DOCSLIB.ORG

Final Report (Posted 8/20)

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

FINAL REPORT Flow-population Models for Tracking Non-stationary Changes in Riparian and Aquatic Ecosystems SERDP Project RC-2511 JANUARY 2020 David Lytle Oregon State University Distribution Statement A Page Intentionally Left Blank This report was prepared under contract to the Department of Defense Strategic Environmental Research and Development Program (SERDP). The publication of this report does not indicate endorsement by the Department of Defense, nor should the contents be construed as reflecting the official policy or position of the Department of Defense. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise, does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the Department of Defense. Page Intentionally Left Blank Form Approved REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE OMB No. 0704-0188 The public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing the burden, to Department of Defense, Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports (0704-0188), 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302. Respondents should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if it does not display a currently valid OMB control number. PLEASE DO NOT RETURN YOUR FORM TO THE ABOVE ADDRESS. 1. REPORT DATE (DD-MM-YYYY) 2. REPORT TYPE 3. DATES COVERED (From - To) 01/29/2020 SERDP Final Report 5/12/2015 - 5/12/2020 4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE 5a. CONTRACT NUMBER Flow-population Models for Tracking Non-stationary Changes in Riparian 15-C-0009 and Aquatic Ecosystems 5b. GRANT NUMBER 5c. PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER 6. AUTHOR(S) 5d. PROJECT NUMBER Dr. David A. Lytle, Oregon State University RC-2511 Dr. Julian D. Olden, University of Washington 5e. TASK NUMBER Dr. David M. Merritt, US Forest Service 5f. WORK UNIT NUMBER 7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION Oregon State University REPORT NUMBER 3029 Cordley Hall, OSU Zoology RC-2511 Corvallis, OR 97331 9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 10. SPONSOR/MONITOR'S ACRONYM(S) Strategic Environmental Research and Development Program SERDP 4800 Mark Center Drive, Suite 17D03 Alexandria, VA 22350-3605 11. SPONSOR/MONITOR'S REPORT NUMBER(S) RC-2511 12. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT A. Approved for public release: distribution unlimited. 13. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES 14. ABSTRACT Climate change is expected to alter temperature and precipitation patterns on military lands throughout the western U.S., and this will alter the timing, frequency, and magnitude of flood and drought events. These changes in streamflow regime will directly affect populations of aquatic organisms (fish, aquatic invertebrates, riparian vegetation) and indirectly affect stream-dependent birds, reptiles, and mammals, including federally threatened and endangered species and other at-risk species. Although climate models as drivers of hydrologic models are becoming increasingly sophisticated in their ability to enable forecasting changes in streamflow regime at small spatial scales (e.g., <144 km2), current species population models do not accommodate the non-stationary effects that shifting flow regimes can exert on population trajectories and viability. Thus, a critical gap remains between our ability to model how climate change will alter streamflow regimes and our ability to predict how these changes will impact management- sensitive aquatic and riparian organisms. The objective of this proposal is to fill this knowledge gap by designing, testing, and implementing flow-population models that integrate nonstationary low regime dynamics with quantitative population models to forecast potential impacts on aquatic and riparian taxa. 15. SUBJECT TERMS Biodiversity, climate change, aquatic ecosystems, population modeling, nonstationarity, flow regime, flow-population modeling, matrix population models, network theory, sensitivity analysis 16. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF: 17. LIMITATION OF 18. NUMBER 19a. NAME OF RESPONSIBLE PERSON ABSTRACT OF a. REPORT b. ABSTRACT c. THIS PAGE PAGES David Lytle 19b. TELEPHONE NUMBER (Include area code) 178 UNCLASS UNCLASS UNCLASS UNCLASS 541-737-1068 Standard Form 298 (Rev. 8/98) Prescribed by ANSI Std. Z39.18 Page Intentionally Left Blank Table of Contents List of tables .................................................................................................................. iii List of figures ................................................................................................................. iv List of acronyms ........................................................................................................... vii Keywords ...................................................................................................................... vii Acknowledgements ....................................................................................................... vii Abstract........................................................................................................................ viii 1 Task 1: Initial site visits with base managers ............................................................ 1 2 Task 2: Develop core flow-population models ......................................................... 2 2.1 Linking river flow regimes to riparian plant guilds: a community-wide modeling approach .................................................................................................................................2 2.1.1 Summary ................................................................................................................2 2.1.2 Introduction ............................................................................................................3 2.1.3 Methods .................................................................................................................4 2.1.4 Results ................................................................................................................. 11 2.1.5 Discussion ............................................................................................................ 16 2.1.6 Acknowledgments ................................................................................................ 20 2.1.7 References ............................................................................................................ 20 2.2 Modeling the effect of drought on fish communities in a changing climate ................ 24 2.2.1 Introduction .......................................................................................................... 24 2.2.2 Methods ............................................................................................................... 26 2.2.3 Results ................................................................................................................. 33 2.2.4 References ............................................................................................................ 37 2.3 High mortality and enhanced recovery: modeling the countervailing effects of disturbance on insect population dynamics ............................................................................ 41 2.3.1 Summary .............................................................................................................. 41 2.3.2 Introduction .......................................................................................................... 41 2.3.3 Methods ............................................................................................................... 42 2.3.4 Results ................................................................................................................. 48 2.3.5 Discussion ............................................................................................................ 53 2.3.6 Acknowledgements .............................................................................................. 56 2.3.7 References ............................................................................................................ 57 3 Task 3: Obtain data for model parameterization ..................................................... 61 3.1 Base-specific data from managers and from fieldwork .............................................. 61 3.1.1 Camp Pendleton ................................................................................................... 61 3.1.2 Santa Margarita Ecological Reserve ...................................................................... 64 3.1.3 Fort Hunter Liggett ............................................................................................... 68 3.1.4 Los Padres National Forest ................................................................................... 73 3.1.5 Piñon Canyon Manouver Site - Comanche National Grassland ............................. 76 3.2 Vital rate estimation .................................................................................................
Recommended publications
  • List of Animal Species with Ranks October 2017

    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
  • Check List 4(2): 92–97, 2008

    Check List 4(2): 92–97, 2008

    Check List 4(2): 92–97, 2008. ISSN: 1809-127X NOTES ON GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION Insecta, Ephemeroptera, Baetidae: Range extensions and new state records from Kansas, U.S.A. W. Patrick McCafferty 1 Luke M. Jacobus 2 1 Department of Entomology, Purdue University. West Lafayette, Indiana 47907 USA. E-mail: [email protected] 2 Department of Biology, Indiana University. Bloomington, Indiana 47405 USA. The mayfly (Ephemeroptera) fauna of the U.S.A. other central lowland prairie states as well state of Kansas is relatively poorly documented (McCafferty et al. 2001; 2003; Guenther and (McCafferty 2001). With respect to small minnow McCafferty 2005). Some additionally common mayflies (family Baetidae), only 16 species have species will be evident from the new data we been documented with published records from present herein. Kansas. Those involve Acentrella turbida (McDunnough, 1924); Acerpenna pygmaea Our examination of additional unidentified (Hagen, 1861); Apobaetis Etowah (Traver, 1935); material of Kansas Baetidae housed in the Snow A. lakota McCafferty, 2000; Baetis flavistriga Museum, University of Kansas, Lawrence, McDunnough, 1921; B. intercalaris McDunnough, Kansas, and collected mainly by the State 1921; Callibaetis fluctuans (Walsh, 1862); C. Biological Survey of Kansas, has led to the pictus Eaton, 1871; Centroptilum album discovery of 19 additional species of Baetidae in McDunnough, 1926; C. bifurcatum McDunnough, Kansas, resulting in a new total of 35 species of 1924; Fallceon quilleri (Dodds, 1923); Baetidae now known from the state. The records Paracloeodes minutus (Daggy, 1945); P. given alphabetically below also represent the first dardanum (McDunnough, 1923); P. ephippiatum Kansas records of the genera Camelobaetidius, (Traver, 1935); P.
  • Guidelines for Using the Checklist

    Guidelines for Using the Checklist

    Guidelines for using the checklist Cymbopogon excavatus (Hochst.) Stapf ex Burtt Davy N 9900720 Synonyms: Andropogon excavatus Hochst. 47 Common names: Breëblaarterpentyngras A; Broad-leaved turpentine grass E; Breitblättriges Pfeffergras G; dukwa, heng’ge, kamakama (-si) J Life form: perennial Abundance: uncommon to locally common Habitat: various Distribution: southern Africa Notes: said to smell of turpentine hence common name E2 Uses: used as a thatching grass E3 Cited specimen: Giess 3152 Reference: 37; 47 Botanical Name: The grasses are arranged in alphabetical or- Rukwangali R der according to the currently accepted botanical names. This Shishambyu Sh publication updates the list in Craven (1999). Silozi L Thimbukushu T Status: The following icons indicate the present known status of the grass in Namibia: Life form: This indicates if the plant is generally an annual or G Endemic—occurs only within the political boundaries of perennial and in certain cases whether the plant occurs in water Namibia. as a hydrophyte. = Near endemic—occurs in Namibia and immediate sur- rounding areas in neighbouring countries. Abundance: The frequency of occurrence according to her- N Endemic to southern Africa—occurs more widely within barium holdings of specimens at WIND and PRE is indicated political boundaries of southern Africa. here. 7 Naturalised—not indigenous, but growing naturally. < Cultivated. Habitat: The general environment in which the grasses are % Escapee—a grass that is not indigenous to Namibia and found, is indicated here according to Namibian records. This grows naturally under favourable conditions, but there are should be considered preliminary information because much usually only a few isolated individuals.
  • Mitteilungen Der Botanischen Staatssammlung München

    Mitteilungen Der Botanischen Staatssammlung München

    © Biodiversity Heritage Library, http://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/; www.biologiezentrum.at Mitt. Bot. Staatssamml. München © Biodiversity Heritage Library, http://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/; www.biologiezentrum.at well within their lowermost leaf-sheaths. Besides these characters another can be observed in South American species, namely tufts of hairs in a trans- verse line across the back of the lemma just beneath the Insertion of the cen- tral awn. Species, which exhibit this character, are, however, not confined to South America but occur also in the Easter-Island, in New Zealand, Austra- lia, Tasmania, Indonesia and in the Himalayas. ZoTOV has based his genus Notodanthonia on species from New Zealand. It remains to be decided whether or not this genus should be retained. Only the study of the South American species can elucidate this problem. None of the groups mentioned so far occurs in southern Africa. None- theless, not fewer than 121 Danthonia species have been described from the- re. It goes without saying that many of these names are synonyms. More- over, over the years, quite a number of these species have been separated into different genera which have been recognized by most students of African Gramineae. These include well-known generic names such as Pentameris, Pentaschistis, Strehlochaete, Chaetohromus, Alloeochaete as well as Phacnan- thoecium. But, even so, 36 species remain in Danthonia as can be seen in C. E. Hubbard's treatment of this group in the Flora of Tropical Africa and in Miss Chippindall's cursory guide to South African grasses. In the following account these remaining species of Danthonia will be considered: The first 4 taxa described as Danthonia can be distinguished from typical Danthonia at a first glance by having a long pungent callus at the base of each floret.
  • GRAPHIE by Cornelia D. Niles with INTRODUCTION and BOTANICAL

    GRAPHIE by Cornelia D. Niles with INTRODUCTION and BOTANICAL

    A BIBLIOGRAPHIC STUDY OF BEAUVOIS' AGROSTO- • GRAPHIE By Cornelia D. Niles WITH INTRODUCTION AND BOTANICAL NOTES By Aones Chase nrntODTJCTiON The Essai d?une Nouvelle Agrostographie ; ou Nouveaux Genres des Graminees; avec figures representant les Oaracteres de tous les Genres, by A. M. F. J. Palisot de Beauvois, published in 1812, is, from the standpoint of the nomenclature of grasses, a very important work, its importance being due principally to its innumerable errors, less so because of its scientific value. In this small volume 69 new genera are proposed and some 640 new species, new binomials, and new names are published. Of the 69 genera proposed 31 are to-day recognized as valid, and of the 640 names about 61 are commonly accepted. There is probably not a grass flora of any considerable region anywhere in the world that does not contain some of Beauvois' names. Many of the new names are made in such haphazard fashion that they are incorrectly listed in the Index Kewensis. There are, besides, a number of misspelled names that have found their way into botanical literature. The inaccuracies are so numerous and the cita- tions so incomplete that only a trained bibliographer* could solve the many puzzles presented. Cornelia D. Niles in connection with her work on the bibliography of grasses, maintained in the form of a card catalogue in the Grass Herbarium, worked out the basis in literature of each of these new names. The botanical problems involved, the interpretation of descriptions and figures, were worked out by Agnes Chase, who is also respon- sible for the translation and summaries from the Advertisement, Introduction, and Principles.
  • Rank 1 Species Name 2 Current Status Accepted Name for Synonym's

    Rank 1 Species Name 2 Current Status Accepted Name for Synonym's

    Genus name Species name 1 Rank 1 Species name 2 Current status Accepted name for synonym's Acrachne racemosa Accepted Synonyms at bottom of list Acroceras macrum Accepted Agrostis avenacea Accepted Agrostis barbuligera var. barbuligera Accepted Agrostis barbuligera var. longipilosa Accepted Agrostis bergiana var. bergiana Accepted Agrostis bergiana var. laeviuscula Accepted Agrostis continuata Accepted Agrostis eriantha var. eriantha Accepted Agrostis eriantha var. planifolia Accepted Agrostis gigantea Accepted Agrostis lachnantha var. lachnantha Accepted Agrostis montevidensis Accepted Agrostis polypogonoides Accepted Agrostis schlechteri Accepted Agrostis subulifolia Accepted Aira cupaniana Accepted Aira praecox Accepted Alloteropsis papillosa Accepted Alloteropsis semialata subsp. eckloniana Accepted Alloteropsis semialata subsp. semialata Accepted Alopecurus arundinaceus Accepted Amelichloa clandestina Accepted Ammophila arenaria Accepted Andropogon amethystinus Accepted Andropogon appendiculatus Accepted Andropogon chinensis Accepted Andropogon distachyos Accepted Andropogon eucomus Accepted Genus name Species name 1 Rank 1 Species name 2 Current status Accepted name for synonym's Andropogon fastigiatus Accepted Andropogon festuciformis Accepted Andropogon gayanus var. polycladus Accepted Andropogon huillensis Accepted Andropogon lacunosus Accepted Andropogon laxatus Accepted Andropogon mannii Accepted Andropogon ravus Accepted Andropogon schirensis Accepted Anthephora argentea Accepted Anthephora pubescens Accepted Anthephora schinzii
  • Microsoft Outlook

    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).
  • Grasses of Namibia Contact

    Grasses of Namibia Contact

    Checklist of grasses in Namibia Esmerialda S. Klaassen & Patricia Craven For any enquiries about the grasses of Namibia contact: National Botanical Research Institute Private Bag 13184 Windhoek Namibia Tel. (264) 61 202 2023 Fax: (264) 61 258153 E-mail: [email protected] Guidelines for using the checklist Cymbopogon excavatus (Hochst.) Stapf ex Burtt Davy N 9900720 Synonyms: Andropogon excavatus Hochst. 47 Common names: Breëblaarterpentyngras A; Broad-leaved turpentine grass E; Breitblättriges Pfeffergras G; dukwa, heng’ge, kamakama (-si) J Life form: perennial Abundance: uncommon to locally common Habitat: various Distribution: southern Africa Notes: said to smell of turpentine hence common name E2 Uses: used as a thatching grass E3 Cited specimen: Giess 3152 Reference: 37; 47 Botanical Name: The grasses are arranged in alphabetical or- Rukwangali R der according to the currently accepted botanical names. This Shishambyu Sh publication updates the list in Craven (1999). Silozi L Thimbukushu T Status: The following icons indicate the present known status of the grass in Namibia: Life form: This indicates if the plant is generally an annual or G Endemic—occurs only within the political boundaries of perennial and in certain cases whether the plant occurs in water Namibia. as a hydrophyte. = Near endemic—occurs in Namibia and immediate sur- rounding areas in neighbouring countries. Abundance: The frequency of occurrence according to her- N Endemic to southern Africa—occurs more widely within barium holdings of specimens at WIND and PRE is indicated political boundaries of southern Africa. here. 7 Naturalised—not indigenous, but growing naturally. < Cultivated. Habitat: The general environment in which the grasses are % Escapee—a grass that is not indigenous to Namibia and found, is indicated here according to Namibian records.
  • Macroinvertebrate Inventory of the Caspar Creek Watershed

    Macroinvertebrate Inventory of the Caspar Creek Watershed

    FINAL REPORT: Macroinvertebrate Inventory of the Caspar Creek Watershed Kenneth W. Cummins1 and David Malkauskas2 1. California Cooperative Fisheries Research Unit, Humboldt State University 2. Department of Entomology, Michigan State University 1 Introduction A macroinvertebrate assessment was conducted on the Caspar Creek Experimental Watershed in northwestern California using a functional feeding group (FFG) classification. The approach, developed over 30 years ago (Cummins 1973), has been tested, modified, and employed in many studies (e.g. Cummins and Klug 1979, Cummins and Wilzbach 1985), Merritt and Cummins 2006). The approach categorizes macroinvertebrates based on their morphological and behavioral mechanisms by which they acquire one or more of six general food types: coarse particulate organic matter (CPOM), fine particulate organic matter (FPOM), periphytic, non-filamentous algae and associated bio-film, invertebrate prey organisms, and filamentous algae (Table 1). The morpho-behavioral adaptations of stream macroinvertebrates for acquiring food are easily observed in the field on live specimens. An example is the large eyes, bright color patterns, and active movement that characterize the three predaceous stonefly families (setipalpian Plecoptera). The abundance (especially expressed as biomass) of any FFG is an indicator of the relative availability of its food resource category. The method has the advantage that the survey crew leaves the field with the data as well as with preserved samples that can be analyzed in taxonomic data, and measured for biomass conversion calculations in the lab, if (and this is almost always the problem) funds are available for the very time-consuming process of microscope analysis. The point is, that a great deal of information about the status of a stream ecosystem can be obtained in the field using the FFG approach, but it does not for close the ability to analyze the samples in the lab.
  • Plant Diseases Regulations 1989

    Plant Diseases Regulations 1989

    Western Australia Plant Diseases Regulations 1989 STATUS OF THIS DOCUMENT This document is from an electronic database of legislation maintained by the Parliamentary Counsel’s Office of Western Australia. DISCLAIMER No warranty is given as to the accuracy or completeness of this document. The State of Western Australia and its agents and employees disclaim liability, whether in negligence or otherwise, for any loss or damage resulting from reliance on the accuracy or completeness of this document. REPRINT AND CONSOLIDATION NUMBERING The reprint number (in the footer of each page of the document) shows how many times the Act has been reprinted. For example, numbering a reprint as “Reprint 3” would mean that the reprint was the 3rd reprint since the Act was passed. A consolidation described as “Consolidation 3a” would be the result of updating Reprint 3 for the first time to reflect the amendments since the date as at which Reprint 3 was prepared. Reprint and consolidation numbering was implemented as from 1 January 2003. COPYRIGHT Copyright in this document is reserved to the Crown in right of the State of Western Australia. Reproduction except in accordance with copyright law is prohibited. THE TEXT OF THE LEGISLATION FOLLOWS Western Australia Plant Diseases Regulations 1989 CONTENTS Part 1 — Preliminary 1. Citation 1 2. Commencement 1 3. Interpretation 1 Part 2 — Entry requirements 3A. Quality assurance system 3 3B. Bringing plants into the State 3 4. Potential carriers — conditions for entry 3 4A. Potential carriers — entry for experimental purposes 4 4B. Potential carriers — entry for processing or export 4 5. Entry of propagating material 5 6.
  • 2013 Aquatic Surveys and Re-Assessment of Sites Within the Middle Powder River Watershed

    2013 Aquatic Surveys and Re-Assessment of Sites Within the Middle Powder River Watershed

    2013 Aquatic Surveys and Re-Assessment of Sites within the Middle Powder River Watershed Bureau of Land Management - Miles City Field Office and The Interagency BLM Aquatic Task Group Prepared by: David M. Stagliano Aquatic Ecologist April 2014 A program of the Montana State Library’s Natural Resource Information System that is operated by the University of Montana. Executive Summary This report integrates the project results of the 2011 study (Stagliano 2012) with 2012 fish surveys and 2013 intensive aquatic community sampling, and summarizes all years. Objectives in 2013 were to: 1) revisit six integrator sites established and sampled in 2005 and 2011 to assess aquatic community changes during this time period; 2) determine whether the macroinvertebrate communities have rebounded from low integrity levels reported in 2011 to 2012, as the fish community did; 3) perform targeted freshwater mussel surveys at these Powder River sites, five sites across the border into Wyoming and at six Tongue River coalbed natural gas (CBNG) monitoring sites; and 4) incorporate other agency data and interpret key community and watershed indicators (Observed vs. Expected (O/E) and Index of Biotic Integrity (IBI)) against reference condition standards to determine aquatic condition status and trends since the development of CBNG wells in the watershed. Additional fish surveys sites were added along the Powder River in Montana, as well as sites upstream into Wyoming for sturgeon chub and mussel occupancy surveys. Fish Communities: Fish surveys were performed in 2013 at each site using the same protocols during similar seasons and river flows as in 2012, 2011 and 2005.
  • Priority Weeds List and Control Options 2019

    Priority Weeds List and Control Options 2019

    Shire of Mundaring Priority Weeds and Control Options June 2019 Natural Area Holdings Pty Ltd 99C Lord Street, Whiteman, WA, 6076 Ph: (08) 9209 2767 [email protected] www.naturalarea.com.au Shire of Mundaring Priority Weeds and Control Options Report Disclaimer Natural Area Holdings Pty Ltd, trading as Natural Area Consulting Management Services (Natural Area), has prepared this report for the sole use of the Client and for the purposes as stated in the agreement between the Client and Natural Area under which this work was completed. This report may not be relied upon by any other party without the express written agreement of Natural Area. Natural Area has exercised due and customary care in the preparation of this document and has not, unless specifically stated, independently verified information provided by others. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made in relation to the contents of this report. Therefore, Natural Area assumes no liability for any loss resulting from errors, omission or misrepresentations made by others. This document has been made at the request of the Client. The use of this document by unauthorised third parties without written permission from Natural Area shall be at their own risk, and we accept no duty of care to any such third party. Any recommendations, opinions or findings stated in this report are based on circumstances and facts as they existed at the time Natural Area performed the work. Any changes in such circumstances and facts upon which this document is based may adversely affect any recommendations, opinions or findings contained in this document.