DOCSLIB.ORG

Revised Appendix G (July 20, 2017)

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Revised Appendix G (July 20, 2017) July 20, 2017 Herb Rolfes Hard Rock Mining Bureau, Section Supervisor Montana Department of Environmental Quality P.O. Box 200901 Helena, MT 59620-0901 Subject: Revised Appendix G to the Tintina Montana, Inc. - Mine Operating Permit Application Black Butte Copper Project, Meagher County, MT, Revision 3 Dear Herb: On behalf of Tintina Montana, Inc., Black Butte Copper Project, I am enclosing two hard copies, on 3- hole paper, of the May 2017 version of the 2016 Baseline Aquatic Surveys and Assessment of Streams report to replace the version submitted as Appendix G of the Mine Operating Permit Application on July 14, 2017. I apologize for not getting the latest version of Appendix G into the Revision 3 appendix. I provided an electronic copy of the revised Appendix G to Craig Jones via email today, and will forward an electronic copy to you with this transmittal. If you have any questions, please call me at 406-437-9822. Sincerely, J. Edward Surbrugg, Ph.D. BBC Project MEPA Manager Enclosures cc: Tintina Montana, Inc. (Jerry Zieg, John Shanahan) Geomin Resources, Inc. (Allan Kirk) Montana Biological Survey (Dave Stagliano) 7 West 6th Avenue, Suite 612, Helena, MT 59601 Tel 406.442.5588 Fax 406.442.7182 www.tetratech.com 2016 Baseline Aquatic Surveys and Assessment of Streams in the Tintina Black Butte Copper Project Area of Meagher County, MT Prepared for: TIntina Resources, Inc. P.O. Box 431 White Sulphur Springs, Montana 59645 Sheep Creek AQ3 fall fish survey upstream of Little Sheep Creek Prepared by: David Stagliano, Aquatic Ecologist Montana Biological Survey Helena, Montana May 2017 Tintina Resources Black Butte Copper Project Baseline Aquatic Surveys Montana Biological Survey May 2017 TABLE OF CONTENTS Acknowledgements ....................................................................................................................................ii 1.0 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................ 1 1.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ............................................................................................................ 1 1.2 STUDY AREA DESCRIPTION ...................................................................................................... 1 2.0 METHODS ..................................................................................................................................... 4 2.1 LITERATURE/DATABASE SEARCHES .................................................................................. 4 2.2 HABITAT / WATER QUALITY ASSESSMENTS ...................................................................... 4 2.3 FISH COMMUNITY SURVEYS ............................................................................................... 6 2.3.1 Population Estimates ......................................................................................................... 6 2.3.2 Pit-tagged Fish .................................................................................................................. 7 2.3.3 Fish Tissue Analysis .......................................................................................................... 7 2.3.4 Redd Counts ...................................................................................................................... 7 2.4 FRESHWATER MUSSEL SURVEYS .....................................................................................10 2.5 MACROINVERTEBRATE COMMUNITY SURVEYS ..............................................................10 2.6 PERIPHYTON COMMUNITY SURVEYS .............................................................................. 11 2.7 AMPHIBIAN SURVEYS. ........................................................................................................ 11 3.0 AQUATIC ASSESSMENT RESULTS ........................................................................................... 12 3.1 AQUATIC SPECIES OF CONCERN ..................................................................................... 12 3.2 HABITAT EVALUATIONS ..................................................................................................... 12 3.3 FISH COMMUNITIES ............................................................................................................ 13 3.3.1 Pit Tagged Fish ............................................................................................................... 19 3.3.2 Fish anomalies ................................................................................................................ 20 3.3.3 Fish Tissue Analysis ........................................................................................................ 21 3.3.4 Fall Redd Counts ............................................................................................................. 22 3.5 FRESHWATER MUSSEL SURVEYS .................................................................................... 25 3.6 MACROINVERTEBRATE COMMUNITIES ............................................................................ 25 3.7 PERIPHYTON COMMUNITIES ............................................................................................. 29 3.8 AMPHIBIAN AND REPTILE OBSERVATIONS ...................................................................... 30 4.0 CONCLUSIONS ........................................................................................................................... 31 5.0 LITERATURE CITED ................................................................................................................... 33 LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Stream Flows reported at Aquatic Monitoring Study Reaches .................................................... 2 Table 2. Aquatic Monitoring Study Reach Location Information ............................................................... 3 Table 3. Metrics and Classification of Fishes Collected during the Study ................................................. 8 Table 4. Aquatic Sampling Assessment Reach Measurements ............................................................. 14 Table 5. Location, Date and Species of Pit-tagged salmonids ................................................................ 20 Table 6. Baseline Whole Body Sculpin Tissue Metal Values ................................................................. 21 Table 7. Assemblage Tolerance Indices (ATI) for the Aquatic Vertebrates ............................................. 22 Table 8. Macroinvertebrate Sample Characteristics and Metrics ............................................................ 27 Table 9. Macroinvertebrate Metric Statistical Results ............................................................................. 28 Table 10. Periphyton Sample Characteristics…. .................................................................................... 29 Table 11. Overall Site Community Integrity Ranks …. ............................................................................ 32 i Tintina Resources Black Butte Copper Project Baseline Aquatic Surveys Montana Biological Survey May 2017 LIST OF MAPS Map 1. Tintina Black Butte Mine Aquatic Sampling Sites .......................................................................... 5 Map 2. Sheep Creek Redd Count Locations ........................................................................................... 24 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Macroinvertebrate and Fish Sampling Procedures ..................................................................... 9 Figure 2. Cattle-Damaged Section of Tenderfoot Creek AQ5 reach ........................................................ 10 Figure 3. Seasonal Average Fish Abundance for Little Sheep, Sheep and Tenderfoot Creek ................ 15 Figure 4. Overall Average Salmonid Abundance for Sheep, Little Sheep and Tenderfoot Creek ............ 18 Figure 5. Redd Count Averages for the Sheep Creek Project Area ......................................................... 23 Figure 6. Macroinvertebrate MDEQ MMI scores across Tintina Study Sites .......................................... 26 Figure 7. Macroinvertebrate HBI Scores across Tintina Study Sites ...................................................... 26 LIST OF PHOTOS Photo 1. Typical CT x RBTR hybrid collected in Tenderfoot Creek and Sheep Creek ........................... 12 Photo 2. Opercula reduction and chromatophore brook trout in Little Sheep Creek AQ7 ........................ 20 Photo 3. Cyanobacteria covering a rock and the nuisance diatom in Tenderfoot Creek AQ5 .................. 30 Photo 4. Juvenile Western Toad Observed at Sheep Creek AQ2 during the summer 2016 survey ......... 30 APPENDICES Appendix A Site Photographs Appendix B Fish Survey Raw Data Appendix C Fish Size-Frequency Graphs Appendix D Macroinvertebate Taxa List, Abundance and Metrics Appendix E Periphyton Taxa List, Abundance and Metrics Appendix F Fish Tissue Analysis Appendix G Stream Habitat and Physical Site Conditions ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS We would like to thank Tintina Resources, Inc. for funding this project under a new agreement with Montana Biological Survey. Report review and editing was provided by Allan Kirk, Grant Grisak and Don Skaar. Additional review and formatting by Ed Surbrugg and Alane Dallas have greatly improved the report. Field work coordination, stream flow data, site logistics were provided and expedited by Greg Bryce (Hydrometrics), Chance Matthews, Jerry Zieg and Vince Scartozzi (Tintina Resources). Field survey assistance provided by Peter Brown, Braden Lewis,
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 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]
  • Microsoft Outlook
    Joey Steil From: Leslie Jordan <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2018 1:13 PM To: Angela Ruberto Subject: Potential Environmental Beneficial Users of Surface Water in Your GSA Attachments: Paso Basin - County of San Luis Obispo Groundwater Sustainabilit_detail.xls; Field_Descriptions.xlsx; Freshwater_Species_Data_Sources.xls; FW_Paper_PLOSONE.pdf; FW_Paper_PLOSONE_S1.pdf; FW_Paper_PLOSONE_S2.pdf; FW_Paper_PLOSONE_S3.pdf; FW_Paper_PLOSONE_S4.pdf CALIFORNIA WATER | GROUNDWATER To: GSAs We write to provide a starting point for addressing environmental beneficial users of surface water, as required under the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA). SGMA seeks to achieve sustainability, which is defined as the absence of several undesirable results, including “depletions of interconnected surface water that have significant and unreasonable adverse impacts on beneficial users of surface water” (Water Code §10721). The Nature Conservancy (TNC) is a science-based, nonprofit organization with a mission to conserve the lands and waters on which all life depends. Like humans, plants and animals often rely on groundwater for survival, which is why TNC helped develop, and is now helping to implement, SGMA. Earlier this year, we launched the Groundwater Resource Hub, which is an online resource intended to help make it easier and cheaper to address environmental requirements under SGMA. As a first step in addressing when depletions might have an adverse impact, The Nature Conservancy recommends identifying the beneficial users of surface water, which include environmental users. This is a critical step, as it is impossible to define “significant and unreasonable adverse impacts” without knowing what is being impacted. To make this easy, we are providing this letter and the accompanying documents as the best available science on the freshwater species within the boundary of your groundwater sustainability agency (GSA).
    [Show full text]
  • Benthic Insect Fauna of a Clean-Water Stream on Utah's Colorado Plateau, USA
    Western North American Naturalist Volume 63 Number 1 Article 3 1-31-2003 Benthic insect fauna of a clean-water stream on Utah's Colorado Plateau, USA C. A. Brammer Utah State University J. F. MacDonald Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/wnan Recommended Citation Brammer, C. A. and MacDonald, J. F. (2003) "Benthic insect fauna of a clean-water stream on Utah's Colorado Plateau, USA," Western North American Naturalist: Vol. 63 : No. 1 , Article 3. Available at: https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/wnan/vol63/iss1/3 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 63(1), ©2003, pp. 21–34 BENTHIC INSECT FAUNA OF A CLEAN-WATER STREAM ON UTAH’S COLORADO PLATEAU, USA C.A. Brammer1 and J.F. MacDonald2 ABSTRACT.—Extensive collecting using a variety of methods was conducted in 1994 and 1995 in association with Pleasant Creek in south central Utah, USA, in an effort to inventory the aquatic insects. Collecting efforts yielded 133 insect taxa from 12 sample sites in 8 study areas from near the headwaters of Pleasant Creek and downstream to where it flows out of Capitol Reef National Park. Applying Protocol III methodology of Plafkin et al. (1989), we determined species assemblages of benthic insects and calculated selected ecological indices based on monthly collections from March through August 1994.
    [Show full text]
  • An Annotated List of Insects and Other Arthropods
    This file was created by scanning the printed publication. Text errors identified by the software have been corrected; however, some errors may remain. Invertebrates of the H.J. Andrews Experimental Forest, Western Cascade Range, Oregon. V: An Annotated List of Insects and Other Arthropods Gary L Parsons Gerasimos Cassis Andrew R. Moldenke John D. Lattin Norman H. Anderson Jeffrey C. Miller Paul Hammond Timothy D. Schowalter U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service Pacific Northwest Research Station Portland, Oregon November 1991 Parson, Gary L.; Cassis, Gerasimos; Moldenke, Andrew R.; Lattin, John D.; Anderson, Norman H.; Miller, Jeffrey C; Hammond, Paul; Schowalter, Timothy D. 1991. Invertebrates of the H.J. Andrews Experimental Forest, western Cascade Range, Oregon. V: An annotated list of insects and other arthropods. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-290. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 168 p. An annotated list of species of insects and other arthropods that have been col- lected and studies on the H.J. Andrews Experimental forest, western Cascade Range, Oregon. The list includes 459 families, 2,096 genera, and 3,402 species. All species have been authoritatively identified by more than 100 specialists. In- formation is included on habitat type, functional group, plant or animal host, relative abundances, collection information, and literature references where available. There is a brief discussion of the Andrews Forest as habitat for arthropods with photo- graphs of representative habitats within the Forest. Illustrations of selected ar- thropods are included as is a bibliography. Keywords: Invertebrates, insects, H.J. Andrews Experimental forest, arthropods, annotated list, forest ecosystem, old-growth forests.
    [Show full text]
  • Full Issue, Vol. 60 No. 1
    Western North American Naturalist Volume 60 Number 1 Article 11 1-20-2000 Full Issue, Vol. 60 No. 1 Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/wnan Part of the Anatomy Commons, Botany Commons, Physiology Commons, and the Zoology Commons Recommended Citation (2000) "Full Issue, Vol. 60 No. 1," Western North American Naturalist: Vol. 60 : No. 1 , Article 11. Available at: https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/wnan/vol60/iss1/11 This Full Issue 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 60(1), © 2000, pp. 1–15 COMMUNITY STRUCTURE OF ELEODES BEETLES (COLEOPTERA: TENEBRIONIDAE) IN THE SHORTGRASS STEPPE: SCALE-DEPENDENT USES OF HETEROGENEITY Nancy E. McIntyre1 ABSTRACT.—Patterns in the community structure of darkling beetle (9 Eleodes spp., Coleoptera: Tenebrionidae) assemblages in the shortgrass steppe of north central Colorado were monitored by live pitfall trapping for 4 summers. There were significant correlations among weather (temperature and precipitation), species richness, and number of indi- viduals per species captured; effects from weather conditions also displayed 1-month and 1-yr delayed effects. Population densities of 2 eleodid species were monitored by mark-recapture methods. Densities of these species varied relatively little among years and sites, although density was correlated with temperature and precipitation. Abiotic influences on both density and richness differed between 2 macrohabitat types (shortgrass upland, shrub floodplain).
    [Show full text]
  • 2015 Lower Belt Creek – Coal Acid Mine Drainage Sampling Report
    2015 Lower Belt Creek – Coal Acid Mine Drainage Sampling Report Final Report for Montana Department of Environmental Quality Prepared by Jason Mullen, Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks Trevor Selch, Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks Lindsey Gilstrap, Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks Dylan Owensby, Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks February 2018 Introduction Acid mine drainage (AMD) from past coal mining activities currently results in exceedances of Montana Water Quality Standards for iron and aluminum in Belt Creek, in the town of Belt, Montana. Numerous other metals exceed the water quality standards in the AMD water itself. Montana Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) is proposing to construct a water treatment plant in the area of Coke Oven Flats to treat several sources of AMD water prior to it reaching Belt Creek and thereby improve water quality in Belt Creek. Currently, water quality monitoring is being conducted by MDEQ; however, no aquatic life (fish and benthic invertebrate) monitoring had been conducted in Belt Creek in this area. Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks (MFWP) sought to begin fish and benthic invertebrate monitoring to document the level of impact prior to construction of the treatment plant. With continued monitoring following the construction of the treatment plant, MFWP will provide documentation of the response in the aquatic life, which is one of the designated beneficial uses of Belt Creek. Methods and Study Area Fish Sampling We sampled fish populations in the sections immediately upstream (control) and downstream (impact) from the AMD site (considered the Anaconda discharge for this report) in Belt Creek on November 2, 2015 (Figure 1 and Table 1).
    [Show full text]
  • Entomological News
    164 ENTOMOLOGICAL NEWS NEW RECORDS, DISTRIBUTION AND TAXONOMIC STATUS OF SOME NORTHERN ARIZONA CADDISFLIES (TRICHOPTERA) 1 2 4 2 3 II ' Stewart Kirk L. Stephen R. Moulton , Kenneth W. , Young ABSTRACT: Forty-nine caddisfly species were collected in northern Arizona during April and June, 1993. These included Protoptila balmorhea, previously known from its type locality in west Texas, the presumed rare Ochrotrichia (Metrichia) volada, that we determined to be a synonym of the widely distributed O. (M.) nigritta and an undescribed species and new Nearctic record of the xiphocentronid genus Cnodocentron. New distrib- utional records and taxonomic notes are provided for regional species. A regional collection of caddisflies was made in north-central Ari- zona in spring, 1993, in conjunction with a study to determine the popu- lation status of the two presumed rare species Protoptila balmorhea Ross (Glossosomatidae) and Ochrotrichia (Metrichia) volada Blickle and Denning (Hydroptilidae). Both are considered "Category 2" species under the Federal Endangered Species Act of 1973 (USFWS 1991). Collections were made at five sites in Oak Creek from upper to lower Oak Creek Canyon, in the outflows of two major springs, Page Springs and Bubbling Ponds in Yavapai County near the town of Page Springs, and reaches and adjacent springs of the Verde (Yavapai Co.) and East Fork Verde Rivers (Gila Co.). Portable ultra-violet light traps, hand-col- lecting with an aspirator, sweeping vegetation, and 6 m Malaise traps (Debby Focks Co., Gainesville, FL) were variously employed for col- lecting adults at these sites. Larvae and pupae were hand-picked from submerged objects and netted from the springs, ponds and streams.
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix for Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft
    Glossary accessible—Pertaining to physical access to areas canopy—Layer of foliage, generally the uppermost and activities for people of different abilities, es­ layer, in a vegetative stand; midlevel or under­ pecially those with physical impairments. story vegetation in multilayered stands. Canopy A .D .—Anno Domini, “in the year of the Lord.” closure (also canopy cover) is an estimate of the adaptive resource management (ARM)—The rigorous amount of overhead vegetative cover. application of management, research, and moni­ CCP—See comprehensive conservation plan. toring to gain information and experience neces­ CFR—See Code of Federal Regulations. sary to assess and change management activities. CO2—Carbon dioxide. It is a process that uses feedback from research, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR)—Codification of monitoring, and evaluation of management ac­ the general and permanent rules published in the tions to support or change objectives and strate­ Federal Register by the Executive departments gies at all planning levels. It is also a process in and agencies of the Federal Government. Each which the Service carries out policy decisions volume of the CFR is updated once each calendar within a framework of scientifically driven ex­ year. periments to test predictions and assumptions compact—Montana House bill 717–Bill to Ratify inherent in management plans. Analysis of re­ Water Rights Compact. sults helps managers decide whether current compatibility determination—See compatible use. management should continue as is or whether it compatible use—Wildlife-dependent recreational should be modified to achieve desired conditions. use or any other use of a refuge or district that, alternative—Reasonable way to solve an identi­ in the sound professional judgment of the Direc­ fied problem or satisfy the stated need (40 CFR tor of the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Baseline Macroinvertebrate Monitoring 2015-2017 for the Upper Missouri River: Building a Long-Term Data Set – Flushing Flow Study
    UMOWA Missouri River Project Baseline Aquatic Surveys Montana Biological Survey March 2018 Baseline Macroinvertebrate Monitoring 2015-2017 for the Upper Missouri River: Building a Long-term Data Set – Flushing Flow Study Prepared for: Pete Petersen, Alan Shaw and Sherry Meador Project Managers/Co-Chairs Missouri River Monitoring Station at Cascade, MT Summer 2017 Prepared by: David Stagliano, Aquatic Ecologist Montana Biological Survey Helena, Montana March 2018 UMOWA Missouri River Project Baseline Aquatic Surveys Montana Biological Survey March 2018 Table of Contents Acknowledgements .................................................................................................................................... 3 Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................... 4 1.0 Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 6 2.0 Methods ................................................................................................................................................ 6 2.1 Habitat and Physical Water Sampling .......................................................................................... 6 2.2 Macroinvertebrate Sampling .......................................................................................................... 7 2.3 Flushing Flow Study .......................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • The Biogeographic Distribution of Caddisflies (Insecta
    THE BIOGEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION OF CADDISFLIES (INSECTA: TRICHOPTERA) WITHIN THE SOUTH -CENTRAL UNITED STATES Heather A. Perry, M.S. Dissertation Prepared for the Degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY UNIVERSITY OF NORTH TEXAS May 201 8 APPROVED: James H. Kennedy, Major Professor Bruce Hunter, Committee Member Jeff A. Johnson, Committee Member Stephen R. Moulton II, Committee Member Sam Atkinson, Director of the Institute of Applied Science Arthur Goven, Chair of Department of Biological Sciences David Holdeman, Dean of the College of Science Victor Prybutok, Dean of the Toulouse Graduate School Perry, Heather A. The Biogeographic Distribution of Caddisflies (Insecta: Trichoptera) within the South-Central United States. Doctor of Philosophy (Biology), May 2018, 239 pp., 24 tables, 49 figures, references, 212 titles. Through the use of natural history records, published literature, and personal sampling (2011-2016) a total of 454 caddisfly species represented by 24 families and 93 genera were documented from the south-central United States. Two Hydroptilidae species were collected during the 2011-2016 collection efforts that are new to the region: Hydroptilia scheringi and Mayatrichia tuscaloosa. Eightteen species are endemic and 30 are considered species of concern by either federal or state agencies. The majority of each of these groups is Hydroptilidae, or microcaddisflies. Trichoptera community structure, by minimum number of species, was analysed in conjunction with large-scale geographical factors to determine which factor illustrated caddisfly community structure across the region. Physiographic provinces compared to other geographic factors analyzed best-represented caddisfly communities with a minimum of 10 or more species. Statistically, Hydrologic Unit Code 4 (HUC 4) was the most significant geographical factor but low number of samples representing this variable rendered it less representative of caddisfly community structure for the study area.
    [Show full text]
  • Patterns of Freshwater Species Richness, Endemism, and Vulnerability in California
    RESEARCH ARTICLE Patterns of Freshwater Species Richness, Endemism, and Vulnerability in California Jeanette K. Howard1☯*, Kirk R. Klausmeyer1☯, Kurt A. Fesenmyer2☯, Joseph Furnish3, Thomas Gardali4, Ted Grantham5, Jacob V. E. Katz5, Sarah Kupferberg6, Patrick McIntyre7, Peter B. Moyle5, Peter R. Ode8, Ryan Peek5, Rebecca M. Quiñones5, Andrew C. Rehn7, Nick Santos5, Steve Schoenig7, Larry Serpa1, Jackson D. Shedd1, Joe Slusark7, Joshua H. Viers9, Amber Wright10, Scott A. Morrison1 1 The Nature Conservancy, San Francisco, California, United States of America, 2 Trout Unlimited, Boise, Idaho, United States of America, 3 USDA Forest Service, Vallejo, California, United States of America, 4 Point Blue Conservation Science, Petaluma, California, United States of America, 5 Center for Watershed Sciences and Department of Wildlife Fish and Conservation Biology, University of California Davis, Davis, California, United States of America, 6 Integrative Biology, University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, California, United States of America, 7 Biogeographic Data Branch, California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Sacramento, California, United States of America, 8 Aquatic Bioassessment Laboratory, California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Rancho Cordova, California, United States of America, 9 School of Engineering, University of California Merced, Merced, California, United States of America, 10 Department of Biology, University of Hawaii at Manoa, Honolulu, Hawaii, United States of America ☯ OPEN ACCESS These authors contributed equally to this work. * [email protected] Citation: Howard JK, Klausmeyer KR, Fesenmyer KA, Furnish J, Gardali T, Grantham T, et al. (2015) Patterns of Freshwater Species Richness, Abstract Endemism, and Vulnerability in California. PLoS ONE 10(7): e0130710. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0130710 The ranges and abundances of species that depend on freshwater habitats are declining Editor: Brian Gratwicke, Smithsonian's National worldwide.
    [Show full text]
  • Ecological Relationships of the Aquatic Macroinvertebrates of the Cascade Springs Area
    Brigham Young University BYU ScholarsArchive Theses and Dissertations 1966-08-01 Ecological relationships of the aquatic macroinvertebrates of the Cascade Springs area Eugene Clark Devenport Brigham Young University - Provo Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/etd Part of the Life Sciences Commons BYU ScholarsArchive Citation Devenport, Eugene Clark, "Ecological relationships of the aquatic macroinvertebrates of the Cascade Springs area" (1966). Theses and Dissertations. 7673. https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/etd/7673 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by BYU ScholarsArchive. It has been accepted for inclusion in Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of BYU ScholarsArchive. For more information, please contact [email protected], [email protected]. ECOLOGICAL RELATIONSHIPS OF THE AQUATIC MACROINVERTEBRATES OF THE CASCADE SPRINGS AREA A Thesis Presented to the Department of Zoology and Entomology Brigham Young University In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Master of Science by Eugene Co Devenport August, 1966 This thesis by Eugene C. Devenport is accepted in its present form by the Department of Zoology and Entomology of Brigham Young University as satisfying the thesis require­ ment for the degree of Master of Science. Typed by Berna B. Allred Frontispiece. View of Cascade Springs, cascades, and terraces, looking northwest, Spring, 1966 . (Photo courtesy, Pleasant Grove Ranger District, Uinta National Forest) ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I express appreciation to Dr. Joseph R. Murphy, chairman of my advisory committee, for the considerable help and encouragement given, and to Dr. Joseph R. Murdock, for his suggestions and advice. Appreciation is also given to Robert Sandgren who was my companion and fellow collector for the many trips to Cascade Springs.
    [Show full text]