DOCSLIB.ORG

Twelve Mile Project Environmental Assessment

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Twelve Mile Project Environmental Assessment United States Department of Agriculture Twelve Mile Project Environmental Assessment Forest Service Pisgah National Forest Appalachian Ranger District July, 2019 For More Information Contact: Jason Herron Environmental Coordinator 632 Manor Drive Mars Hill, NC 28754 (828) 689-9694 The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or part of an individual's income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20250-9410, or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. Environmental Assessment Contents Purpose and Need ....................................................................................................................................... 1 Introduction .............................................................................................................................................. 1 Background ............................................................................................................................................... 2 Nantahala and Pisgah Forest Plan Direction ............................................................................................ 4 Purpose and Need for Action .................................................................................................................... 6 Issues and Alternatives ............................................................................................................................. 11 Public Involvement ................................................................................................................................. 11 Issues ...................................................................................................................................................... 11 Range of Alternatives ............................................................................................................................. 12 Alternatives Considered in Detail ........................................................................................................... 12 Alternative A – No Action .................................................................................................................. 12 Alternative B – Action Alternative ..................................................................................................... 12 Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Study ............................................................... 12 Action Alternative ..................................................................................................................................... 13 Summary of Action Alternative .......................................................................................................... 30 Descriptions of Proposed Actions ....................................................................................................... 30 Transportation Management ................................................................................................................... 34 Project Design Criteria and Mitigation ................................................................................................... 41 Monitoring .......................................................................................................................................... 44 Environmental Effects of the Proposed Action and Alternatives ......................................................... 45 Hydrology and Aquatic Habitat .......................................................................................................... 46 Scale of Analysis ................................................................................................................................. 46 Effects Analysis .................................................................................................................................. 50 Determination of Effect ...................................................................................................................... 61 Soil/Geology Resources ........................................................................................................................ 63 Scope of the Analysis .......................................................................................................................... 63 Existing Conditions ............................................................................................................................. 63 Hydric Soils Listing ............................................................................................................................ 64 Prime Farmland Soils Listing ............................................................................................................. 64 Desired Condition of the Soils ............................................................................................................ 65 Direct & Indirect Effects Analysis ...................................................................................................... 65 Cumulative Effects Analysis ............................................................................................................... 76 Wildlife .................................................................................................................................................. 78 Introduction ......................................................................................................................................... 78 Terrestrial Wildlife Survey and Analysis Methods ............................................................................. 78 Existing Terrestrial Wildlife Condition .............................................................................................. 79 Analysis for Terrestrial Wildlife Resources ........................................................................................ 83 Effects to TES and FC Terrestrial Wildlife Species ........................................................................... 87 Summary of Effects ............................................................................................................................ 96 Botanical .............................................................................................................................................. 100 Introduction ....................................................................................................................................... 100 Botanical Survey and Analysis Methods .......................................................................................... 100 Existing Botanical Condition ............................................................................................................ 102 Effects to Threatened, Endangered, Sensitive, and Forest Concern Species .................................... 111 Effects of Non-Native Invasive Plant Species within the Botanical Analysis Area ......................... 120 Effects to Research Natural Areas or Botanical Special Interest Areas ............................................ 122 Summary of Effects .......................................................................................................................... 123 Cultural Resources ............................................................................................................................. 124 iii Environmental Assessment Existing Condition ............................................................................................................................ 124 Protection and Conservation Mitigations .......................................................................................... 124 Direct and Indirect Effects ................................................................................................................ 125 Recreation ........................................................................................................................................... 126 Existing Condition ............................................................................................................................ 126 Direct and Indirect Effects ................................................................................................................ 126 Cumulative Effects ............................................................................................................................ 129 Air Quality .......................................................................................................................................... 130 Scope of Analysis ............................................................................................................................. 130 Direct and Indirect Effects ...............................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Development of Tolerance Values for Kentucky Crayfishes
    Development of Tolerance Values for Kentucky Crayfishes Kentucky Environmental and Public Protection Cabinet Department for Environmental Protection Division of Water Water Quality Branch Watershed Management Branch 2004 Cover photograph description: Cambarus dubius, Morgan County, Kentucky Suggested Citation: Peake, D.R., G.J. Pond, and S.E. McMurray. 2004. Development of tolerance values for Kentucky crayfishes. Kentucky Environmental and Public Protection Cabinet, Department for Environmental Protection, Division of Water, Frankfort. The Environmental and Public Protection Cabinet (EPPC) does not discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, age, religion, or disability. The EPPC will provide, on request, reasonable accommodations including auxiliary aids and services necessary to afford an individual with a disability an equal opportunity to participate in all services, programs and activities. To request materials in an alternative format, contact the Kentucky Division of Water, 14 Reilly Road, Frankfort, KY, 40601 or call (502) 564-3410. Hearing and speech-impaired persons can contact the agency by using the Kentucky Relay Service, a toll-free telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD). For voice to TDD, call 800-648- 6057. For TDD to voice, call 800-648-6056. Funding for this project was provided in part by a grant from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) to the Kentucky Division of Water, Nonpoint Source Section, as authorized by the Clean Water Act Amendments of 1987, §319(h) Nonpoint Source Implementation Grant # C9994861-01. Mention of trade names or commercial products, if any, does not constitute endorsement. This document was printed on recycled paper. Development of Tolerance Values for Kentucky Crayfishes By Daniel R.
    [Show full text]
  • The Crayfishes of West Virginia's Southwestern Coalfields Region
    Marshall University Marshall Digital Scholar Theses, Dissertations and Capstones 1-1-2013 The rC ayfishes of West Virginia’s Southwestern Coalfields Region with an Emphasis on the Life History of Cambarus theepiensis David Allen Foltz II Follow this and additional works at: http://mds.marshall.edu/etd Part of the Aquaculture and Fisheries Commons, and the Ecology and Evolutionary Biology Commons Recommended Citation Foltz, David Allen II, "The rC ayfishes of West Virginia’s Southwestern Coalfields Region with an Emphasis on the Life History of Cambarus theepiensis" (2013). Theses, Dissertations and Capstones. Paper 731. This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by Marshall Digital Scholar. It has been accepted for inclusion in Theses, Dissertations and Capstones by an authorized administrator of Marshall Digital Scholar. For more information, please contact [email protected]. The Crayfishes of West Virginia’s Southwestern Coalfields Region with an Emphasis on the Life History of Cambarus theepiensis A Thesis submitted to the Graduate College of Marshall University Huntington, WV In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science Biological Sciences: Watershed Resource Science Prepared by David Allen Foltz II Approved by Committee Members: Zachary Loughman, Ph.D., Major Advisor David Mallory, Ph.D., Committee Member Mindy Armstead, Ph.D., Committee Member Thomas Jones, Ph.D., Committee Member Thomas Pauley, Ph.D., Committee Member Marshall University Defended 11/13/2013 Final Submission to the Graduate College December 2013 ©2013 David Allen Foltz II ALL RIGHTS RESERVED ii AKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to extend my gratitude to my committee members.
    [Show full text]
  • (SSC) 2011 Report Environment Agen
    Table of Contents Framework Support for Implementing the Strategic Plan of the IUCN Species Survival Commission (SSC) 2011 Report to the Environment Agency ‐ Abu Dhabi 2011 Report Contents Introduction ............................................................................................................................................................ 3 Activity Reports ..................................................................................................................................................... 4 1. CEESP‐SSC Sustainable Use and Livelihoods Specialist Group ..................................................... 5 2. Reptile Assessment for the Arabian Peninsula .................................................................................... 7 3. Freshwater Biodiversity Assessment for the Arabian Peninsula ............................................... 10 4. IUCN Red List Training ................................................................................................................................ 11 5. Increasing Interoperability of the IUCN Red List and Global Invasive Species Database 15 6. Inclusion of the Magnolias on the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species ................................ 21 7. The Second Global Conifer Assessment ................................................................................................ 24 8. Completing the Global Cactus Assessment .......................................................................................... 27 9. Priority‐setting and Species
    [Show full text]
  • The Crayfish of Tomlinson Run State Park, Hancock County, West Virginia, USA
    Freshwater Crayfish (2016) -- Early View, Version of Record RESEARCH ARTICLE ISSN: 2076-4324 (Print), 2076-4332 (Online) https://doi.org/10.5869/fc.2016.e226 The Crayfish of Tomlinson Run State Park, Hancock County, West Virginia, USA DAVID A. FOLTZ II,1,2,* CLARISSA N. DAMIS,1 NICOLE M. SADECKY,1 CYNTHIA L. CYPRYCH 2 1 AND ZACHARY J. LOUGHMAN 1 Department of Natural Science and Mathematics, West Liberty University, West Liberty, West Virginia, USA. 26074 *Corresponding Author.— [email protected] 2 Civil & Environmental Consultants, Inc., 333 Baldwin Road, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA. 15205 ABSTRACT ARTICLE INFO In 2015, a survey of Tomlinson Run State Park (TRSP) located in Hancock County, West Virginia Article History: Submitted: 23 AUG 2016 USA was completed. Thirty stations, each 100m long, were randomly selected using ArcGIS for both Accepted: 14 NOV 2016 intermittent and perennial stream reaches. Sites were sampled by performing ten seine hauls at each Published Online: 30 NOV 2016 randomly selected station and scored using an Ohio EPA Qualitative Habitat Evaluation Index (QHEI) to Published Print: XX XXX XXXX obtain qualitative habitat data. Ponds and impoundments were trapped for crayfish using baited crayfish/ Keywords: minnow traps. Burrows found in wetlands and seeps were excavated to determine TRSP burrowing Cambarus; crayfish species composition. In total, 471 crayfish of four speciesCambarus ( carinirostris, Cambarus conservation; monongalensis, Cambarus robustus and Orconectes obscurus) were collected. A statistically significant natural history; Orconectes; correlation existed between QHEI score and CPUE for C. carinirostris on intermittent streams. Cambarus West Virginia; monongalensis was the sole burrowing species encountered while C. carinirostris was only collected from intermittent stations (CPUE = 0.12).
    [Show full text]
  • The Status and Distribution of Invasive Crayfishes and Their Effects on Native Crayfish Communities in West Virginia
    Marshall University Marshall Digital Scholar Theses, Dissertations and Capstones 1-1-2012 The tS atus and Distribution of Invasive Crayfishes and Their ffecE ts on Native Crayfish Communities in West Virginia Casey David Swecker [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: http://mds.marshall.edu/etd Part of the Aquaculture and Fisheries Commons, and the Behavior and Ethology Commons Recommended Citation Swecker, Casey David, "The tS atus and Distribution of Invasive Crayfishes and Their Effects on Native Crayfish Communities in West Virginia" (2012). Theses, Dissertations and Capstones. Paper 244. This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by Marshall Digital Scholar. It has been accepted for inclusion in Theses, Dissertations and Capstones by an authorized administrator of Marshall Digital Scholar. For more information, please contact [email protected]. THE STATUS AND DISTRIBUTION OF INVASIVE CRAYFISHES AND THEIR EFFECTS ON NATIVE CRAYFISH COMMUNITIES IN WEST VIRGINIA A Thesis submitted to the Graduate College of Marshall University Huntington, WV In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science Biological Sciences by Casey David Swecker Approved by Dr. Thomas G. Jones, Ph.D., Major Advisor Dr. Charles Somerville, Ph.D., Committee Chairperson Dr. Ralph Taylor, Ph.D., Committee Member Dr. Mike Little, Ph.D., Committee Member Marshall University May 2012 ABSTRACT Introductions of non-native crayfish species have resulted in the global decline of native crayfish populations, including those in North America. The last large survey of crayfishes from West Virginia was in 1988 and 1989. In this thorough document Raymond Jezerinac, Whitney Stocker, and Donald Tarter identified three separate areas in West Virginia where non-native crayfish species have been introduced.
    [Show full text]
  • (Decapoda) of Illinois
    WAX. HIST. SURVEY (^ tura.1 IIisto]:*3r Suii^vey The Crayfishes and Shrimps (Decapoda) of Illinois The Ubrary of ttit NOV 41985 Unive(»/,, u. It UrteiM-CiMinoaj^q Lawrence M. Page STATE OF ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES NATURAL HISTORY SURVEY DIVISION CHAMPAIGN. ILLINOIS VOLUME 33, ARTICLE 4 SEPTEMBER 1985 SIAIt OK II-UNOIS DtPARIMtMOF KNtROV ASH NA R RAL RtSOl R(.LS BOARD OK NA ri'RAl. RKSOIRCKS AND CONStRV A HON Don Ktciiison. Ph.D.. Chairman; H..S. (.iTnwsKV. Ph.D.. Snyrlajy. (:heitn\tt\: Robert U Me7< aij. Ph.D.. fiiohfisy: Wai TF.lt E. Hanson. M.S.. t.u^inreriti^: Lorin I. Nrvi.iN*.. Jr.. Ph.D.. Fotrstry: I,. 1.. .SrjOvi. Ph.D.. f>o/<»)fy. riiPoix»Rr- 1.. Broun. PhD . Hrprr- \oulltrTJi I srulinii tfir i*re<,i<ifnl of ihf I'mTfrsily oj llUuon: .\ni\ joHS (;. (il ^on, Ph D , Hrpmrnliini thr Frr^idrnt of tllmnis 'nn>rrMr\ NATURAL HISTORY SURVEY DIVISION, Champaign, Illinois SC:iKN riKIC: AND rE<:HNK;AL S lAFK Paul (;. Risser. Ph.D.. CJnrf Amcf., K. Adam.s. Secretary lo thr Chirf SECTION OF AQUATIC BIOLOGY Levinf, ti.i. Ph.D.. AssiMiatr hnlomologisl Stefffv. Kevin. Ph.D., .-tsso<iatr t.ntonutlngLst, t.xtm\ti»n C.c)KI>^N. RoBKRi VV. Pn-D.. l(/NHf/( Rioloni^l nnd llrad Bhic.us. Stiphen P-, M.S.. Assistnnt Sprtialnl. hxlrnston Bi'CK, D- HoMKR. PiiD., .lijwilK liinlttiii\l Fischer, Daniel. Pii.D.. Assistant I'ralrssuinal StimtiU I,ARiM(iR». R. Wfiiion. PhD. Aquain Riiilnii,i\( Jeffords. Michael. Ph.D.. Assistant Entumutoi^tst Sharks.
    [Show full text]
  • Downloaded License
    Crustaceana 94 (4) 467-486 RANGE EXPANSION OF THE VULNERABLE CRAYFISH CREASERINUS FODIENS (COTTLE, 1863) (DECAPODA, CAMBARIDAE) IN ONTARIO, CANADA, WITH ADDED NOTES ON THE DISTRIBUTION, ECOLOGY AND CONSERVATION STATUS OF THIS SPECIES IN NORTH AMERICA BY RADU C. GUIA¸SU1) Biology Program, Glendon College, York University, 2275 Bayview Avenue, Toronto, Ontario, M4N 3M6, Canada ABSTRACT The distribution of the semi-terrestrial burrowing crayfish Creaserinus fodiens (Cottle, 1863) in Ontario was updated based on the examination of the records stored in the crayfish database of the Royal Ontario Museum in Toronto and specimens collected during field studies. New Ontario locality records are reported for this crayfish species from MacGregor Point Provincial Park and other nearby sites in Bruce County, along the shores of Lake Huron. These are among the northernmost locality records reported for this species in North America. These new records represent a northwestern range expansion for this crayfish species in southern Ontario. As a result of these new records, the revised distribution of this species in Ontario is estimated to cover an area of about 32 620 km2.Thisisan increase of 7620 km2 over a previous 1996 estimate of this range. Creaserinus fodiens is a vulnerable species in Ontario, mainly due to the loss of suitable wetland habitats. Thus, the new locations and the range expansion reported here provide some hopeful news about the long-term future of burrowing crayfishes in this Canadian province. At some of the new locations, C. fodiens was found together with Faxonius immunis (Hagen, 1870), another burrowing crayfish species. However, this analysis of all the relevant records found in the collections of the Royal Ontario Museum (Toronto) and the Canadian Museum of Nature (Ottawa) shows that our knowledge of the distribution of C.
    [Show full text]
  • Big Water Crayfish (Cambarus Robustus) ERSS
    U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Big water crayfish (Cambarus robustus) Ecological Risk Screening Summary U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, June 2015 Photo: © Jan Bosselaers, in Loughman and Simon (2011). Licensed under CC by 3.0. 1 Native Range, and Status in the United States Native Range From Cordeiro et al. (2010): “This widespread species' range centres around the Great Lakes-Ohio River drainages in northeastern America (Taylor et al. 2005). It is found in Ontario, Quebec, and New York, down south to Tennessee, North Carolina, and Virginia (Hobbs 1989, Taylor et al. 2005). In the southern portion of its range the species is found along the strike of the Appalachian Mountains (R. Thoma pers. comm. 2010).” Status in the United States From Guiaşu (2002): “Hobbs (1989) reported that C. robustus was found in the US states of Connecticut, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Michigan, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Virginia and West Virginia. However, Page (1985) stated that this species is now most likely absent from Illinois, where it had last been recorded in 1912 from only two small areas, and rare in Indiana.” From NatureServe (2015): “Although probably not native east of the Hudson River drainage, records exist for New England including the Thames River drainge in Connecticut (1950s), the Connecticut River, Thames River, Mount Hope Bay drainage systems in Massachusetts, Connecticut and Rhode Island; also populations are known from the West Branch of The Farmington River, Otis, Connecticut; Slocum Brook, Tolland, Connecticut; Dickinson Brook, Granville, Massachusetts; Sawmill Brook, Monson, Massachusetts; and Sucker Brook, Fall River, Massachusetts (Smith, 2000).” From Guarino et al.
    [Show full text]
  • (Puncticambarus) Smilax, the Greenbrier Crayfish Paul William Hughes [email protected]
    Marshall University Marshall Digital Scholar Theses, Dissertations and Capstones 2014 The aN tural Life History of Cambarus (Puncticambarus) smilax, The Greenbrier Crayfish Paul William Hughes [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: http://mds.marshall.edu/etd Part of the Aquaculture and Fisheries Commons, and the Ecology and Evolutionary Biology Commons Recommended Citation Hughes, Paul William, "The aN tural Life History of Cambarus (Puncticambarus) smilax, The Greenbrier Crayfish" (2014). Theses, Dissertations and Capstones. Paper 896. This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by Marshall Digital Scholar. It has been accepted for inclusion in Theses, Dissertations and Capstones by an authorized administrator of Marshall Digital Scholar. For more information, please contact [email protected]. THE NATURAL LIFE HISTORY OF CAMBARUS (PUNCTICAMBARUS) SMILAX, (THE GREENBRIER CRAYFISH) A thesis submitted to the Graduate College of Marshall University In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science in Biological Sciences by Paul William Hughes Approved by Dr. Thomas G. Jones, Committee Chair Dr. Charles Somerville, Biology Department Advisor Dr. Zachary J. Loughman, Committee Member Dr. Shane Welch, Committee Member Marshall University December 2014 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would first like to thank my advisor and primary professor Dr. Thomas G. Jones. I feel lucky to have a professor like Dr. Jones help me through grad school and beyond. Dr. Jones is truly one of the greatest teachers I have ever had. He has exposed me to another level of the ecological world that I didn’t know existed. As one of Dr. Jones’s students, I have traveled and worked in ten states and one foreign country.
    [Show full text]
  • Decapoda:Cambaridae) from the Coalfields Region of Eastern Kentucky and Southwestern West Virginia, USA
    Zootaxa 3641 (1): 063–073 ISSN 1175-5326 (print edition) www.mapress.com/zootaxa/ Article ZOOTAXA Copyright © 2013 Magnolia Press ISSN 1175-5334 (online edition) http://dx.doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.3641.1.7 http://zoobank.org/urn:lsid:zoobank.org:pub:A0BE6A8D-54D3-49D2-B798-1413E8693582 Cambarus (P.) theepiensis, a new species of crayfish (Decapoda:Cambaridae) from the coalfields region of Eastern Kentucky and Southwestern West Virginia, USA ZACHARY J. LOUGHMAN1, DAVID A. FOLTZ2, NICOLE L. GARRISON3 & STUART A. WELSH4 1West Liberty University, Department of Natural Sciences and Mathematics, P.O. Box 295, West Liberty, West Virginia, 26074. E-mail: [email protected] 2Marshall University, Department of Integrated Science and Technology, One John Marshall Drive Huntington, WV 25755. E-mail: [email protected] 3Auburn University, College of Sciences & Mathematics, 101 Life Sciences Building, Auburn, Alabama, 36849. E-mail: [email protected] 4U.S. Geological Survey, West Virginia Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, 322 Percival Hall, Morgantown, WV 26506. E-mail: [email protected] Abstract Cambarus (Puncticambarus) theepiensis is a stream-dwelling crayfish that appears to be endemic to the junction of the Cumberland Mountains with the Appalachian Plateau in West Virginia and Kentucky. Within this region, it is prevalent in the Guyandotte and Twelvepole basins of West Virginia, the Little Sandy River and Levisa Fork basins of Kentucky, and tributaries of the Big Sandy River shared by both states. The new species is morphologically most similar to Cambarus robustus and Cambarus sciotensis. It can be differentiated from C. robustus by its broad rostrum, with subparallel, thick- ened margins compared to the narrow, converging rostrum with reduced rostral margins of C.
    [Show full text]
  • Ocm17718156.Pdf (1.491Mb)
    KEYS TO THE FRESHWATER MACROINVERTEBRATES OF MASSACHUSETTS NO.3 : CRUSTACEA MALACOSTRACA ( Crayfish , lsopods , Amphipods ) Massachusetts Department of Environmental Quality Engineering DIVISION of WATER POLLUTION CONTROL Thomas C. McMahon, Director KEYS TO THE FRESHWATER MACROINVERTEBRATES OF MASSACHUSETTS (No. 3): Crustacea Malacostraca (crayfish, isopods, amphipods) Douglas G. Smith Museum of Zoology University of Massachusetts Amherst, Massachusetts and Museum of Comparative Zoology Harvard University Cambridge, Massachusetts In Cooperation With The Commonwealth of Massachusetts Technical Services Branch Division of Water Pollution control Westborough, Massachusetts Executive Office of Environmental Affairs James s. Hoyte, secretary Massachusetts Department Environmental Quality Engineering s. Russell Sylva, Commissioner Division Water Pollution Control Thomas c. McMahon, Director January, 1988 PUBLICATION: #15,236-61-250-2-88-CR Approved by Ric Murphy, State Purchasing Agent TABLE OF CONTENTS ITEM PAGE PREFACE iii INTRODUCTION 1 CLASSIFICATION OF MASSACHUSETTSFRESHWATER MALACOSTRACANS 13 HOWTO USE THE KEY . 16 GENERAL KEY TO THE FRESHWATERMALACOSTRACA OF MASSSACHUSETTS 20 CRAYFISH HYBRIDS 40 DISTRIBUTION OF MASSSACHUSETTSFRESHWATER MALACOSTRACANS 43 GLOSSARY OF TERMS USED IN KEY 49 BIBLIOGRAPHY 50 ii PREFACE The present work, concerning the identification of freshwater malacostracan crustaceans occurring in Massachusetts, represents a continuation of a series of guides dealing with the identification of benthic macroscopic invertebrates of the inland freshwaters of Massachusetts (Smith, 1986b, 1987a). The goal of this and other guides or handbooks is to introduce various groups of freshwater invertebrates to persons working in any of several areas of the freshwater ecology of Massachusetts. Although the guides are limited in their geographic scope to areas within the political boundaries of Massachusetts, many of the organisms treated, and information regarding their ecology and biology, will be applicable to neighboring regions.
    [Show full text]
  • A Reassessment of the Conservation Status of Crayfishes of the United States and Canada After 10+ Years of Increased Awareness Christopher A
    This article was downloaded by: [Institutional Subscription Access] On: 28 July 2011, At: 08:27 Publisher: Taylor & Francis Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK Fisheries Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ufsh20 A Reassessment of the Conservation Status of Crayfishes of the United States and Canada after 10+ Years of Increased Awareness Christopher A. Taylor, Guenter A. Schuster, John E. Cooper, Robert J. DiStefano, Arnold G. Eversole, Premek Hamr, Horton H. Hobbs III, Henry W. Robison, Christopher E. Skelton & Roger F. Thoma Available online: 09 Jan 2011 To cite this article: Christopher A. Taylor, Guenter A. Schuster, John E. Cooper, Robert J. DiStefano, Arnold G. Eversole, Premek Hamr, Horton H. Hobbs III, Henry W. Robison, Christopher E. Skelton & Roger F. Thoma (2007): A Reassessment of the Conservation Status of Crayfishes of the United States and Canada after 10+ Years of Increased Awareness, Fisheries, 32:8, 372-389 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1577/1548-8446(2007)32[372:AROTCS]2.0.CO;2 PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date.
    [Show full text]