DOCSLIB.ORG

Aquatic Macroinvertebrate Use of Rootmat Habitat Created By

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Aquatic Macroinvertebrate Use of Rootmat Habitat Created By AQUATIC MACROINVERTEBRATE USE OF ROOTMAT HABITAT CREATED BY EIGHT WOODY RIPARIAN SPECIES Thesis Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University by Sonia Nicole Bingham, B.A Environmental Science Graduate Program The Ohio State University 2009 Thesis Committee: Dr. Virginie Bouchard, Advisor Dr. Peter C. Smiley, Jr. Dr. Charles Goebel Copyright by: Sonia Nicole Bingham 2009 Abstract Rootmats are an instream habitat type created by fine roots of riparian vegetation that are exposed through natural erosion at the stream bank. Previous research indicated that rootmats may be important habitats for aquatic invertebrates and may have a distinct invertebrate composition compared to other instream habitat types. The objective of this study was to examine the invertebrate communities inhabiting rootmats of eight common woody riparian species in Cuyahoga Valley National Park, Ohio (CVNP). I collected 47 rootmat samples from pools across 10 CVNP streams. Coarse particulate organic matter, root morphology, and physiochemical variables were measured to characterize the local habitat at each location. Invertebrate community indices, multivariate techniques and univariate techniques were used to investigate the role of rootmats as habitat and determine whether any associations existed between invertebrate communities and eight woody riparian species. Additionally, invertebrate communities of rootmats were compared to adjacent riffles for eight sites. A total of 138 taxa were collected from rootmats across all woody species. Most (59%) of the taxa were gathering collectors and this suggests that fine particulate organic matter may be a dominant food source within or near rootmats. Additionally, 15% of the captures were predators, while scrapers, shredders and filtering collectors were present in ii similar proportions (8-9% each). Paratanytarsus dissimilis was the most abundant organism across the samples at nearly 250 organisms m-2. Other abundant taxa were Chironomidae (midges), Calopteryx maculata (damselfly), Caecidotea communis (isopod), Stenelmis sp. and Dubiraphia bivittata (riffle beetles). Invertebrate diversity, species composition and functional feeding guilds differed among certain tree species. Specifically, rootmats of two willow species (Salix interior and Salix nigra) were consistently similar to each other, and different from rootmats of Carpinus caroliniana, Fraxinus pennsylvanica, and Acer saccharum. Additionally, invertebrate species composition was different in adjacent rootmat and riffle habitats, but the habitats were similar in terms of diversity and abundance. iii Dedication This thesis is dedicated to those who have always believed in me, particularly my grandfather, Charles Gordon Moot, who had a strong influence on my interest in biology and motivation to pursue an advanced degree because of his belief that I could make a difference. iv Acknowledgements This research was supported by the National Research Initiative of the USDA CSREES, and was completed during my tenure as a SCEP employee for the Heartland Inventory and Monitoring Network within the National Park Service, which provided the opportunity to work within Cuyahoga Valley National Park with many exceptional and supportive colleagues. The members of my thesis committee (Virginie Bouchard, Charles Goebel and Rocky Smiley) provided invaluable insight and advice as necessary. My advisor, Virginie Bouchard, provided financial support that made it possible for me to focus on my academic and professional progress simultaneously. Rocky Smiley provided a tremendous amount of statistical advice. Many field & lab assistants (Rhonda Mendel, Joel Bingham, Pat Geraghty, Steven Wise, Amy Barrett, Matt Lane, Sarah Boley, Beth Wallace) pushed the project through very tedious phases and without their help, certain parts of the research may not have been possible. Additionally, the graduate students in the Aquatic Systems Ecology Lab at OSU provided guidance and advice. Dennis Taylor (Hiram College) graciously permitted my use of his field equipment, Ola Ahlqvist and Bob Gates (OSU) provided software assistance and support. I am also very grateful for the support and patience of my husband, Joel, who is also a willing partner in field work, and for the support of my beautiful family. Finally it is through the grace of God that I had the guidance, strength, and support of those listed, to achieve this goal. v Vita B.A. Biology, Hiram College ........................................................................................2000 EnviroScience, Inc., Aquatic & Wetland Biologist ...........................................1999 – 2006 Oxbow River & Stream Restoration, Inc., Aquatic & Wetland Biologist......... 2006 - 2007 Graduate Research and Teaching Assistant, The Ohio State University............. 2007-2009 National Park Service, Wetland Biologist .....................................................2007 – Present Fields of Study Major Field: Environmental Science Specializations: Wetland and stream ecology, floodplain restoration vi Table of Contents ABSTRACT........................................................................................................................II DEDICATION.................................................................................................................. IV ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS................................................................................................V VITA................................................................................................................................. VI LIST OF TABLES............................................................................................................ XI LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................................................XIII CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION........................................................................................1 CHAPTER 2: METHODS..................................................................................................8 2.1 SITE SELECTION.........................................................................................................8 2.2 FIELD SAMPLING .....................................................................................................13 2.2.1 Rootmat sampling ......................................................................................13 2.2.2 Stream measurements ................................................................................14 2.2.3 Riffle sampling...........................................................................................15 vii 2.3 SAMPLE PROCESSING...............................................................................................16 2.3.1 Root structure- ...........................................................................................16 2.3.2 Root biomass..............................................................................................16 2.3.3 Invertebrates...............................................................................................16 2.3.4 Coarse particulate organic matter ..............................................................17 2.3.5 Nutrient analysis ........................................................................................18 2.4 STATISTICAL ANALYSES..........................................................................................18 2.4.1 Research question 1 ...................................................................................18 2.4.2 Research question 2 ...................................................................................19 2.4.3 Research question 3 ...................................................................................21 2.4.4 Research question 4 ...................................................................................22 CHAPTER 3: RESULTS..................................................................................................24 3. 1RESEARCH QUESTION 1: ROOTMAT TAXA ..............................................................24 3.2 RESEARCH QUESTION 2: ASSOCIATION BETWEEN INVERTEBRATES AND SPECIFIC WOODY RIPARIAN SPECIES.............................................................................................26 3.2.1 Invertebrate community indices.................................................................26 3.2.2 Invertebrate species composition...............................................................28 3.2.3 Functional feeding guild composition .......................................................30 3.2.4 Associations between woody species and selected environmental variables viii ................................................................................................................................32 3.3 RESEARCH QUESTION 3: INFLUENCE OF ENVIRONMENTAL VARIABLES....................33 3.4 RESEARCH QUESTION 4: ROOTMAT HABITAT COMPARED TO RIFFLE HABITAT .........36 3.4.1 Invertebrate community indices.................................................................36 3.4.2 Invertebrate species composition...............................................................37 3.4.3 Functional feeding guild composition .......................................................38 CHAPTER 4: DISCUSSION............................................................................................40 REFERENCES ..................................................................................................................46
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]
  • Biological Assessment of the Patapsco River Tributary Watersheds, Howard County, Maryland
    Biological Assessment of the Patapsco River Tributary Watersheds, Howard County, Maryland Spring 2003 Index Period and Summary of Round One County- Wide Assessment Patuxtent River April, 2005 Final Report UT to Patuxtent River Biological Assessment of the Patapsco River Tributary Watersheds, Howard County, Maryland Spring 2003 Index Period and Summary of Round One County-wide Assessment Prepared for: Howard County, Maryland Department of Public Works Stormwater Management Division 6751 Columbia Gateway Dr., Ste. 514 Columbia, MD 21046-3143 Prepared by: Tetra Tech, Inc. 400 Red Brook Blvd., Ste. 200 Owings Mills, MD 21117 Acknowledgement The principal authors of this report are Kristen L. Pavlik and James B. Stribling, both of Tetra Tech. They were also assisted by Erik W. Leppo. This document reports results from three of the six subwatersheds sampled during the Spring Index Period of the third year of biomonitoring by the Howard County Stormwater Management Division. Fieldwork was conducted by Tetra Tech staff including Kristen Pavlik, Colin Hill, David Bressler, Jennifer Pitt, and Amanda Richardson. All laboratory sample processing was conducted by Carolina Gallardo, Shabaan Fundi, Curt Kleinsorg, Chad Bogues, Joey Rizzo, Elizabeth Yarborough, Jessica Garrish, Chris Hines, and Sara Waddell. Taxonomic identification was completed by Dr. R. Deedee Kathman and Todd Askegaard; Aquatic Resources Center (ARC). Hunt Loftin, Linda Shook, and Brenda Decker (Tetra Tech) assisted with budget tracking and clerical support. This work was completed under the Howard County Purchase Order L 5305 to Tetra Tech, Inc. The enthusiasm and interest of the staff in the Stormwater Management Division, including Howard Saltzman and Angela Morales is acknowledged and appreciated.
    [Show full text]
  • IDEM Macroinvertebrate Community Assessment Report
    OWQ/WAPB Macroinvertebrate Community Assessment MHAB Report Site Name EPA ID Macro Sample Type Sample # Macro Event # Sample Date County WMI-04-0008 14T-101 MHAB AB18398 140716305 7/16/14 Delaware Stream Name Location HUC 12 HUCTO14 Tributary of Campbell Creek CR 200 N 051201030401 05120103030010 Northing Easting Ecoregion Gradient Drainage Area QHEI Score 4453690.06 650196.08 55 12.468 3.524 59 Metric Taxon Count Notes HBI Type Value Tolerance Score 1084 (TURBELLARIA) 1 4 Total Taxa: 63 5 1552 (Tubificidae with bifid chetae 2 Total No. Individuals: 279 5 and no hair chetae) 1553 (Tubificidae with pectinate EPT Taxa: 11 5 1 chetae and hair chetae) % Orthocladiinae + 1234 (GLOSSIPHONIIDAE) 3 Tanytarsini of 42.37 3 2269 (Menetus) 3 Chironomidae: % Non-insects 2252 (Physella) 16 8 excluding Astacidae: 23.66 3 2181 (Sphaerium) 4 6 Diptera Taxa: 21 5 2157 (Musculium) 1 6 1083 (ACARI) 2 4 % Intolerant (0-3): 22.58 3 9050 (Hyalella) 33 % Tolerant (8-10): 7.53 5 9019 (Cambarus) 1 2 8996 (Orconectes) 5 4 % Predators FFG 1: 5.38 1 3066 (Baetis intercalaris) 4 3 % Shredders + 12.54 3 3071 (Baetis flavistriga) 6 Slide 0213.4 3 Scrapers FFG 1: 3081 (Callibaetis) 1 Slide 0213.3 6 % Collector-Filterers FFG 1: 13.62 3 3183 (Caenis) 4 3 3188 (Caenis latipennis) 1 % Sprawlers: 2.15 1 3189 (Caenis punctata) 3 3157 (Aeshna) 1 mIBI Metric Score: 42 1026 (COENAGRIONIDAE) 2 9 3546 (Enallagma) 2 9 3551 (Enallagma exsulans) 1 9095 (Argia fumipennis) 2 Supplemental Metrics 7201 (Trichocorixa calva) 1 4 7220 (Ranatra nigra) 1 4 HBI 4.44 7120 (Trepobates pictus)
    [Show full text]
  • Biotic Inventory and Analysis of the Kettle Moraine State Forest a Baseline Inventory and Analysis of Natural Communities, Rare Plants, and Animals
    Biotic Inventory and Analysis of the Kettle Moraine State Forest A Baseline Inventory and Analysis of Natural Communities, Rare Plants, and Animals June 2010 Natural Heritage Inventory Program Bureau of Endangered Resources Department of Natural Resources P.O. Box 7921 PUBL ER-821 2010 Kettle Moraine State Forest - 1 - Cover Photos (Clockwise from top left): Oak Woodland at Kettle Moraine Oak Opening SNA. Photo by Drew Feldkirchner, WDNR; prairie milkweed (Asclepias sullivantii). Photo by Ryan O’Connor, WDNR; Ephemeral Pond on the KMSF. Photo by Ryan O’Connor, WDNR; Northern Ribbon Snake (Thamnophis sauritus). Ohio DNR. Copies of this report can be obtained by writing to the Bureau of Endangered Resources at the address on the front cover. This publication is available in alternative format (large print, Braille, audio tape, etc) upon request. Please call (608-266-7012) for more information. 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. Kettle Moraine State Forest - 2 - Biotic Inventory and Analysis of the Kettle Moraine State Forest A Baseline Inventory and Analysis of Natural Communities, Rare Plants, and Animals Primary Authors: Terrell Hyde, Christina Isenring, Ryan O’Connor, Amy Staffen, Richard Staffen Natural Heritage Inventory Program Bureau of Endangered Resources Department of Natural Resources P.O.
    [Show full text]
  • Microsoft Outlook
    Joey Steil From: Leslie Jordan <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2018 1:13 PM To: Angela Ruberto Subject: Potential Environmental Beneficial Users of Surface Water in Your GSA Attachments: Paso Basin - County of San Luis Obispo Groundwater Sustainabilit_detail.xls; Field_Descriptions.xlsx; Freshwater_Species_Data_Sources.xls; FW_Paper_PLOSONE.pdf; FW_Paper_PLOSONE_S1.pdf; FW_Paper_PLOSONE_S2.pdf; FW_Paper_PLOSONE_S3.pdf; FW_Paper_PLOSONE_S4.pdf CALIFORNIA WATER | GROUNDWATER To: GSAs We write to provide a starting point for addressing environmental beneficial users of surface water, as required under the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA). SGMA seeks to achieve sustainability, which is defined as the absence of several undesirable results, including “depletions of interconnected surface water that have significant and unreasonable adverse impacts on beneficial users of surface water” (Water Code §10721). The Nature Conservancy (TNC) is a science-based, nonprofit organization with a mission to conserve the lands and waters on which all life depends. Like humans, plants and animals often rely on groundwater for survival, which is why TNC helped develop, and is now helping to implement, SGMA. Earlier this year, we launched the Groundwater Resource Hub, which is an online resource intended to help make it easier and cheaper to address environmental requirements under SGMA. As a first step in addressing when depletions might have an adverse impact, The Nature Conservancy recommends identifying the beneficial users of surface water, which include environmental users. This is a critical step, as it is impossible to define “significant and unreasonable adverse impacts” without knowing what is being impacted. To make this easy, we are providing this letter and the accompanying documents as the best available science on the freshwater species within the boundary of your groundwater sustainability agency (GSA).
    [Show full text]
  • 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]
  • Paleoenvironmental Analysis of a Late-Holocene Subfossil Coleopteran Fauna from Starks, Maine
    Colby College Digital Commons @ Colby Senior Scholar Papers Student Research 1990 Paleoenvironmental analysis of a late-holocene subfossil Coleopteran fauna from Starks, Maine Heather A. Hall Colby College Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.colby.edu/seniorscholars Part of the Geology Commons Colby College theses are protected by copyright. They may be viewed or downloaded from this site for the purposes of research and scholarship. Reproduction or distribution for commercial purposes is prohibited without written permission of the author. Recommended Citation Hall, Heather A., "Paleoenvironmental analysis of a late-holocene subfossil Coleopteran fauna from Starks, Maine" (1990). Senior Scholar Papers. Paper 110. https://digitalcommons.colby.edu/seniorscholars/110 This Senior Scholars Paper (Open Access) is brought to you for free and open access by the Student Research at Digital Commons @ Colby. It has been accepted for inclusion in Senior Scholar Papers by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons @ Colby. PALEOENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS OF A LATE-HOLOCENE SUBFOSSIL COLEOPrERAN FAUNA FROM STARKS, MAINE by Heather A Hall Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements of the Senior Scholars' Program COLBY COLLEGE 1990 APPROVED: /--- ~, ---~~:~~----------- TUTOR Robert E. Nelson -----~~--~---------------- CHAIR. DEPARTMENT' OF GEOWGY. Donald B. Allen -----~-~-~~~~-------------- READER Harold R Pestana -------------------------------------------~~ CHAJR. Diane F. Sadoff ABSTRACT The sandy River in central Maine Is flanked along much of its length by low terraces. Approximately 100 kg of sediment from one terrace in Starks. Somerset County, Maine was wet-sieved in the field. Over 1100 subfossll Coleoptera were recovered representing 53 individual species of a total of 99 taxa. Wood associated with the fauna is 2000 +/- 80 14C Yr in age (1-16,038).
    [Show full text]
  • Refinement of the Basin-Wide Index of Biotic Integrity for Non-Tidal Streams and Wadeable Rivers in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed
    Refinement of the Basin-Wide Index of Biotic Integrity for Non-Tidal Streams and Wadeable Rivers in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed APPENDICES Appendix A: Taxonomic Classification Appendix B: Taxonomic Attributes Appendix C: Taxonomic Standardization Appendix D: Rarefaction Appendix E: Biological Metric Descriptions Appendix F: Abiotic Parameters for Evaluating Stream Environment Appendix G: Stream Classification Appendix H: HUC12 Watershed Characteristics in Bioregions Appendix I: Index Methodologies Appendix J: Scoring Methodologies Appendix K: Index Performance, Accuracy, and Precision Appendix L: Narrative Ratings and Maps of Index Scores Appendix M: Potential Biases in the Regional Index Ratings Appendix Citations Appendix A: Taxonomic Classification All taxa reported in Chessie BIBI database were assigned the appropriate Phylum, Subphylum, Class, Subclass, Order, Suborder, Family, Subfamily, Tribe, and Genus when applicable. A portion of the taxa reported were reported under an invalid name according to the ITIS database. These taxa were subsequently changed to the taxonomic name deemed valid by ITIS. Table A-1. The taxonomic hierarchy of stream macroinvertebrate taxa included in the Chesapeake Bay non-tidal database.
    [Show full text]
  • Coleoptera: Insecta) of Saskatchewan
    1 CHECKLIST OF BEETLES (COLEOPTERA: INSECTA) OF SASKATCHEWAN R. R. Hooper1 and D. J. Larson2 1 – Royal Saskatchewan Museum, Regina, SK. Deceased. 2 – Box 56, Maple Creek, SK. S0N 1N0 Introduction A checklist of the beetles of Canada (Bousquet 1991) was published 20 years ago in order to provide a list of the species known from Canada and Alaska along with their correct names and a indication of their distribution by major political units (provinces, territories and state). A total of 7447 species and subspecies were recognized in this work. British Columbia and Ontario had the most diverse faunas, 3628 and 3843 taxa respectively, whereas Saskatchewan had a relatively poor fauna (1673 taxa) which was about two thirds that its neighbouring provinces (Alberta – 2464; Manitoba – 2351). This raises the question of whether the Canadian beetle fauna is distributed like a doughnut with a hole in the middle, or is there some other explanation. After assembling available literature records as well as the collection records available to us, we present a list of 2312 species (generally only single subspecies of a species are recognized in the province) suggesting that the Canadian distribution pattern of species is more like that of a Bismark, the dough may be a little thinner in the center but there is also a core of good things. This list was largely R. Hopper’s project. He collected Saskatchewan insects since at least the 1960’s and over the last decade before his death he had compiled a list of the species he had collected along with other records from the literature or given him by other collectors (Hooper 2001).
    [Show full text]
  • Protecting Headwaters: the SCIENTIFIC BASIS for SAFEGUARDING STREAM and RIVER ECOSYSTEMS
    Protecting Headwaters: THE SCIENTIFIC BASIS FOR SAFEGUARDING STREAM AND RIVER ECOSYSTEMS A Research Synthesis from the Stroud™ Water Research Center Small headwater streams like this one are the lifeblood of our streams and rivers. Protecting these headwaters is essential to preserving a healthy freshwater ecosystem and protecting our freshwater resources. About THE STROUD WATER RESEARCH CENTER The Stroud Water Research Center seeks to advance knowledge and stewardship of fresh water through research, education and global outreach and to help businesses, landowners, policy makers and individuals make informed decisions that affect water quality and availability around the world. The Stroud Water Research Center is an independent, 501(c)(3) not-for-profit organization. For more information go to www.stroudcenter.org. Sierra Club provided partial support for writing this white paper. Editing and executive summary by Matt Freeman. Contributors STROUD WATER RESEARCH CENTER SCIENTISTS AUTHORED PROTECTING HEADWATERS Louis A. Kaplan Senior Research Scientist Thomas L. Bott Vice President Senior Research Scientist John K. Jackson Senior Research Scientist J. Denis Newbold Research Scientist Bernard W. Sweeney Director President Senior Research Scientist For a downloadable, printer-ready copy of this document go to: http://www.stroudcenter.org/research/PDF/ProtectingHeadwaters.pdf. For a downloadable, printer-ready copy of the Executive Summary only, go to: http://www.stroudcenter.org/research/PDF/ProtectingHeadwaters_ExecSummary.pdf. 1 STROUD WATER RESEARCH CENTER | PROTECTING HEADWATERS Small headwater streams like this one are the lifeblood of our streams and rivers. Protecting these headwaters is essential to preserving a healthy freshwater ecosystem and protecting our freshwater resources. Executive Summary HEALTHY HEADWATERS ARE ESSENTIAL TO PRESERVE OUR FRESHWATER RESOURCES Scientific evidence clearly shows that healthy headwaters — tributary streams, intermittent streams, and spring seeps — are essential to the health of stream and river ecosystems.
    [Show full text]
  • A Checklist of the Aquatic Invertebrates of the Delaware River Basin, 1990-2000
    A Checklist of the Aquatic Invertebrates of the Delaware River Basin, 1990-2000 By Michael D. Bilger, Karen Riva-Murray, and Gretchen L. Wall Data Series 116 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey U.S. Department of the Interior Gale A. Norton, Secretary U.S. Geological Survey Charles G. Groat, Director U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia: 2005 For sale by U.S. Geological Survey, Information Services Box 25286, Denver Federal Center Denver, CO 80225 For more information about the USGS and its products: Telephone: 1-888-ASK-USGS World Wide Web: http://www.usgs.gov/ Any use of trade, product, or firm names in this publication is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government. Although this report is in the public domain, permission must be secured from the individual copyright owners to repro- duce any copyrighted materials contained within this report. Suggested citation: Bilger, M.D., Riva-Murray, Karen, and Wall, G.L., 2005, A checklist of the aquatic invertebrates of the Delaware River Basin, 1990-2000: U.S. Geological Survey Data Series 116, 29 p. iii FOREWORD The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) is committed to providing the Nation with accurate and timely sci- entific information that helps enhance and protect the overall quality of life and that facilitates effec- tive management of water, biological, energy, and mineral resources (http://www.usgs.gov/). Informa- tion on the quality of the Nation’s water resources is critical to assuring the long-term availability of water that is safe for drinking and recreation and suitable for industry, irrigation, and habitat for fish and wildlife.
    [Show full text]
  • Minesing Wetlands Biological Inventory
    Minesing Wetlands Biological Inventory February 2007 Prepared for: Friends of Minesing Wetlands Minesing Wetlands Biological Inventory & Nottawasaga Valley Conservation12/13/2007 Authority Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority MINESING WETLANDS BIOLOGICAL INVENTORY Prepared by ROBERT L. BOWLES, JOLENE LAVERTY and DAVID FEATHERSTONE February 2007 Prepared for Friends of Minesing Wetlands & Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority Minesing Wetlands Biological Inventory 12/13/2007 Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority FOREWARD The Minesing Wetlands Biological Inventory and Evaluation was conducted during 2005-2006 field season. Technical investigations were conducted within the Minesing Wetlands by Bowles Environmental Consultants and Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority (NVCA) for the NVCA Minesing Wetlands Management Plan and for Friends of Minesing Wetlands (FOMW). This report received technical review prior to its publication and does not necessarily signify that its contents reflect the views and policies of the Friends of Minesing Wetlands or their partners; nor does mention of trade names or commercial products constitute endorsement or recommendation for use. For additional copies of this report or information about NVCA or FOMW, please contact: Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority Centre for Conservation John Hix Conservation Administration Centre 8195 Concession Line 8 Utopia, Ontario L0M 1T0 Phone: (705) 424-1479 Fax: (705) 424-2115 www.nvca.on.ca Friends of Minesing Wetlands www.minesingswamp.ca Minesing Wetlands
    [Show full text]