DOCSLIB.ORG

Paiute Cutthroat Trout Restoration Project

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Paiute Cutthroat Trout Restoration Project PaiutePaiute CutthroatCutthroat TroutTrout RestorationRestoration Project Project Silver King Creek, Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest, Alpine County, California EPA No. FES 10-10 February 2010� Final ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT/� ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT� Prepared by Prepared for ENTRIX, Inc U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service California Department of Fish and Game SILVER KING CREEK HUMBOLDT-TOIYABE NATIONAL FOREST, ALPINE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Paiute Cutthroat Trout Restoration Project FEBRUARY 2010 Table of Contents CHAPTER 1 Executive Summary .............................................................................1-1 1.1 Background ......................................................................................................................1-2 1.2 Objective/Purpose and Need for action............................................................................1-2 1.3 Proposed Action...............................................................................................................1-3 1.4 Public Involvement Summary..................................................................................... 1-31-4 1.4.1 Agency Consultation and Coordination..............................................................1-7 1.4.2 Public Review of EIS/EIR...................................................................................1-9 1.4.3 Intended Uses of the EIS/EIR ............................................................................1-9 1.5 Alternatives Considered and Proposed Action ...............................................................1-10 1.6 Summary of Environmental Impacts...............................................................................1-10 1.7 Environmentally Superior Alternative .............................................................................1-11 1.8 Issues to be Resolved....................................................................................................1-11 1.9 Refere nces..............................................................................................................1-111-12 CHAPTER 2 Introduction ..........................................................................................2-1 2.1 History and Background...................................................................................................2-1 2.1.1 Conservation Planning.......................................................................................2-2 2.1.2 Past Restoration Efforts in Silver King Creek.....................................................2-2 2.2 Objective/Purpose and Need for Action ...........................................................................2-3 2.3 Proposed Action...............................................................................................................2-4 2.4 Permits and Approvals for the Project..............................................................................2-6 2.5 Environmental issues and Concerns................................................................................2-7 2.6 Document Structure ..................................................................................................2-92-10 2.7 Refere nces..............................................................................................................2-102-11 CHAPTER 3 Project Alternatives..............................................................................3-1 3.1 Alternatives Development ................................................................................................3-1 3.1.1 Public Health and Safety....................................................................................3-2 3.1.2 Speed of Implementation ...................................................................................3-2 3.1.3 Proven Effective in the Laboratory and Field .....................................................3-2 3.1.4 Technically Feasible to Implement.....................................................................3-2 3.1.5 Wilderness Considerations ................................................................................3-2 3.1.6 Potential for Environmental Impacts ..................................................................3-2 3.1.7 Cost-Effectiveness .............................................................................................3-3 3.2 Alternatives Considered in Detail for the EIS/EIR ............................................................3-3 3.2.1 Alternative 1: No Action .....................................................................................3-3 3.2.2 Alternative 2: Proposed Action/Preferred Alternative (Rotenone Application) ........................................................................................................3-3 3.2.3 Alternative 3: Combined Physical Removal .....................................................3-11 3.3 Mitigation Common to action Alternatives ...............................................................3-123-13 Silver King Creek Paiute Cutthroat Trout Restoration Project i Final EIS/EIR TABLE OF CONTENTS 3.4 Alternatives Considered But Dismissed .........................................................................3-13 3.4.1 Chemical Treatment..................................................................................3-133-14 3.4.2 Stream Dewatering ...................................................................................3-133-14 3.4.3 Fisheries Management Techniques ..........................................................3-133-14 3.4.4 Habitat Management/Alteration.................................................................3-133-14 3.4.5 Treatment of a Smaller Area............................................................................3-14 3.4.6 Chemical Application Combined with Other Approaches..........................3-143-15 3.4.7 Combined Non-Chemical Options.............................................................3-143-15 3.4.8 Alternative Locations.................................................................................3-143-15 3.4.9 Alternate Timeframe for Implementation..........................................................3-15 3.5 Preferred Alternative ......................................................................................................3-16 3.6 References..............................................................................................................3-153-16 CHAPTER 4 Scope of the Analysis ..........................................................................4-1 CHAPTER 5 Environmental Consequences ............................................................ 5-1 5.1 Aquatic Biological Resources........................................................................................5.1-1 5.1.1 Environmental Setting/Affected Environment..................................................5.1-1 5.1.2 Regulatory Environment .....................................................................5.1-275.1-28 5.1.3 Assessment Criteria and Methodology ...............................................5.1-305.1-31 5.1.4 Environmental Impact Assessment.....................................................5.1-325.1-33 5.1.5 References..........................................................................................5.1-515.1-53 5.2 Terrestrial Biological Resources....................................................................................5.2-1 5.2.1 Environmental Setting.....................................................................................5.2-1 5.2.2 Regulatory Setting ..................................................................................5.2-45.2-5 5.2.3 Assessment Criteria and Methodology ...........................................................5.2-6 5.2.4 Environmental Impact Assessment.................................................................5.2-7 5.2.5 References..........................................................................................5.2-165.2-18 5.3 Human and Ecological Health Concerns.......................................................................5.3-1 5.3.1 Affected Environment......................................................................................5.3-1 5.3.2 Regulatory Setting ..........................................................................................5.3-3 5.3.3 Assessment Criteria and Methodology ...........................................................5.3-7 5.3.4 Environmental Impact Assessment.................................................................5.3-8 5.3.5 References....................................................................................................5.3-13 5.4 Water resources............................................................................................................5.4-1 5.4.1 Affected Environment......................................................................................5.4-1 5.4.2 Regulatory Setting ..........................................................................................5.4-5 5.4.3 Assessment Criteria and Methodology .........................................................5.4-10 5.4.4 Environmental Impact Assessment...............................................................5.4-12 5.4.5 References..........................................................................................5.4-205.4-19 5.5 Greenhouse Gases and Climate Change......................................................................5.5-1 5.5.1 Environmental
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Center Comments to the California Department of Fish and Game
    July 24, 2006 Ryan Broderick, Director California Department of Fish and Game 1416 Ninth Street, 12th Floor Sacramento, CA 95814 RE: Improving efficiency of California’s fish hatchery system Dear Director Broderick: On behalf of the Pacific Rivers Council and Center for Biological Diversity, we are writing to express our concerns about the state’s fish hatchery and stocking system and to recommend needed changes that will ensure that the system does not negatively impact California’s native biological diversity. This letter is an update to our letter of August 31, 2005. With this letter, we are enclosing many of the scientific studies we relied on in developing this letter. Fish hatcheries and the stocking of fish into lakes and streams cause numerous measurable, significant environmental effects on California ecosystems. Based on these impacts, numerous policy changes are needed to ensure that the Department of Fish and Game’s (“DFG”) operation of the state’s hatchery and stocking program do not adversely affect California’s environment. Further, as currently operated, the state’s hatchery and stocking program do not comply with the California Environmental Quality Act, Administrative Procedures Act, California Endangered Species Act, and federal Endangered Species Act. The impacts to California’s environment, and needed policy changes to bring the state’s hatchery and stocking program into compliance with applicable state and federal laws, are described below. I. FISH STOCKING NEGATIVELY IMPACTS CALIFORNIA’S NATIVE SALMONIDS, INCLUDING THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES Introduced salmonids negatively impact native salmonids in a variety of ways. Moyle, et. al. (1996) notes that “Introduction of non-native fish species has also been the single biggest factor associated with fish declines in the Sierra Nevada.” Moyle also notes that introduced species are contributing to the decline of 18 species of native Sierra Nevada fish species, and are a major factor in the decline of eight of those species.
    [Show full text]
  • 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]
  • List of Animal Species with Ranks October 2017
    Washington Natural Heritage Program List of Animal Species with Ranks October 2017 The following list of animals known from Washington is complete for resident and transient vertebrates and several groups of invertebrates, including odonates, branchipods, tiger beetles, butterflies, gastropods, freshwater bivalves and bumble bees. Some species from other groups are included, especially where there are conservation concerns. Among these are the Palouse giant earthworm, a few moths and some of our mayflies and grasshoppers. Currently 857 vertebrate and 1,100 invertebrate taxa are included. Conservation status, in the form of range-wide, national and state ranks are assigned to each taxon. Information on species range and distribution, number of individuals, population trends and threats is collected into a ranking form, analyzed, and used to assign ranks. Ranks are updated periodically, as new information is collected. We welcome new information for any species on our list. Common Name Scientific Name Class Global Rank State Rank State Status Federal Status Northwestern Salamander Ambystoma gracile Amphibia G5 S5 Long-toed Salamander Ambystoma macrodactylum Amphibia G5 S5 Tiger Salamander Ambystoma tigrinum Amphibia G5 S3 Ensatina Ensatina eschscholtzii Amphibia G5 S5 Dunn's Salamander Plethodon dunni Amphibia G4 S3 C Larch Mountain Salamander Plethodon larselli Amphibia G3 S3 S Van Dyke's Salamander Plethodon vandykei Amphibia G3 S3 C Western Red-backed Salamander Plethodon vehiculum Amphibia G5 S5 Rough-skinned Newt Taricha granulosa
    [Show full text]
  • The Native Trouts of the Genus Salmo of Western North America
    CItiEt'SW XHPYTD: RSOTLAITYWUAS 4 Monograph of ha, TEMPI, AZ The Native Trouts of the Genus Salmo Of Western North America Robert J. Behnke "9! August 1979 z 141, ' 4,W \ " • ,1■\t 1,es. • . • • This_report was funded by USDA, Forest Service Fish and Wildlife Service , Bureau of Land Management FORE WARD This monograph was prepared by Dr. Robert J. Behnke under contract funded by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Bureau of Land Management, and the U.S. Forest Service. Region 2 of the Forest Service was assigned the lead in coordinating this effort for the Forest Service. Each agency assumed the responsibility for reproducing and distributing the monograph according to their needs. Appreciation is extended to the Bureau of Land Management, Denver Service Center, for assistance in publication. Mr. Richard Moore, Region 2, served as Forest Service Coordinator. Inquiries about this publication should be directed to the Regional Forester, 11177 West 8th Avenue, P.O. Box 25127, Lakewood, Colorado 80225. Rocky Mountain Region September, 1980 Inquiries about this publication should be directed to the Regional Forester, 11177 West 8th Avenue, P.O. Box 25127, Lakewood, Colorado 80225. it TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Preface ..................................................................................................................................................................... Introduction ..................................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Burrowing Mayflies of Our Larger Lakes and Streams
    BURROWING MAYFLIES OF OUR LARGER LAKES AND STREAMS By James G. Needham Professor of Limnology, Cornell University Blank page retained for pagination CONTENTS. Page. Introduction. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ...........•....•..•.•.........................•............... 269 Mississippi River collections :................ 271 Systematic account of the group ,.... .. .. .. 276 Hexagenia, the brown drakes.... .. .. .... 278 Pentagenia, the yellow drakes. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 282 Ephemera, the mackerels. .............................................................. 283 Polymitarcys, the trailers. .............................................................. 285 Euthyplocia, the flounders. ....................................................... ... 287 Potamanthus, the spinners... .. .. .. .. .. 287 Bibliography ,. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 288 Explanation of plates : .................... 290 110307°-21--18 2617 Blank page retained for pagination BULL. U. S. B. F ., 1917- 18 . P LATS LXX. F IG. 1. FIG. • . BURROWING MAYFLIES OF OUR LARGER LAKES AND STREAMS. By JAMES G. NnEDHAM, Professor of Limnology, Cornell University• .:f. INTRODUCTION. In the beds of all our larger lakes and streams there exists a vast animal popula­ tion, dependent, directly or indirectly, upon the rich organic food substances that are bestowed by gravity upon the bottom. Many fishes wander about over the bottom for­ aging. Many mollusks, heavily armored and slow, go pushing their way and leaving trails through the bottom sand and sediment. And many smaller :animals
    [Show full text]
  • Biology and Management of Threatened and Endangered Western Trouts
    Biology and Management of Threatened and Endangered Western Trouts August 1976 USDA Forest Service General Technical Report RM-28 Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station Forest Service U.S. Department of Agriculture Fort Collins, Colorado 80521 Abstract Behnke, R. J., and Mark Zarn. 1976. Biology and management of threatened and endangered western trouts. USDA For. Sew. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-28, 45 p. Rocky Mt. For. and Range Exp. Stn., Fort Collins, Colo. Discusses taxonomy, reasons for decline, life history and ecology, and sug- gestions for preservation and management of six closely related trouts native to western North America: Colorado River cutthroat, Salmo clarki pleuriticus; green- back trout, S. c. stomias; Lahontan cutthroat, S. c. henshawi; Paiute trout, S. c. seleniris; Gila trout, S. gilae; and Arizona native trout, S. apache. Meristic characters, distribution and status, habitat requirements and limiting factors, protective measures, and management recommendations are presented for each taxon. Keywords: Native trout, Salrno clarki pleuriticus. Sali?zo ckurki stoi~zius. Sulnzo clarki herzshawi, Salmo clarki seleniris, Salrno gilue. Sulrno uprrchc. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report RM-28 August 1976 Biology and Management of Threatened and Endangered Western Trouts R. J. Behnke Colorado State University Mark Zarn Conservation Library Denver Public Library Information reported here was prepared under contract by the Conservation Library of the Denver Public Library, through the Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. The report is printed as prepared by the authors; opinions are not necessarily those of the U.S. Forest Service. TABLE OF CONTENTS I . GJ3NERAL MANAGEMENT GUIDELINES FOR RAE3 AND ENDANGJIRED WESTERN TROUTS Introduction ..........................
    [Show full text]
  • Distribution, Abundance, and Genetic Population Structure of Wood River Sculpin, Cottus Leiopomus
    Western North American Naturalist Volume 68 Number 4 Article 10 12-31-2008 Distribution, abundance, and genetic population structure of Wood River sculpin, Cottus leiopomus Kevin A. Meyer Idaho Department of Fish and Game, Nampa, Idaho, [email protected] Daniel J. Schill Idaho Department of Fish and Game, Eagle, Idaho, [email protected] Matthew R. Campbell Idaho Department of Fish and Game, Eagle, Idaho, [email protected] Christine C. Kozfkay Idaho Department of Fish and Game, Eagle, Idaho, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/wnan Recommended Citation Meyer, Kevin A.; Schill, Daniel J.; Campbell, Matthew R.; and Kozfkay, Christine C. (2008) "Distribution, abundance, and genetic population structure of Wood River sculpin, Cottus leiopomus," Western North American Naturalist: Vol. 68 : No. 4 , Article 10. Available at: https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/wnan/vol68/iss4/10 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Western North American Naturalist Publications at BYU ScholarsArchive. It has been accepted for inclusion in Western North American Naturalist by an authorized editor of BYU ScholarsArchive. For more information, please contact [email protected], [email protected]. Western North American Naturalist 68(4), © 2008, pp. 508–520 DISTRIBUTION, ABUNDANCE, AND GENETIC POPULATION STRUCTURE OF WOOD RIVER SCULPIN, COTTUS LEIOPOMUS Kevin A. Meyer1,3, Daniel J. Schill1, Matthew R. Campbell2, and Christine C. Kozfkay2 ABSTRACT.—The Wood River sculpin Cottus leiopomus is endemic to the Wood River Basin in central Idaho and is a nongame species of concern because of its limited distribution. However, status and genetic population structure, 2 factors often central to the conservation and management of species of concern, have not been assessed for this species.
    [Show full text]
  • Aquatic Organism Passage (AOP) Assessment U.S. Forest Service
    Aquatic Organism Passage (AOP) Assessment U.S. Forest Service Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit FY 2010 By Richard Vacirca, LTBMU Forest Aquatic Biologist Contributors: Kendal Bell–Enders and Rosealea Bond, LTBMU Aquatic Field Crew; & Craig Oehrli, LTBMU Hydrologist Executive Summary Stream crossings by roads can pose serious threats to fishery ecosystems. The cumulative effect of culverts, fords, and other structures throughout a stream channel can significantly change the streams geomorphology and impair fish passage by blocking valuable spawning and rearing habitat. In the summer of 2010 the LTMBU evaluated 112 road/stream crossings. Of these, 61 had full assessments completed and 51 were partial assessments due to factors such as no flow, no structure, the crossing was a bridge, or the crossing was on a decommissioned road. Of the full assessments, 53 were on Forest Service system roads and 8 assessments were on CA and NV highways (Table1). Table 1: Total crossings inventory summary Assessment Type FS HWY Total Full Crossing Assessments 53 8 61 Partial Crossing Assessments 49 2 51 Inaccessible Sites 0 0 0 Total 102 10 112 FS = Crossings on Forest Service System roads HWY = Crossing is on CA/NV Highway or county road. Approximately 82% (50 of 61) of the full assessment on all road crossings do not meet the criteria for fish passage (RED), and are barriers for at least one life stage of salmonid or sculpin. Only 11% of the fully assessed crossings met the passage criteria (GREEN) to fish for both juvenile and adult salmonid life stages. The remaining 7% of fully assessed crossings were undetermined (GREY) for salmonid or sculpin and are candidates for further evaluation (Table 2).
    [Show full text]
  • Colorado River Cutthroat Trout (Oncorhynchus Clarkii Pleuriticus): a Technical Conservation Assessment
    Colorado River Cutthroat Trout (Oncorhynchus clarkii pleuriticus): A Technical Conservation Assessment Prepared for the USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region, Species Conservation Project October 10, 2008 Michael K. Young, Ph.D USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station 800 East Beckwith Avenue Missoula, Montana 59801 Peer Review Administered by American Fisheries Society 1 Young, M.K. (2008, October 10). Colorado River Cutthroat Trout (Oncorhynchus clarkii pleuriticus): a technical conservation assessment. [Online]. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/coloradorivercutthroattrout.pdf [date of access]. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I thank Todd Allison, Warren Colyer, Greg Eaglin, Noah Greenwald, Paula Guenther-Gloss, Christine Hirsch, Jessica Metcalf, Dirk Miller, Kevin Rogers, and Dennis Shiozawa for their comments on an earlier version of this manuscript. My thanks also to Claire McGrath, Bruce Rosenlund, and Dave Winters for their reviews of a similar manuscript on a related subspecies. I appreciate the assistance of Dennis Shiozawa, Brigham Young University; Bill Wengert, Wyoming Game and Fish Department; and Dan Brauch, Colorado Division of Wildlife, for sharing a number of unpublished reports. This work was funded by the Species Conservation Project for Region 2 and the Rocky Mountain Research Station, both part of the USDA Forest Service. AUTHOR’S BIOGRAPHY Michael Young has been a Research Fisheries Biologist with the USDA Forest Service Rocky Mountain Research Station since 1989. His work focuses on the ecology and conservation of native coldwater fishes and the effects of natural and anthropogenic disturbances on stream ecosystems. COVER ILLUSTRATION CREDIT Illustration of the Colorado River Cutthroat Trout (Oncorhynchus clarkii pleuriticus) by © Joseph Tomelleri.
    [Show full text]
  • What Is a Margined Sculpin?
    WDFW – WA State Status Report - The margined sculpin (Cottus marginatus) is physically distinguishable from the paiute sculpin (Cottus beldingi), the only other similar sculpin species within its range, by medial chin pores and anal fin rays. The margined sculpin has one chin pore and 14 to 17 anal rays while the paiute sculpin has two chin pores and 11 to 14 anal rays. ODFW – records of Reticulate, Prickly, and Piute sculpin in the Umatilla and Walla Walla basins. Paul Shearer = Distribution limited to Walla Walla and Umatilla Basins. Common where it occurs. Doug Markle – Fishes of OR = they are in there. Inland Fishes of WA = Found in pools and slow-moving glides in headwater tributaries. Adults found in deeper and faster water than juveniles. Found in habitats with small gravel and silt substrates. Umatilla and Walla Walla Basins – based on personal observation from District Fish Biologist, no known samples. Dots on the map are from OSU museum specimens McPhail and Lindsey 1986 – The margined sculpin is the only fish endemic to the mid-Columbia River basin. What about the Umatilla Dace? Carlin et al 2012 WDFW – State Candidate Species - Knowledge about sculpins in Washington is limited. However, based on available information it is know that margined sculpin are confined to an extremely small range worldwide and in Washington. Also, much of the stream habitat it dwells in is degraded with an uncertain future. Because of its small range and degraded habitat conditions it is vulnerable and likely to become threatened or endangered in a significant portion of its range without cooperative management.
    [Show full text]
  • The Larvae of the Madagascar Genus Cheirogenesia Demoulin (Ephemeroptera: Palingeniidae)
    PRIVATE LIBRARY Systematic Entomology (1976) 1, 189-194 OF WILLIAM L. PETERS The larvae of the Madagascar genus Cheirogenesia Demoulin (Ephemeroptera: Palingeniidae) W. P. McCAFFERTY AND GEORGE F. EDMUNDS, JR* Department of Entomology, Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana, and *Department of Biology, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah, U.S.A. Abstract generic larval characteristics of Eatonica, which were first presented by Demoulin (1968), are totally unlike Generic characteristics of the larval stage of Cheiro­ those of Fontaine's specimen. Furthermore, charac­ genesia Demoulin are described and illustrated in teristics of the then unknown larvae of Pseudeatonica detail for the first time. Fontainica josettae Spieth and Eatonigenia Ulmer, which were subse­ McCafferty is shown to be a junior synonym of quently described by McCafferty (1970 and 1973, Cheirogenesia decaryi (Navas) syn.n., and a specific respectively), have proven to be totally unlike those description of the larvae is given. Notes on the of Fontaine's larva. The relationships of Eatonica probable relationships of this Madagascar genus and and the latter groups are discussed briefly by on the biology and habitat of the larvae are included. Mccafferty (1971, 1973). More recent evolutionary studies by McCafferty (1972) and Edmunds (1972) have indicated that Pentagenia is very closely related to the Palingeniidae Introduction genera. Consequently, McCafferty (1972) suggested the possibility that Fontainica might indeed represent McCafferty (1968) described a new genus and species the unknown larval stage of the monotypic palin­ from Madagascar, Fontainica josettae McCafferty, geniid genus Cheirogenesia Demoulin from based on a larval specimen collected and reported on Madagascar, since the larvae of Pentagenia (and by Mme J.
    [Show full text]
  • SOP #: MDNR-WQMS-209 EFFECTIVE DATE: May 31, 2005
    MISSOURI DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES AIR AND LAND PROTECTION DIVISION ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES PROGRAM Standard Operating Procedures SOP #: MDNR-WQMS-209 EFFECTIVE DATE: May 31, 2005 SOP TITLE: Taxonomic Levels for Macroinvertebrate Identifications WRITTEN BY: Randy Sarver, WQMS, ESP APPROVED BY: Earl Pabst, Director, ESP SUMMARY OF REVISIONS: Changes to reflect new taxa and current taxonomy APPLICABILITY: Applies to Water Quality Monitoring Section personnel who perform community level surveys of aquatic macroinvertebrates in wadeable streams of Missouri . DISTRIBUTION: MoDNR Intranet ESP SOP Coordinator RECERTIFICATION RECORD: Date Reviewed Initials Page 1 of 30 MDNR-WQMS-209 Effective Date: 05/31/05 Page 2 of 30 1.0 GENERAL OVERVIEW 1.1 This Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) is designed to be used as a reference by biologists who analyze aquatic macroinvertebrate samples from Missouri. Its purpose is to establish consistent levels of taxonomic resolution among agency, academic and other biologists. The information in this SOP has been established by researching current taxonomic literature. It should assist an experienced aquatic biologist to identify organisms from aquatic surveys to a consistent and reliable level. The criteria used to set the level of taxonomy beyond the genus level are the systematic treatment of the genus by a professional taxonomist and the availability of a published key. 1.2 The consistency in macroinvertebrate identification allowed by this document is important regardless of whether one person is conducting an aquatic survey over a period of time or multiple investigators wish to compare results. It is especially important to provide guidance on the level of taxonomic identification when calculating metrics that depend upon the number of taxa.
    [Show full text]