pests, and exotic animals. The information presented provides a context for land and resource management planning on the Hoosier and Shawnee National Forests. ––––––––––––––––––––––––––– Key Words: crayfish, current conditions, communities, exotics, fish, forests, Hoosier National Forest, mussels, plants, Shawnee National Forest, soils, water resources, wildlife. Cover photograph: Camel Rock in Garden of the Gods Recreation Area, with Shawnee Hills and Garden of the Gods Wilderness in the back- ground, Shawnee National Forest, Illinois. Contents Preface....................................................................................................................... II North Central Research Station USDA Forest Service Acknowledgments ...................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Columbia Sculpin (Cottus Hubbsi) Is a Small, Freshwater Sculpin (Cottidae)
    COSEWIC Assessment and Status Report on the Columbia Sculpin Cottus hubbsi 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 Columbia Sculpin Cottus hubbsi in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. xii + 32 pp. (www.sararegistry.gc.ca/status/status_e.cfm). Production note: COSEWIC acknowledges Don McPhail for writing the provisional status report on the Columbia Sculpin, Cottus hubbsi, 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 report and 2-month interim status reports were overseen by Dr. 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 du Columbia (Cottus hubbsi) au Canada. Cover illustration/photo: Columbia Sculpin — illustration by Diana McPhail. Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, 2011. Catalogue No. CW69-14/268-2011E-PDF ISBN 978-1-100-18590-3 Recycled paper COSEWIC Assessment Summary Assessment Summary – November 2010 Common name Columbia Sculpin Scientific name Cottus hubbsi Status Special Concern Reason for designation In Canada, this small freshwater fish is endemic to the Columbia River basin where it has a small geographic distribution.
    [Show full text]