DOCSLIB.ORG

Ap Ppend Dices

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Ap Ppend Dices 2012 y Apppendices to: Ma Biological and Water Quality Study of the Upper Scioto River Watershed 2009 & 2011 John Kasich, Governor Mary Taylor, Lt. Governor Scott J. Nally, Director Upper Scioto River TSD Appendices 2009 & 2011 DSW/2012-3-5 May 01, 2012 Appendix A-1. Qualitative Habitat Evaluation Index (QHEI) attributes and scores collected from the upper Scioto River basin, 2009 and 2011 Appendix A-2. Qualitative Habitat Evaluation Index (QHEI) attributes and scores collected from the upper Scioto River basin, 2009 and 1995 Appendix B-1. Fish scores for the Index of Biotic Integrity (IBI) and the Modified Index of well-being (MIwb), 2009 & 2011 Appendix C-1. Fish Species and Abundance for Each Sampling Location, 2009 & 2011 Appendix D-1. Macroinvertebrate ICI Scores and Metrics, 2009 & 2011 Appendix E-1. Notice to Users, Biosurvey Background information, Mechanisms for Water Quality Impairment, and Methods Appendix F-1. Surface Water Chemistry Results, 2009 Appendix G-1. Durez Corporation - Chronology of Events and Remediation Plan Appendix A-1 Qualitative Habitat Evaluation Index (QHEI) attributes and scores collected from the upper Scioto River basin, 2009 and 2011. WWH Attributes MWH Attributes High Influence Moderate Influence Key QHEI Components River Gradient Mile QHEI (ft/mile) (02-001) Scioto River Year: 2011 211.5 59.0 3.25 # # # 3♦ 1• • • • • • • 7 0.50 2.25 210.1 67.0 1.21 # # # # # # 6 0• • • • • • • 7 0.14 1.14 203.4 74.5 2.07 # # # # # # # # 8 0• • • • 4 0.11 0.56 196.2 53.0 2.07 # # # # 4♦ 1• • • • • • 6 0.40 1.60 192.2 61.0 0.92 # # # # 4♦ 1• • • • • 5 0.40 1.40 Year: 2009 236.7 61.5 5.15 # # # # # # 6 0• • • • • 5 0.14 0.86 234.4 77.5 6.99 # # # # # # # 7 0• • • • 4 0.13 0.63 231.8 79.5 4.59 # # # # # # # # 8 0• • 2 0.11 0.33 226.3 38.5 1.50 # # 2♦ ♦ ♦ 3• • • • • • 6 1.33 3.33 224.2 32.5 1.50 # # 2♦ ♦ 2• • • • • • • 7 1.00 3.33 222.8 37.5 1.02 # # 2♦ ♦ ♦ 3• • • • • • 6 1.33 3.33 216.6 46.0 1.20 # # # 3♦ ♦ 2• • • • • • • 7 0.75 2.50 211.5 46.5 3.25 # # 2♦ ♦ 2• • • • • • • 7 1.00 3.33 210.1 57.0 1.21 # # # # 4 0• • • • • 5 0.20 1.20 203.4 74.5 2.07 # # # # # # # # 8 0• • • 3 0.11 0.44 196.2 60.5 2.07 # # # # # 5♦ 1• • • • • • 6 0.33 1.33 192.2 71.0 0.92 # # # # # # 6 0• • • • 4 0.14 0.71 186.0 67.0 0.74 # # # # 4♦ 1• • • • • • 6 0.40 1.60 179.1 71.5 0.74 # # # # # 5 0• • • • • 5 0.17 1.00 (02-145) Fulton Creek Year: 2011 6.4 50.5 2.94 # # # 3♦ 1• • • • • • • 7 0.50 2.25 Year: 2009 16.3 27.0 3.60 # 1♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ 4• • • • • 5 2.50 5.00 10.4 76.5 3.88 # # # # # # # 7 0• • • 3 0.13 0.50 8.7 42.5 4.81 # # 2♦ ♦ 2• • • • • • • 7 1.00 3.33 6.4 60.5 2.94 # # # # # # 6 0• • • • • • 6 0.14 1.00 1.2 74.0 13.16 # # # # # # # # # 9 0• • 2 0.10 0.30 (02-148) Kebler Run Year: 2009 0.8 83.5 7.46 # # # # # # # # 8♦ 1• 1 0.22 0.33 12/23/2011 1 WWH Attributes MWH Attributes High Influence Moderate Influence Key QHEI Components River Gradient Mile QHEI (ft/mile) (02-149) Ottawa Creek Year: 2009 0.1 79.5 33.33 # # # # # # # # # 9 0 0 0.10 0.10 (02-154) Battle Run Year: 2009 0.3 70.5 14.29 # # # # # # 6♦ ♦ 2• • • • 4 0.43 1.00 (02-155) Patton Run Year: 2009 2.3 56.0 5.38 # # # # # # 6♦ ♦ 2• • • • 4 0.43 1.00 (02-158) Little Scioto River Year: 2009 25.6 40.5 3.25 # # # # 4♦ 1• • • • • 5 0.40 1.40 19.7 69.5 4.55 # # # # # 5 0• • • • • 5 0.17 1.00 11.1 49.0 2.87 # # # # # 5♦ 1• • • • • • 6 0.33 1.33 9.2 73.5 2.87 # # # # # # # # # 9 0• • • • 4 0.10 0.50 6.5 31.0 1.54 # 1♦ ♦ ♦ 3• • • • • • 6 2.00 5.00 6.2 34.5 1.54 # # 2♦ ♦ ♦ 3• • • • • • 6 1.33 3.33 0.4 45.5 0.34 # # 2♦ 1• • • • • • • 7 0.67 3.00 (02-159) Honey Creek Year: 2009 0.1 58.5 33.33 # # # # # 5♦ 1• • • • 4 0.33 1.00 (02-162) Rock Fork Year: 2009 8.1 35.5 5.68 # # 2♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ 4• • • • • 5 1.67 3.33 1.1 74.0 4.88 # # # # # # 6 0• • • • 4 0.14 0.71 (02-165) Rush Creek Year: 2009 39.5 82.5 8.33 # # # # # # # # # 9 0• 1 0.10 0.20 36.2 82.0 37.04 # # # # # # # # # 9 0• • 2 0.10 0.30 26.3 65.5 6.10 # # # # # # 6 0• • • • 4 0.14 0.71 14.5 79.0 3.01 # # # # # # # # 8 0• • 2 0.11 0.33 8.8 61.0 3.36 # # # # # 5 0• • • • • • 6 0.17 1.17 7.4 60.5 3.45 # # # # # 5♦ 1• • • • • • 6 0.33 1.33 5.4 62.5 2.79 # # # # # 5 0• • • • • • 6 0.17 1.17 0.6 60.0 3.91 # # # # # 5♦ 1• • • • • • 6 0.33 1.33 12/23/2011 2 WWH Attributes MWH Attributes High Influence Moderate Influence Key QHEI Components River Gradient Mile QHEI (ft/mile) (02-166) McDonald Creek Year: 2009 9.1 38.0 5.32 # # 2♦ ♦ ♦ 3• • • • • • 6 1.33 3.33 6.8 43.0 11.11 # # # 3♦ ♦ ♦ 3• • • • • • 6 1.00 2.50 2.7 44.5 5.32 # # # # # 5♦ ♦ 2• • • • • • 6 0.50 1.50 (02-172) Wildcat Creek Year: 2009 6.7 43.5 8.77 # # # 3♦ ♦ 2• • • • • • • 7 0.75 2.50 4.0 49.5 12.50 # # # 3♦ ♦ 2• • • • • • 6 0.75 2.25 0.5 84.5 6.02 # # # # # # # # 8 0• • 2 0.11 0.33 (02-175) Panther Creek Year: 2009 8.9 82.5 11.90 # # # # # # # # 8 0• • • 3 0.11 0.44 7.8 75.0 9.43 # # # # # # # # 8 0• • • • 4 0.11 0.56 1.8 71.5 6.10 # # # # # # # # 8 0• • • 3 0.11 0.44 (02-177) Wolf Creek Year: 2009 0.5 59.0 12.20 # # # # # # # 7♦ ♦ 2• • • • • 5 0.38 1.00 (02-181) Taylor Creek Year: 2011 0.8 65.0 16.67 # # # # # # 6♦ 1• • • • • 5 0.29 1.00 Year: 2009 4.5 80.0 7.14 # # # # # # # # # 9 0• • 2 0.10 0.30 0.8 66.5 16.67 # # # # # # 6 0• • • • • 5 0.14 0.86 (02-182) Silver Creek Year: 2009 2.3 74.5 10.53 # # # # # # 6 0• • • • • 5 0.14 0.86 (02-186) McCoy Run Year: 2009 0.6 53.5 6.76 # # # # # 5♦ 1• • • • • • 6 0.33 1.33 (02-188) Cottonwood Ditch Year: 2009 4.1 24.0 2.63 # # 2♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ 4• • • • • • • 7 1.67 4.00 0.7 18.0 2.05 # 1♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ 4• • • • • • 6 2.50 5.50 12/23/2011 3 WWH Attributes MWH Attributes High Influence Moderate Influence Key QHEI Components River Gradient Mile QHEI (ft/mile) (02-190) Dunlap Creek Year: 2009 0.1 20.5 1.92 # 1♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ 4• • • • • 5 2.50 5.00 (02-193) Wallace Fork Year: 2011 0.2 39.0 3.16 # 1♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ 4• • • • • 5 2.50 5.00 (02-237) North Rockswale Ditch Year: 2009 0.6 49.0 3.29 # # # 3♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ 4• • • • • 5 1.25 2.50 (02-374) Elliot Run Year: 2011 1.3 42.0 7.94 # # 2♦ ♦ ♦ 3• • • • • • 6 1.33 3.33 Year: 2009 1.3 38.0 7.94 # # 2♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ 4• • • • • • 6 1.67 3.67 12/23/2011 4 Appendix A-2 Qualitative Habitat Evaluation Index (QHEI) attributes and scores collected from the upper Scioto River basin, 2009 and 1995. WWH Attributes MWH Attributes High Influence Moderate Influence Key QHEI Components River Gradient Mile QHEI (ft/mile) (02-001) Scioto River Year: 2009 236.7 61.5 5.15 # # # # # # 6 0• • • • • 5 0.14 0.86 234.4 77.5 6.99 # # # # # # # 7 0• • • • 4 0.13 0.63 231.8 79.5 4.59 # # # # # # # # 8 0• • 2 0.11 0.33 226.3 38.5 1.50 # # 2♦ ♦ ♦ 3• • • • • • 6 1.33 3.33 224.2 32.5 1.50 # # 2♦ ♦ 2• • • • • • • 7 1.00 3.33 222.8 37.5 1.02 # # 2♦ ♦ ♦ 3• • • • • • 6 1.33 3.33 216.6 46.0 1.20 # # # 3♦ ♦ 2• • • • • • • 7 0.75 2.50 211.5 46.5 3.25 # # 2♦ ♦ 2• • • • • • • 7 1.00 3.33 210.1 57.0 1.21 # # # # 4 0• • • • • 5 0.20 1.20 203.4 74.5 2.07 # # # # # # # # 8 0• • • 3 0.11 0.44 196.2 60.5 2.07 # # # # # 5♦ 1• • • • • • 6 0.33 1.33 192.2 71.0 0.92 # # # # # # 6 0• • • • 4 0.14 0.71 186.0 67.0 0.74 # # # # 4♦ 1• • • • • • 6 0.40 1.60 179.1 71.5 0.74 # # # # # 5 0• • • • • 5 0.17 1.00 Year: 1995 233.6 50.0 6.99 # # 2 0• • • • • • • • 8 0.33 3.00 231.7 65.5 4.59 # # # # # 5 0• • • • 4 0.17 0.83 226.3 23.0 1.50 0♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ 4• • • • • • • 7 5.00 *.** 221.9 44.0 1.02 # # 2♦ 1• • • • • • 6 0.67 2.67 220.8 25.0 1.02 # 1♦ ♦ ♦ 3• • • • • • 6 2.00 5.00 216.2 42.0 1.20 # # 4♦ ♦ ♦ 2• • • • • • • 6 0.60 1.80 213.9 32.0 3.65 0♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ 4• • • • • • 6 5.00 *.** 212.8 37.0 3.25 # 1♦ ♦ ♦ 3• • • • • • 6 2.00 5.00 211.5 52.0 3.25 # # # 3♦ 1• • • • • • • 7 0.50 2.25 211.3 45.5 1.21 # # # 3♦ ♦ 2• • • • • • 6 0.75 2.25 211.2 41.0 1.21 # # 2♦ ♦ 2• • • • • • 6 1.00 3.00 210.1 51.0 1.21 # # # 3♦ ♦ 2• • • • • 5 0.75 2.00 207.3 57.5 1.21 # # # 3 0• • • • • • 6 0.25 1.75 203.3 78.0 2.07 # # # # # # # 7 0• • • 3 0.13 0.50 192.2 60.5 0.92 # # # # # 5 0• • • • • 5 0.17 1.00 04/17/2012 1 Appendix B-1 Fish scores for the Index of Biotic Integrity (IBI) and the Modified Index of well being (MIwb) for the Upper Scioto River watershed, 2009 & 2011.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Research Report110
    ~ ~ WISCONSIN DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES A Survey of Rare and Endangered Mayflies of Selected RESEARCH Rivers of Wisconsin by Richard A. Lillie REPORT110 Bureau of Research, Monona December 1995 ~ Abstract The mayfly fauna of 25 rivers and streams in Wisconsin were surveyed during 1991-93 to document the temporal and spatial occurrence patterns of two state endangered mayflies, Acantha­ metropus pecatonica and Anepeorus simplex. Both species are candidates under review for addition to the federal List of Endang­ ered and Threatened Wildlife. Based on previous records of occur­ rence in Wisconsin, sampling was conducted during the period May-July using a combination of sampling methods, including dredges, air-lift pumps, kick-nets, and hand-picking of substrates. No specimens of Anepeorus simplex were collected. Three specimens (nymphs or larvae) of Acanthametropus pecatonica were found in the Black River, one nymph was collected from the lower Wisconsin River, and a partial exuviae was collected from the Chippewa River. Homoeoneuria ammophila was recorded from Wisconsin waters for the first time from the Black River and Sugar River. New site distribution records for the following Wiscon­ sin special concern species include: Macdunnoa persimplex, Metretopus borealis, Paracloeodes minutus, Parameletus chelifer, Pentagenia vittigera, Cercobrachys sp., and Pseudiron centra/is. Collection of many of the aforementioned species from large rivers appears to be dependent upon sampling sand-bottomed substrates at frequent intervals, as several species were relatively abundant during only very short time spans. Most species were associated with sand substrates in water < 2 m deep. Acantha­ metropus pecatonica and Anepeorus simplex should continue to be listed as endangered for state purposes and receive a biological rarity ranking of critically imperiled (S1 ranking), and both species should be considered as candidates proposed for listing as endangered or threatened as defined by the Endangered Species Act.
    [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]
  • Meramec River Watershed Demonstration Project
    MERAMEC RIVER WATERSHED DEMONSTRATION PROJECT Funded by: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency prepared by: Todd J. Blanc Fisheries Biologist Missouri Department of Conservation Sullivan, Missouri and Mark Caldwell and Michelle Hawks Fisheries GIS Specialist and GIS Analyst Missouri Department of Conservation Columbia, Missouri November 1998 Contributors include: Andrew Austin, Ronald Burke, George Kromrey, Kevin Meneau, Michael Smith, John Stanovick, Richard Wehnes Reviewers and other contributors include: Sue Bruenderman, Kenda Flores, Marlyn Miller, Robert Pulliam, Lynn Schrader, William Turner, Kevin Richards, Matt Winston For additional information contact East Central Regional Fisheries Staff P.O. Box 248 Sullivan, MO 63080 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Project Overview The overall purpose of the Meramec River Watershed Demonstration Project is to bring together relevant information about the Meramec River basin and evaluate the status of the stream, watershed, and wetland resource base. The project has three primary objectives, which have been met. The objectives are: 1) Prepare an inventory of the Meramec River basin to provide background information about past and present conditions. 2) Facilitate the reduction of riparian wetland losses through identification of priority areas for protection and management. 3) Identify potential partners and programs to assist citizens in selecting approaches to the management of the Meramec River system. These objectives are dealt with in the following sections titled Inventory, Geographic Information Systems (GIS) Analyses, and Action Plan. Inventory The Meramec River basin is located in east central Missouri in Crawford, Dent, Franklin, Iron, Jefferson, Phelps, Reynolds, St. Louis, Texas, and Washington counties. Found in the northeast corner of the Ozark Highlands, the Meramec River and its tributaries drain 2,149 square miles.
    [Show full text]
  • Jepice Hotovo S Opravou
    MASARYKOVA UNIVERZITA PŘÍRODOV ĚDECKÁ FAKULTA ÚSTAV BOTANIKY A ZOOLOGIE Parthenogeneze jako rozmnožovací strategie u jepic (Ephemeroptera) Bakalá řská práce Jan Šupina Vedoucí práce: doc. RNDr. Sv ětlana Zahrádková, Ph.D. BRNO 2012 Bibliografický záznam Autor: Jan Šupina Přírodov ědecká fakulta, Masarykova univerzita Ústav botaniky a zoologie Název práce: Parthenogeneze jako rozmnožovací strategie u jepic (Ephemeroptera) Studijní program: Bakalá řský studijní program Studijní obor: Systematická biologie a ekologie Vedoucí práce: doc. RNDr. Sv ětlana Zahrádková, Ph.D. Akademický rok: 2011/2012 Po čet stran: 51 Klí čová slova: nepohlavní rozmnožování, chov, embryonální vývoj, geografická parthenogeneze Bibliographic Entry Author: Jan Šupina Faculty of Science, Masaryk Univeristy Department of Botany and Zoology Title of thesis: Parthenogenesis as reproductive stategy of mayflies (Ephemeroptera) Degree programme: Bachelor's degree programme Field of study: Systematic Biology and Ecology Supervisor: doc. RNDr. Sv ětlana Zahrádková, Ph.D. Academic Year: 2011/2012 Number of Pages: 51 Keywords: asexual reproduction, rearing, embryonic development, geographic parthenogenesis Abstrakt V práci se zabývám jepicemi (Ephemeroptera), které se rozmnožují nepohlavn ě pomocí parthenogeneze (tychoparthenogeneze a obligátní parthenogeneze). Sou částí práce je literární rešerše, v ěnovaná shrnutí informací o tomto jevu, zejména pro druhy jepic uvád ěných z České republiky. Druhá část práce je zam ěř ena na metody studia partenogeneze a shrnuje publikované zkušenosti v této oblasti. Tato práce se dále zabývá publikovanými poznatky z laboratorního chovu jepic, a také poznatky mého experimentu-chovu druhu Baetis rhodani . Seznam jepic druh ů po celém sv ětě s výskytem partenogeneze je uveden vp říloze. Abstract In the present thesis I deal with mayflies (Ephemeroptera), which reproduce asexually by parthenogenesis (both tychoparthenogenesis and obligate parthenogenesis).
    [Show full text]
  • Biological Diversity, Ecological Health and Condition of Aquatic Assemblages at National Wildlife Refuges in Southern Indiana, USA
    Biodiversity Data Journal 3: e4300 doi: 10.3897/BDJ.3.e4300 Taxonomic Paper Biological Diversity, Ecological Health and Condition of Aquatic Assemblages at National Wildlife Refuges in Southern Indiana, USA Thomas P. Simon†, Charles C. Morris‡, Joseph R. Robb§, William McCoy | † Indiana University, Bloomington, IN 46403, United States of America ‡ US National Park Service, Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore, Porter, IN 47468, United States of America § US Fish and Wildlife Service, Big Oaks National Wildlife Refuge, Madison, IN 47250, United States of America | US Fish and Wildlife Service, Patoka River National Wildlife Refuge, Oakland City, IN 47660, United States of America Corresponding author: Thomas P. Simon ([email protected]) Academic editor: Benjamin Price Received: 08 Dec 2014 | Accepted: 09 Jan 2015 | Published: 12 Jan 2015 Citation: Simon T, Morris C, Robb J, McCoy W (2015) Biological Diversity, Ecological Health and Condition of Aquatic Assemblages at National Wildlife Refuges in Southern Indiana, USA. Biodiversity Data Journal 3: e4300. doi: 10.3897/BDJ.3.e4300 Abstract The National Wildlife Refuge system is a vital resource for the protection and conservation of biodiversity and biological integrity in the United States. Surveys were conducted to determine the spatial and temporal patterns of fish, macroinvertebrate, and crayfish populations in two watersheds that encompass three refuges in southern Indiana. The Patoka River National Wildlife Refuge had the highest number of aquatic species with 355 macroinvertebrate taxa, six crayfish species, and 82 fish species, while the Big Oaks National Wildlife Refuge had 163 macroinvertebrate taxa, seven crayfish species, and 37 fish species. The Muscatatuck National Wildlife Refuge had the lowest diversity of macroinvertebrates with 96 taxa and six crayfish species, while possessing the second highest fish species richness with 51 species.
    [Show full text]
  • TB142: Mayflies of Maine: an Annotated Faunal List
    The University of Maine DigitalCommons@UMaine Technical Bulletins Maine Agricultural and Forest Experiment Station 4-1-1991 TB142: Mayflies of aine:M An Annotated Faunal List Steven K. Burian K. Elizabeth Gibbs Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.library.umaine.edu/aes_techbulletin Part of the Entomology Commons Recommended Citation Burian, S.K., and K.E. Gibbs. 1991. Mayflies of Maine: An annotated faunal list. Maine Agricultural Experiment Station Technical Bulletin 142. This Article is brought to you for free and open access by DigitalCommons@UMaine. It has been accepted for inclusion in Technical Bulletins by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@UMaine. For more information, please contact [email protected]. ISSN 0734-9556 Mayflies of Maine: An Annotated Faunal List Steven K. Burian and K. Elizabeth Gibbs Technical Bulletin 142 April 1991 MAINE AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION Mayflies of Maine: An Annotated Faunal List Steven K. Burian Assistant Professor Department of Biology, Southern Connecticut State University New Haven, CT 06515 and K. Elizabeth Gibbs Associate Professor Department of Entomology University of Maine Orono, Maine 04469 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Financial support for this project was provided by the State of Maine Departments of Environmental Protection, and Inland Fisheries and Wildlife; a University of Maine New England, Atlantic Provinces, and Quebec Fellow­ ship to S. K. Burian; and the Maine Agricultural Experiment Station. Dr. William L. Peters and Jan Peters, Florida A & M University, pro­ vided support and advice throughout the project and we especially appreci­ ated the opportunity for S.K. Burian to work in their laboratory and stay in their home in Tallahassee, Florida.
    [Show full text]
  • 100 Characters
    40 Review and Update of Non-mollusk Invertebrate Species in Greatest Need of Conservation: Final Report Leon C. Hinz Jr. and James N. Zahniser Illinois Natural History Survey Prairie Research Institute University of Illinois 30 April 2015 INHS Technical Report 2015 (31) Prepared for: Illinois Department of Natural Resources State Wildlife Grant Program (Project Number T-88-R-001) Unrestricted: for immediate online release. Prairie Research Institute, University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign Brian D. Anderson, Interim Executive Director Illinois Natural History Survey Geoffrey A. Levin, Acting Director 1816 South Oak Street Champaign, IL 61820 217-333-6830 Final Report Project Title: Review and Update of Non-mollusk Invertebrate Species in Greatest Need of Conservation. Project Number: T-88-R-001 Contractor information: University of Illinois at Urbana/Champaign Institute of Natural Resource Sustainability Illinois Natural History Survey 1816 South Oak Street Champaign, IL 61820 Project Period: 1 October 2013—31 September 2014 Principle Investigator: Leon C. Hinz Jr., Ph.D. Stream Ecologist Illinois Natural History Survey One Natural Resources Way, Springfield, IL 62702-1271 217-785-8297 [email protected] Prepared by: Leon C. Hinz Jr. & James N. Zahniser Goals/ Objectives: (1) Review all SGNC listing criteria for currently listed non-mollusk invertebrate species using criteria in Illinois Wildlife Action Plan, (2) Assess current status of species populations, (3) Review criteria for additional species for potential listing as SGNC, (4) Assess stressors to species previously reviewed, (5) Complete draft updates and revisions of IWAP Appendix I and Appendix II for non-mollusk invertebrates. T-88 Final Report Project Title: Review and Update of Non-mollusk Invertebrate Species in Greatest Need of Conservation.
    [Show full text]
  • November 1995/ $1.5 Pennsylvania
    November 1995/ $1.5 Pennsylvania *-* % .A V4E v «^^«» < •*.*# \ ' :W In April 1992, the Fish and Boat Com­ mission awarded the Ralph W. Abele Con­ StmigkiQalk servation Heritage Award to Dr. Maurice K. Goddard for "a lifetime of service to con­ servation of the environment in Pennsylvania and our nation." Dr. Maurice K. Goddard: In response, Doc shared some of his phi­ A Giant Among Conservationists losophy of government and reminisced about his friendship with Ralph Abele. Doc re­ minded us that in government, bigger is not necessarily better, and he urged preserva­ 1 had the opportunity and honor of meeting Dr. Goddard at several Corps of Engineers tion of the Fish and Boat Commission as meetings in the early 1970s when he was a small, independent agency focused on fish the Secretary of the Department of Envi­ and boating. Peter A. Colangelo "When you get yourself involved in a big ronmental Resources. More recently, I had Executive Director the pleasure of talking to him at former Pennsylvania Fish & Boat Commission conglomerate, you certainly lose stature," Executive Director Ed Miller's retirement he concluded. Doc had always urged that dinner in the spring of ] 994 and then again servation in Pennsylvania. His record of the Department of Environmental Services while .serving with him i ») llie Ralph W. Abele selfless public service in the cause of con­ be split into smaller, more focused agen­ Conservation Scholarship Fund Board in May servation and protection of the environment cies, and lie lived to see it happen with the of this year. He was someone who I ad­ is unmatched and, probably, unmatchable.
    [Show full text]
  • Protocol for Monitoring Aquatic Invertebrates at Ozark National Scenic Riverways, Missouri, and Buffalo National River, Arkansas
    Protocol for Monitoring Aquatic Invertebrates at Ozark National Scenic Riverways, Missouri, and Buffalo National River, Arkansas. Heartland I&M Network SOP 4: Laboratory Processing and Identification of Invertebrates Version 1.2 (03/11/2021) Revision History Log: Previous Revision Author Changes Made Reason for Change New Version # Date Version # Dec 2, 2016 Bowles References updates References were 1.0 1.1 insufficient 1.1 3/11/2021 HR Dodd QA/QC procedures and Clarify QA procedures and 1.2 certification process increase data integrity of clarified; sample sample processing and processing and identification identification methods clarified This SOP explains procedures for processing and storing samples after field collection as well as identification of specimens. Procedures for storing reference specimens are also described. I. Preparing the Sample for Processing Processing procedures apply to all benthic samples. This is an important and time-consuming step. Particular care should be taken to ensure that samples are being processed thoroughly and efficiently. The purpose of sorting is to remove invertebrates from other material in the sample. Procedure: A. Sample processing begins by pouring the original field sample into a USGS standard sieve (500-µm) placed in a catch pan. The preservative that is drained from the sample should be placed back in the original sample container for eventual rehydration of remaining sample debris that is not sorted during the subsample procedure described below. B. Rinse the sample contents in the sieve with tap water to flush the residual preservative. Large debris material (>2 cm; i.e. leaves, sticks, rocks) should be removed by hand and rinsed into the sieve.
    [Show full text]
  • Distribution of Mayfly Species in North America List Compiled from Randolph, Robert Patrick
    Page 1 of 19 Distribution of mayfly species in North America List compiled from Randolph, Robert Patrick. 2002. Atlas and biogeographic review of the North American mayflies (Ephemeroptera). PhD Dissertation, Department of Entomology, Purdue University. 514 pages and information presented at Xerces Mayfly Festival, Moscow, Idaho June, 9-12 2005 Acanthametropodidae Ameletus ludens Needham Acanthametropus pecatonica (Burks) Canada—ON,NS,PQ. USA—IL,GA,SC,WI. USA—CT,IN,KY,ME,MO,NY,OH,PA,WV. Ameletus majusculus Zloty Analetris eximia Edmunds Canada—AB. Canada—AB ,SA. USA—MT,OR,WA. USA—UT,WY. Ameletus minimus Zloty & Harper USA—OR. Ameletidae Ameletus oregonenesis McDunnough Ameletus amador Mayo Canada—AB ,BC,SA. Canada—AB. USA—ID,MT,OR,UT. USA—CA,OR. Ameletus pritchardi Zloty Ameletus andersoni Mayo Canada—AB,BC. USA—OR,WA. Ameletus quadratus Zloty & Harper Ameletus bellulus Zloty USA—OR. Canada—AB. Ameletus shepherdi Traver USA—MT. Canada—BC. Ameletus browni McDunnough USA—CA,MT,OR. Canada—PQ Ameletus similior McDunnough USA—ME,PA,VT. Canada—AB,BC. Ameletus celer McDunnough USA—CO,ID,MT,OR,UT Canada—AB ,BC. Ameletus sparsatus McDunnough USA—CO,ID,MT,UT Canada—AB,BC,NWT. Ameletus cooki McDunnough USA—AZ,CO,ID,MT,NM,OR Canada—AB,BC. Ameletus subnotatus Eaton USA—CO,ID,MT,OR,WA. Canada—AB,BC,MB,NB,NF,ON,PQ. Ameletus cryptostimulus Carle USA—CO,UT,WY. USA—NC,NY,PA,SC,TN,VA,VT,WV. Ameletus suffusus McDunnough Ameletus dissitus Eaton Canada—AB,BC. USA—CA,OR. USA—ID,OR. Ameletus doddsianus Zloty Ameletus tarteri Burrows USA—AZ,CO,NM,NV,UT.
    [Show full text]
  • Wisconsin's Strategy for Wildlife Species of Greatest Conservation Need
    Prepared by Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources with Assistance from Conservation Partners Natural Resources Board Approved August 2005 U.S. Fish & Wildlife Acceptance September 2005 Wisconsin’s Strategy for Wildlife Species of Greatest Conservation Need Governor Jim Doyle Natural Resources Board Gerald M. O’Brien, Chair Howard D. Poulson, Vice-Chair Jonathan P Ela, Secretary Herbert F. Behnke Christine L. Thomas John W. Welter Stephen D. Willet Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources Scott Hassett, Secretary Laurie Osterndorf, Division Administrator, Land Paul DeLong, Division Administrator, Forestry Todd Ambs, Division Administrator, Water Amy Smith, Division Administrator, Enforcement and Science Recommended Citation: Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. 2005. Wisconsin's Strategy for Wildlife Species of Greatest Conservation Need. Madison, WI. “When one tugs at a single thing in nature, he finds it attached to the rest of the world.” – John Muir The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources provides equal opportunity in its employment, programs, services, and functions under an Affirmative Action Plan. If you have any questions, please write to Equal Opportunity Office, Department of Interior, Washington D.C. 20240. This publication can be made available in alternative formats (large print, Braille, audio-tape, etc.) upon request. Please contact the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Bureau of Endangered Resources, PO Box 7921, Madison, WI 53707 or call (608) 266-7012 for copies of this report. Pub-ER-641 2005
    [Show full text]
  • Freshwater Biological Traits Database, (Report Title) Supporting Document
    Center for Applied Bioassessment & Biocriteria Midwest Biodiversity Institute P.O. Box 21561 Columbus, OH 43221-0561 Temporal Change in Regional Reference Condition as a Potential Indicator of Global Climate Change: Analysis of the Ohio Regional Reference Condition Database (1980-2006) Final Project Report to: Tetratech, Inc. Center for Ecological Sciences 400 Red Brook Blvd. Suite 200 Owings Mills, MD 21117 Anna Hamilton, Project Manager April 15, 2009 MBI Technical Report MBI/2009-2-1 Edward T. Rankin, Senior Research Associate Voinovich Center for Leadership and Public Affairs The Ridges, Building 22 Ohio University Athens, OH 45701 and Chris O. Yoder, Research Director Center for Applied Bioassessment and Biocriteria Midwest Biodiversity Institute P.O. Box 21541 Columbus, OH 43221-0541 MBI Ohio Reference Condition Trends April 15, 2009 List of Tables Table 1. Summary of Ohio EPA regional reference site network including original sites (1980-89) and updates via first (1990-99) and second round resampling (2000-06) that were used in our data analyses .................................................................................................. Table 2. Mayfly taxa from reference sites in Ohio that abruptly appeared (Later) or disappeared (Earlier) in the Ohio dataset and explanation for change. .......................... Table 3. Sub-components of the Ohio QHEI which were used to score a Hydro-QHEI and current and depth sub-scores. .......................................................................................... Table 4. Average and range of years represented by original reference site data and re- sampled (latest) data by Index and stream size category (for fish).... ................................ Table 5. Original Ohio biocriteria (O), recalculated biocriteria (R) using similar sites, and new biocriteria (N) using the latest data from re-sampling of original reference sites.
    [Show full text]