DOCSLIB.ORG

Laboratory Operations Manual Version 2.0 May 2014

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Laboratory Operations Manual Version 2.0 May 2014 United States Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water Washington, DC EPA 841‐B‐12‐010 National Rivers and Streams Assessment 2013‐2014 Laboratory Operations Manual Version 2.0 May 2014 2013‐2014 National Rivers & Streams Assessment Laboratory Operations Manual Version 1.3, May 2014 Page ii of 224 NOTICE The intention of the National Rivers and Streams Assessment 2013‐2014 is to provide a comprehensive “State of Flowing Waters” assessment for rivers and streams across the United States. The complete documentation of overall project management, design, methods, quality assurance, and standards is contained in five companion documents: National Rivers and Streams Assessment 2013‐14: Quality Assurance Project Plan EPA‐841‐B‐12‐007 National Rivers and Streams Assessment 2013‐14: Site Evaluation Guidelines EPA‐841‐B‐12‐008 National Rivers and Streams Assessment 2013‐14: Non‐Wadeable Field Operations Manual EPA‐841‐B‐ 12‐009a National Rivers and Streams Assessment 2013‐14: Wadeable Field Operations Manual EPA‐841‐B‐12‐ 009b National Rivers and Streams Assessment 2013‐14: Laboratory Operations Manual EPA 841‐B‐12‐010 Addendum to the National Rivers and Streams Assessment 2013‐14: Wadeable & Non‐Wadeable Field Operations Manuals This document (Laboratory Operations Manual) contains information on the methods for analyses of the samples to be collected during the project, quality assurance objectives, sample handling, and data reporting. These methods are based on the guidelines developed and followed in the Western Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program (Peck et al. 2003). Methods described in this document are to be used specifically in work relating to the NRSA 2013‐2014. All Project Cooperator laboratories should follow these guidelines. Mention of trade names or commercial products in this document does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use. More details on specific methods for site evaluation, sampling, and sample processing can be found in the appropriate companion document. The suggested citation for this document is: USEPA. 2012. National Rivers and Streams Assessment 2013‐2014: Laboratory Operations Manual. EPA‐ 841‐B‐12‐010. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DC. NOTICE ii 2013‐2014 National Rivers & Streams Assessment Laboratory Operations Manual Version 1.3, May 2014 Page iii of 224 TABLE OF CONTENTS NOTICE ...............................................................................................................................................................ii TABLE OF CONTENTS .......................................................................................................................................... iii LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................................................................................... vi LIST OF FIGURES ................................................................................................................................................ vii LIST OF ACRONYMS ........................................................................................................................................... vii 1.0 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................... 10 2.0 GENERAL LABORATORY GUIDELINES ..................................................................................................... 11 2.1 RESPONSIBILITY AND PERSONNEL QUALIFICATIONS ................................................................................................ 11 2.2 ROLES AND CONTACT INFORMATION ................................................................................................................... 11 2.3 SAMPLE TRACKING .......................................................................................................................................... 11 2.4 REPORTING .................................................................................................................................................... 12 3.0 ALGAL TOXIN (MICROCYSTIN) IMMUNOASSAY PROCEDURE .................................................................. 13 3.1 SUMMARY OF THE PROCEDURE .......................................................................................................................... 13 3.2 HEALTH AND SAFETY WARNINGS ........................................................................................................................ 14 3.3 DEFINITIONS AND REQUIRED RESOURCES (PERSONNEL, LABORATORIES, AND EQUIPMENT) ........................................... 14 3.3.1 Definitions .............................................................................................................................................. 14 3.4 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS FOR LABORATORIES ...................................................................................................... 15 3.4.1 Expertise ................................................................................................................................................ 15 3.4.2 Quality assurance and quality control requirements ............................................................................. 15 3.4.3 Personnel ............................................................................................................................................... 16 3.4.4 Equipment/Materials ............................................................................................................................. 16 3.5 SAMPLE RECEIPT ............................................................................................................................................. 16 3.6 PROCEDURE ................................................................................................................................................... 17 3.6.1 Sample Preparation ............................................................................................................................... 18 3.6.2 Kit Preparation ....................................................................................................................................... 18 3.6.3 Insertion of Contents into Wells ............................................................................................................. 19 3.6.4 Dilutions (if needed) ............................................................................................................................... 23 3.7 QUALITY MEASURES ........................................................................................................................................ 24 3.7.1 Assistance Visits ..................................................................................................................................... 24 3.7.2 QC Samples ............................................................................................................................................ 24 3.7.3 Summary of QA/QC Requirements ........................................................................................................ 24 3.8 SAMPLE AND RECORD RETENTION ...................................................................................................................... 26 3.9 REFERENCES ................................................................................................................................................... 26 4.0 BENTHIC MACROINVERTEBRATES ......................................................................................................... 27 4.1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................... 27 4.2 SUMMARY OF METHOD .................................................................................................................................... 28 4.3 HEALTH AND SAFETY WARNINGS ........................................................................................................................ 28 4.4 DEFINITIONS AND REQUIRED RESOURCES (LABORATORY, PERSONNEL, AND EQUIPMENT) .............................................. 28 4.4.1 Definitions .............................................................................................................................................. 28 4.4.2 Laboratory ............................................................................................................................................. 32 4.4.3 Personnel ............................................................................................................................................... 33 4.4.4 Equipment/Materials ............................................................................................................................. 34 CONTENTS 4.4.4.1 Sample Preparation (Subsampling) and Sorting Equipment/Materials ........................................................ 34 OF 4.4.4.2 Taxonomy Identification Equipment/Materials ............................................................................................ 35 4.5 SAMPLE RECEIPT ............................................................................................................................................. 35 4.6 SAMPLE PREPARATION (SUBSAMPLING) .............................................................................................................. 36 TABLE iii 2013‐2014 National Rivers & Streams Assessment
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Introductions of Threatened and Endangered Fishes (Full Statement)
    AFS Policy Statement #19: Introductions of Threatened and Endangered Fishes (Full Statement) ABSTRACT Introductions of threatened and endangered fishes are often an integral feature in their recovery programs. More than 80% of threatened and endangered fishes have recovery plans that call for introductions to establish a new population or an educational exhibit, supplement an existing population, or begin artificial propagation. Despite a large number of recent and proposed introductions, no systematic procedural policies have been developed to conduct these recovery efforts. Some introductions have been inadequately planned or poorly implemented. As a result, introductions of some rare fishes have been successful, whereas recovery for others has progressed slowly. In at least one instance, the introduced fish eliminated a population of another rare native organism. We present guidelines for introductions of endangered and threatened fishes that are intended to apply when an introduction is proposed to supplement an existing population or establish a new population. However, portions of the guidelines may be helpful in other Situations, such as establishing a hatchery stock. The guidelines are divided into three components: (1) selecting the introduction site, (2) conducting the introduction, and (3) post-introduction monitoring, reporting, and analysis. Implementation should increase success of efforts to recover rare fishes. "On 3 August 1968, we collected 30 or 40 individuals from among the inundated prickly pear and mesquite near the flooded spring, which by that time was covered with about 7 m of clear water." Peden (1973) The above quote described the collection of Amistad gambusia, Gambusia amistadensis, as its habitat was being flooded. Fortunately, most translocations of endangered fishes do not occur under such a feverish pace as did this collection of Amistad gambusia.
    [Show full text]
  • “Two-Tailed” Baetidae of Ohio January 2013
    Ohio EPA Larval Key for the “two-tailed” Baetidae of Ohio January 2013 Larval Key for the “two-tailed” Baetidae of Ohio For additional keys and descriptions see: Ide (1937), Provonsha and McCafferty (1982), McCafferty and Waltz (1990), Lugo-Ortiz and McCafferty (1998), McCafferty and Waltz (1998), Wiersema (2000), McCafferty et al. (2005) and McCafferty et al. (2009). 1. Forecoxae with filamentous gill (may be very small), gills usually with dark clouding, cerci without dark band near middle, claws with a smaller second row of teeth. .............................. ............................................................................................................... Heterocloeon (H.) sp. (Two species, H. curiosum (McDunnough) and H. frivolum (McDunnough), are reported from Ohio, however, the larger hind wing pads used by Morihara and McCafferty (1979) to distinguish H. frivolum have not been verified by OEPA.) Figures from Ide, 1937. Figures from Müller-Liebenau, 1974. 1'. Forecoxae without filamentous gill, other characters variable. .............................................. 2 2. Cerci with alternating pale and dark bands down its entire length, body dorsoventrally flattened, gills with a dark clouded area, hind wing pads greatly reduced. ............................... ......................................................................................... Acentrella parvula (McDunnough) Figure from Ide, 1937. Figure from Wiersema, 2000. 2'. Cerci without alternating pale and dark bands, other characters variable. ............................
    [Show full text]
  • Fish Relationships with Large Wood in Small Streams
    Amencan F~sheriesSociety Symposium 37:179-193, 2003 Fish Relationships with Large Wood in Small Streams USDA Forest Service, Southern Research Station, Department ofFisheries and Wildlife Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, Virginia 24060, USA USDA Forest Service, Southern Research Station 1000 Front Street, Oxford, Massachusetts 38655, USA Abstracf.-Many ecological processes are associated with large wood in streams, such as forming habitat critical for fish and a host of other organisms. Wood loading in streams varies with age and species of riparian vegetation, stream size, time since last disturbance, and history of land use. Changes in the landscape resulting from homesteading, agriculture, and logging have altered forest environments, which, in turn, changed the physical and biological characteristics of many streams worldwide. Wood is also important in creating refugia for fish and other aquatic species. Removing wood from streams typically results in loss of pool habitat and overall complexity as well as fewer and smaller individuals of both coldwater and warmwater fish species. The life histories of more than 85 species of fish have some association with large wood for cover, spawning (egg attachment, nest materials), and feeding. Many other aquatic organisms, such as crayfish, certain species of freshwater mus- sels, and turtles, also depend on large wood during at least part of their life cycles. Introduction Because decay rate and probability of displace- ment are a function of size, large pieces have a Large wood can profoundly influence the struc- greater influence on habitat and physical processes ture and function of aquatic habitats from head- than small pieces. In general, rootwads, branches, waters to estuaries.
    [Show full text]
  • Interim Performance Report Endangered Species
    INTERIM PERFORMANCE REPORT ENDANGERED SPECIES PROGRAM GRANT NUMBER F17AP01052 WILDLIFE PROJECTS – ALABAMA PROJECT Reproductive Characteristics and Host Fish Determination of Canoe Creek Clubshell, Pleurobema athearni (Gangloff et al. 2006) in Big Canoe Creek drainage (Etowah and St. Clair Counties), Alabama October 1, 2018 - September 30, 2020 ALABAMA DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION AND NATURAL RESOURCES WILDLIFE AND FRESHWATER FISHERIES DIVISION Prepared by: Todd B. Fobian Alabama Division of Wildlife and Freshwater Fisheries PROJECT Reproductive Characteristics and Host Fish Determination of Canoe Creek Clubshell, Pleurobema athearni (Gangloff et al. 2006) in the Big Canoe Creek drainage (Etowah and St. Clair Counties), Alabama Year 1 Interim Report State: Alabama Introduction Pleurobema athearni (Gangloff et al, 2006), Canoe Creek Clubshell is currently a candidate for federally threatened/endangered status by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). It is Coosa Basin endemic, with historical records only known from the Big Canoe Creek (BCC) system in Alabama (Gangloff et al. 2006, Williams et al. 2008). Recent surveys completed by ADCNR and USFWS established the species is extant at six localities in the basin, with two in Upper Little Canoe Creek (ULCC), one in Lower Little Canoe Creek (LLCC), and three in BCC proper. (Fobian et al. 2017). As culture methods improve, propagated P. athearni juveniles could soon be available to support reintroduction/augmentation efforts within historical range. Little is known about Pleurobema athearni reproduction, female brooding period, or glochidial hosts. Female P. athearni are presumed short term-brooders and likely gravid from late spring to early summer (Gangloff et al. 2006, Williams et al. 2008). Glochidial hosts are currently unknown although other Mobile River Basin Pleurobema species often utilize Cyprinidae (shiners) to complete metamorphosis (Haag and Warren 1997, 2003, Weaver et al.
    [Show full text]
  • Darter Reproductive Seasons Author(S): Clark Hubbs Reviewed Work(S): Source: Copeia, Vol
    Darter Reproductive Seasons Author(s): Clark Hubbs Reviewed work(s): Source: Copeia, Vol. 1985, No. 1 (Feb. 11, 1985), pp. 56-68 Published by: American Society of Ichthyologists and Herpetologists (ASIH) Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1444790 . Accessed: 10/01/2012 14:26 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. American Society of Ichthyologists and Herpetologists (ASIH) is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Copeia. http://www.jstor.org 56 COPEIA, 1985, NO. 1 changes in kinosternid turtles. J. Herpetol. 6:183- . 1938. Seasonal changes in the testes of the 189. musk turtle Sternotherusodoratus L. J. Morphol. 63: MCPHERSON, R. J., AND K. R. MARION. 1981. Sea- 301-317. sonal testicular cycle of the stinkpot turtle (Ster- SAINTGIRONS, H. 1982. Reproductive cycles of male notherus odoratus) in central Alabama. Herpetolog- snakes and their relationships with climate and fe- ica 37:33-40. male reproductive cycles. Herpetologica 38:5-16. MITCHELL, J. C. 1982. Population ecology and de- SPEAT, R. H. 1973. Seasonal variation in the tubular mography of the freshwater turtles Chrysemyspicta and interstitial areas of the testes in Sternothaerus and Sternotherusodoratus.
    [Show full text]
  • Hemichromis Bimaculatus (African Jewelfish)
    African Jewelfish (Hemichromis bimaculatus) Ecological Risk Screening Summary U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, April 2011 Revised, September 2018 Web Version, 2/14/2019 Photo: Zhyla. Licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0. Available: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Hemichromis_bimaculatus1.jpg. (September 2018). 1 Native Range and Status in the United States Native Range From Froese and Pauly (2018): “Africa: widely distributed in West Africa, where it is known from most hydrographic basins [Teugels and Thys van den Audenaerde 2003], associated with forested biotopes [Daget and Teugels 1991, Lamboj 2004]. Also reported from coastal basins of Cameroon, Democratic Republic of the Congo and Nile basin [Teugels and Thys van den Audenaerde 1992], but at least its presence in Cameroon is unconfirmed in [Stiassny et al. 2008]. [Lamboj 2004] limits this species to Guinea, Sierra Leone and Liberia.” 1 From Azeroual and Lalèyè (2010): “This species is widely distributed throughout western Africa, but has also been recorded from Algeria to Egypt.” “Northern Africa: Within this region this species is very rare. It used to be caught from the coastal lagoons, especially Lake Mariut (Egypt) and Algeria. Its [sic] found in Tunisia in the wadis of Kebili in the south of Tunisia and in wadis near Chott Melrhir in eastern Algeria (Kraiem, pers. comm.), and Egypt (Wadi El Rayan Lakes).” “Western Africa: It is known from most hydrographic basins in western Africa.” Status in the United States It is not certain if this species is present in the United States, or if records pertain to H. letourneuxi. From NatureServe (2018): “Introduced and established in Dade County, Florida, […] (Nelson 1983).” From Nico et al.
    [Show full text]
  • Full Issue PDF Volume 40, Issue 11
    Fisheries ISSN: 0363-2415 (Print) 1548-8446 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ufsh20 Full Issue PDF Volume 40, Issue 11 To cite this article: (2015) Full Issue PDF Volume 40, Issue 11, Fisheries, 40:11, 525-572, DOI: 10.1080/03632415.2015.1115707 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03632415.2015.1115707 Published online: 05 Nov 2015. Submit your article to this journal Article views: 147 View related articles View Crossmark data Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ufsh20 Download by: [Department Of Fisheries] Date: 13 March 2016, At: 23:47 FisheriesVol. 40 • No. 11 • November 2015 Downloaded by [Department Of Fisheries] at 23:47 13 March 2016 How to Thrive in Grad School Are Hermaphroditic Fish More Vulnerable to Fishing? Introduced Populations Help Preclude ESA Listing “I was amazed at how eective these gloves were and how easy they made handling of large-sized fishes.” – Alan Temple* “We were some of the first people to field-test [the gloves]. We used them last spring in our hatcheries to spawn muskies and walleye, and in the field to implant transmitters in muskies, walleyes and trout for telemetry studies. They worked great. We were really impressed.” – Je Hansbarger** · Portable, waterproof, and lightweight · Measuring and tagging made simple · Chemical free handling · Fish can be lawfully released immediately Downloaded by [Department Of Fisheries] at 23:47 13 March 2016 · Rubber gloves Safely immobilize live fish with Smith-Root’s new insulate user FISH HANDLING GLOVE SYSTEM.
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • Information on the NCWRC's Scientific Council of Fishes Rare
    A Summary of the 2010 Reevaluation of Status Listings for Jeopardized Freshwater Fishes in North Carolina Submitted by Bryn H. Tracy North Carolina Division of Water Resources North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources Raleigh, NC On behalf of the NCWRC’s Scientific Council of Fishes November 01, 2014 Bigeye Jumprock, Scartomyzon (Moxostoma) ariommum, State Threatened Photograph by Noel Burkhead and Robert Jenkins, courtesy of the Virginia Division of Game and Inland Fisheries and the Southeastern Fishes Council (http://www.sefishescouncil.org/). Table of Contents Page Introduction......................................................................................................................................... 3 2010 Reevaluation of Status Listings for Jeopardized Freshwater Fishes In North Carolina ........... 4 Summaries from the 2010 Reevaluation of Status Listings for Jeopardized Freshwater Fishes in North Carolina .......................................................................................................................... 12 Recent Activities of NCWRC’s Scientific Council of Fishes .................................................. 13 North Carolina’s Imperiled Fish Fauna, Part I, Ohio Lamprey .............................................. 14 North Carolina’s Imperiled Fish Fauna, Part II, “Atlantic” Highfin Carpsucker ...................... 17 North Carolina’s Imperiled Fish Fauna, Part III, Tennessee Darter ...................................... 20 North Carolina’s Imperiled Fish Fauna, Part
    [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]
  • Croaking Gourami, Trichopsis Vittata (Cuvier, 1831), in Florida, USA
    BioInvasions Records (2013) Volume 2, Issue 3: 247–251 Open Access doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.3391/bir.2013.2.3.12 © 2013 The Author(s). Journal compilation © 2013 REABIC Rapid Communication Croaking gourami, Trichopsis vittata (Cuvier, 1831), in Florida, USA Pamela J. Schofield 1* and Darren J. Pecora2 1 US Geological Survey, Southeast Ecological Science Center, 7920 NW 71st Street, Gainesville, FL 32653, USA 2 US Fish and Wildlife Service, Arthur R. Marshall Loxahatchee National Wildlife Refuge, 10216 Lee Road, Boynton Beach, FL 33473, USA E-mail: [email protected] (PJS), [email protected] (DJP) *Corresponding author Received: 8 February 2013 / Accepted: 30 May 2013 / Published online: 1 July 2013 Handling editor: Kit Magellan Abstract The croaking gourami, Trichopsis vittata, is documented from wetland habitats in southern Florida. This species was previously recorded from the same area over 15 years ago, but was considered extirpated. The rediscovery of a reproducing population of this species highlights the dearth of information available regarding the dozens of non-native fishes in Florida, as well as the need for additional research and monitoring. Key words: canal; croaking gourami; cypress swamp; Florida; Loxahatchee; Osphronemidae; Trichopsis vittata was previously considered extirpated (Shafland Introduction et al. 2008a, b), but is now known to be reproducing in a localised area. Dozens of non-native fishes have been introduced into Florida’s inland waterways, via accidental escape, pet releases, or intentional introduction
    [Show full text]
  • As Assessment of Stream Fish Vulnerability and an Evaluation Of
    AN ASSESSMENT OF STREAM FISH VULNERABILITY AND AN EVALUATION OF CONSERVATION NETWORKS IN MISSOURI ___________________________________________________________ A Thesis Presented to the Faculty of the Graduate School at the University of Missouri ___________________________________________________________ In Partial Fulfillment Of the Requirements for the Degree Master of Science ___________________________________________________________ by NICHOLAS A. SIEVERT DR. CRAIG P. PAUKERT, THESIS SUPERVISOR DECEMBER 2014 The undersigned, appointed by the dean of the Graduate School, have examined the thesis entitled: AN ASSESSMENT OF STREAM FISH VULNERABILITY AND AN EVALUATION OF CONSERVATION NETWORKS IN MISSOURI Presented by Nicholas A. Sievert A candidate for the degree of Master of Science And hereby certify that, in their opinion, it is worthy of acceptance. ______________________________________ Dr. Craig Paukert ______________________________________ Dr. Joanna Whittier ______________________________________ Dr. Timothy Matisziw ______________________________________ Dr. Michelle Staudinger ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would first like to thank the United States Geological Service National Climate Change and Wildlife Science Center for funding this project. I would also like to thank the Missouri Department of Conservation (MDC) for providing the fish community data which served as the foundation upon which this project was completed. Specifically, I would like to thank Matt Combes and Dr. Doug Novinger, who not only provided me with tremendous sources of data for Missouri’s stream fish communities, but also shared with me their expertise and knowledge by reviewing my work and offering invaluable insights. Dorothy Butler of MDC also generously provided fish records from the Missouri Natural Heritage Database. I would also like to thank Gust Annis and the Missouri Resource Assessment Partnership for providing me with GIS data without which this project would not have been possible.
    [Show full text]