DOCSLIB.ORG

Aquatic Macroinvertebrates Collected at Ravenna Army Ammunition Plant Portage and Trumbull Counties, Ohio, 1998

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Aquatic Macroinvertebrates Collected at Ravenna Army Ammunition Plant Portage and Trumbull Counties, Ohio, 1998 science for a changing world In cooperation with the Ohio Army National Guard Aquatic Macroinvertebrates Collected at Ravenna Army Ammunition Plant Portage and Trumbull Counties, Ohio, 1998 Water-Resources Investigations Report 99-4202 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey COVER: Pond succeeding to a wetland, Ravenna Army Ammunition Plant, Portage and Trumbull Counties, Ohio. (Photo provided by Ohio Army National Guard; photographer unknown.) U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey Aquatic Macro!nvertebrates Collected at Ravenna Army Ammunition Plant, Portage and Trumbull Counties, Ohio, 1998 By John S. Tertuliani Water-Resources Investigations Report 99-4202 In cooperation with the Ohio Army National Guard U.S. Department of the Interior Bruce Babbitt, Secretary U.S. Geological Survey Charles G. Groat, Director Any use of trade, product, or firm names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government. For additional information write to: District Chief U.S. Geological Survey 6480 Doubletree Avenue Columbus, OH 43229-1111 Copies of this report can be purchased from: U.S. Geological Survey Information Services Box 25286 Denver, CO 80225-0286 1999 CONTENTS Abstract .................................................................................. 1 Introduction ........................................................................ 1 Purpose and scope ....................................................................................................................................................... 3 Description of study area ............................................................................................................................................ 4 Previous studies .......................................................................................................................................................... 4 Acknowledgments ....................................................................................................................................................... 4 Methods of study .................................................................................................................................................................. 4 Aquatic macroinvertebrates collected at Ravenna Army Ammunition Plant....................................................................... 7 Field conditions and sampling results at Invertebrate Community Index (ICI) stations ............................................ 8 Station 1: South Fork Eagle Creek at North Perimeter Road ........................................................................... 8 Station 2: Sand Creek at George Road ............................................................................................................. 12 Station 3: Hinkley Creek at South Patrol Road ................................................................................................ 13 Comparisons between ICI stations, based on index metrics ....................................................................................... 14 Metric 1: Total number of taxa ......................................................................................................................... 14 Metric 2: Number of mayfly taxa ..................................................................................................................... 14 Metric 3: Number of caddisfly taxa .................................................................................................................. 14 Metric 4: Number of Diptera taxa .................................................................................................................... 14 Metric 5: Percent mayflies ................................................................................................................................ 14 Metric 6: Percent caddisflies ............................................................................................................................ 14 Metric 7: Percent Tanytarsini midges ............................................................................................................... 14 Metric 8: Percent other Diptera and non-insects .............................................................................................. 15 Metric 9: Percent tolerant organisms ................................................................................................................ 15 Metric 10: Qualitative EPT taxa ....................................................................................................................... 15 Qualitative samples ..................................................................................................................................................... 15 Summary and conclusions .................................................................................................................................................... 17 References cited ...............................................................................................................................................................^ 18 Appendix A Taxa lists ....................................................................................................................................................... 20 FIGURES 1. Map showing location of training areas and macroinvertebrate survey locations at Ravenna Army Ammunition Plant, Ravenna, Ohio, 1998 ........................................................................................ 2 2. Map showing drainage areas above Invertebrate Community Index (ICI) sampling stations, Ravenna Army Ammunition Plant, Ravenna, Ohio, 1998 ........................................................................................ 5 3-8. Photographs showing: 3. Station 1, South Fork Eagle Creek, view looking upstream ............................................................................ 9 4. Station 1, Hester-Dendy samplers at the end of the 6-week sampling period .................................................. 9 5. Station 2, Sand Creek, view looking downstream............................................................................................ 10 6. Station 2, Hester-Dendy samplers at the end of the 6-week sampling period .................................................. 10 7. Station 3, Hinkley Creek, view looking downstream ....................................................................................... 11 8. Station3, Hester-Dendy samplers at the end of the 6-week sampling period .................................................. 11 Contents iii TABLES 1. Community metrics of the Invertebrate Community Index (ICI) ............................................................................. 6 2. Field conditions during macroinvertebrate sampling for Invertebrate Community Index........................................ 8 3. Invertebrate Community Index values and scores for stations 1-3 .......................................................................... 12 4. Locations of Invertebrate Community Index stations and qualitative sites at Ravenna Army Ammunition Plan ............................................................................................................................. 16 A-1. Quantitative results of macroinvertebrate survey using Hester-Dendy samplers in streams .................................... 20 A-2. Qualitative results of macroinvertebrate survey with D-framed dipnet .................................................................... 22 CONVERSION FACTORS AND ABBREVIATED WATER-QUALITY UNITS Multiply By To obtain inch (in) 25.4 millimeter foot (ft) 0.3048 meter mile (mi) 1.609 kilometer millimeter (mm) 0.03937 inch micrometer (Jim) 0.00003937 inch square inch (in2) 6.452 square centimeter square foot (ft ) 0.09290 square meter acre 0.4047 hectare square mile (mi ) 2.590 square kilometer foot per second(ft/s) 0.3048 meter per second Temperature: Temperature is given in degrees Celsius (°C), which can be converted to degrees Fahrenheit (°F) by use of the following equation: °F=1.8(°C) + 32 Dissolved oxygen units used in this report: Dissolved oxygen concentrations in water are reported in milligrams per liter (mg/L). Milligrams per liter is a unit expressing the concentration of chemical constituents as weight (milligrams) of chemical per unit volume (liter) of water. Specific conductance units are reported in microsiemens per centimeter (jlS/cm) standardized at 25 degrees Celsius Other Abbreviations: EOLP: Erie-Ontario Lake Plain EPT: Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, Trichoptera HD: Hester-Dendy, a multiple-plate sampler representing 1 ft2 of artificial substrate ICI: Invertebrate Community Index ODNR: Ohio Department of Natural Resources OEPA: Ohio Environmental Protection Agency RVAAP: Ravenna Army Ammunition Plant iv Contents Aquatic Macroinvertebrates Collected at Ravenna Army Ammunition Plant, Portage and Trumbull Counties, Ohio, 1998 By John S. Tertuliani Abstract represented 38 distinct taxa. The density at Sand Creek was 246 per square foot and represented The results of a survey of macroinvertebrate com­ 29 distinct taxa. The density at Hinkley Creek munities in the Ravenna Army Ammunition was 864 per square foot and represented 36 dis­ Plant, were used as an indicator of disturbance in tinct taxa. streams flowing through or near the training areas Qualitative samples were also collected at at the Plant. The data were interpreted using the 21 other
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 Monitoring of Surface Waters in New York State, 2019
    NYSDEC SOP #208-19 Title: Stream Biomonitoring Rev: 1.2 Date: 03/29/19 Page 1 of 188 New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Division of Water Standard Operating Procedure: Biological Monitoring of Surface Waters in New York State March 2019 Note: Division of Water (DOW) SOP revisions from year 2016 forward will only capture the current year parties involved with drafting/revising/approving the SOP on the cover page. The dated signatures of those parties will be captured here as well. The historical log of all SOP updates and revisions (past & present) will immediately follow the cover page. NYSDEC SOP 208-19 Stream Biomonitoring Rev. 1.2 Date: 03/29/2019 Page 3 of 188 SOP #208 Update Log 1 Prepared/ Revision Revised by Approved by Number Date Summary of Changes DOW Staff Rose Ann Garry 7/25/2007 Alexander J. Smith Rose Ann Garry 11/25/2009 Alexander J. Smith Jason Fagel 1.0 3/29/2012 Alexander J. Smith Jason Fagel 2.0 4/18/2014 • Definition of a reference site clarified (Sect. 8.2.3) • WAVE results added as a factor Alexander J. Smith Jason Fagel 3.0 4/1/2016 in site selection (Sect. 8.2.2 & 8.2.6) • HMA details added (Sect. 8.10) • Nonsubstantive changes 2 • Disinfection procedures (Sect. 8) • Headwater (Sect. 9.4.1 & 10.2.7) assessment methods added • Benthic multiplate method added (Sect, 9.4.3) Brian Duffy Rose Ann Garry 1.0 5/01/2018 • Lake (Sect. 9.4.5 & Sect. 10.) assessment methods added • Detail on biological impairment sampling (Sect.
    [Show full text]
  • Invertebrate Prey Selectivity of Channel Catfish (Ictalurus Punctatus) in Western South Dakota Prairie Streams Erin D
    South Dakota State University Open PRAIRIE: Open Public Research Access Institutional Repository and Information Exchange Electronic Theses and Dissertations 2017 Invertebrate Prey Selectivity of Channel Catfish (Ictalurus punctatus) in Western South Dakota Prairie Streams Erin D. Peterson South Dakota State University Follow this and additional works at: https://openprairie.sdstate.edu/etd Part of the Aquaculture and Fisheries Commons, and the Terrestrial and Aquatic Ecology Commons Recommended Citation Peterson, Erin D., "Invertebrate Prey Selectivity of Channel Catfish (Ictalurus punctatus) in Western South Dakota Prairie Streams" (2017). Electronic Theses and Dissertations. 1677. https://openprairie.sdstate.edu/etd/1677 This Thesis - Open Access is brought to you for free and open access by Open PRAIRIE: Open Public Research Access Institutional Repository and Information Exchange. It has been accepted for inclusion in Electronic Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of Open PRAIRIE: Open Public Research Access Institutional Repository and Information Exchange. For more information, please contact [email protected]. INVERTEBRATE PREY SELECTIVITY OF CHANNEL CATFISH (ICTALURUS PUNCTATUS) IN WESTERN SOUTH DAKOTA PRAIRIE STREAMS BY ERIN D. PETERSON A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the degree for the Master of Science Major in Wildlife and Fisheries Sciences South Dakota State University 2017 iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS South Dakota Game, Fish & Parks provided funding for this project. Oak Lake Field Station and the Department of Natural Resource Management at South Dakota State University provided lab space. My sincerest thanks to my advisor, Dr. Nels H. Troelstrup, Jr., for all of the guidance and support he has provided over the past three years and for taking a chance on me.
    [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]
  • Resource Partitioning by Two Species of Stream Mayflies (Ephemeroptera: Heptageniidae)
    The Great Lakes Entomologist Volume 14 Number 3 - Fall 1981 Number 3 - Fall 1981 Article 5 October 1981 Resource Partitioning by Two Species of Stream Mayflies (Ephemeroptera: Heptageniidae) William O. Lamp Illinois Natural History Survey N. Wilson Britt Ohio State University Follow this and additional works at: https://scholar.valpo.edu/tgle Part of the Entomology Commons Recommended Citation Lamp, William O. and Britt, N. Wilson 1981. "Resource Partitioning by Two Species of Stream Mayflies (Ephemeroptera: Heptageniidae)," The Great Lakes Entomologist, vol 14 (3) Available at: https://scholar.valpo.edu/tgle/vol14/iss3/5 This Peer-Review Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Department of Biology at ValpoScholar. It has been accepted for inclusion in The Great Lakes Entomologist by an authorized administrator of ValpoScholar. For more information, please contact a ValpoScholar staff member at [email protected]. Lamp and Britt: Resource Partitioning by Two Species of Stream Mayflies (Ephemero 1981 THE GREAT LAKES ENTOMOLOGIST 151 RESOURCE PARTITIONING BY TWO SPECIES QF STREAM MAYFLIES (EPHEMEROPTERA: HEPTAGENIIDAE) William O. Lampl and N. Wilson Britt2 ABSTRACT We compared the phenology of nymph development, food type, and habitat selection of two stream mayflies, Stenacron interpunctatum (Say) and Stenonema pulchellum (Walsh) in Big Darby Creek, Ohio. Both species, which grow principally from autumn through early spring, emerged from the stream throughout the summer. The nymphs consumed the same sizes and types of food particles from deposits on stones, mostly in the form of detritus. As a result of morphological and behavioral adaptations, S. pulchellum lived on stones in swift water whereas S.
    [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]
  • Reference Conditions for Streams in the Grand Prairie Natural Division of Illinois
    REFERENCE CONDITIONS FOR STREAMS IN THE GRAND PRAIRIE NATURAL DIVISION OF ILLINOIS BY BRANDI SANGUNETT B.S., Southern Illinois University at Carbondale, 2000 B.A., Southern Illinois University at Carbondale, 2000 THESIS Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Masters of Science in Natural Resources and Environmental Sciences in the Graduate College of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 2005 Urbana, Illinois © 2005 by Brandi Sangunett. All rights reserved. Abstract As part of the Critical Trends Assessment Program (CTAP) of the Illinois Department of Natural Resources, 18 potential reference quality stream reaches in the Grand Prairie Natural Division were evaluated in May 2004 and 2005. This agriculturally dominated region, located in east central Illinois, is among the most highly modified in the state. Illinois Environmental Protection Agency high quality fish stations, Illinois Natural History Survey insect collection data, and best professional knowledge were used to choose which streams to evaluate. The quality of these sites was assessed using the species richness of Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, and Trichoptera insect orders (EPT), a modified Hilsenhoff Biotic Index (HBI), and a 12 parameter Habitat Quality Index (HQI). Reference quality streams were compared to 21 randomly selected meandering and 30 randomly selected channelized streams which were assessed by the Critical Trends Assessment Program between 1997 and 2001. The results from this research indicate that reference streams were consistently of higher quality than random streams, and are representative of the biotic potential of the Grand Prairie. A GLM ANOVA showed that both channel alteration and stream size were significant factors governing stream quality.
    [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]
  • 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]
  • Cover Ent117-5
    Volume 118, Number 5, November and December 2007 517 SCIENTIFIC NOTE NEW ADDITIONS TO THE INVENTORY OF COLORADO MAYFLIES (EPHEMEROPTERA) AND CADDISFLIES (TRICHOPTERA)1 L. W. Myers2 and R. E. Younghanz2 There are currently 102 species of mayflies (McCafferty et al., 1993, Durfee and Kondratieff 1994, Durfee and Kondratieff 1997) and 198 species of caddis- flies (Herrmann et al., 1986, Ruiter 1990, Ruiter 1999) known from Colorado. In this paper, we report one new species record of mayfly Stenacron interpuncta- tum (Say) and one new species record of caddisfly Brachycentrus numerosus (Say) for the state. Both species were collected from the North Fork Republican River in Wray, Colorado, near the Kansas border. These collections extend the range westward for these two common, primarily eastern North American spec- ies (McCafferty and Huff 1978, Flint 1984). Stenacron interpunctatum is known to occur throughout Nebraska and Kansas (McCafferty et al., 2001). Likewise, B. numerosus is known from the central Nebraska counties of Brown and Thomas (unpublished data, C. P. Gillette Museum of Arthropod Diversity, Colo- rado State University), as well as from southwestern Kansas (Hamilton et al., 1983). These recent collections provide further evidence of the western dispersal of numerous aquatic insects via the Missouri River tributaries of eastern Colorado (Kondratieff and Ward 1987, Evans 1988, Zuellig et al., 2006). Further study is needed to determine where the two species occur in other suitable habi- tats of eastern Colorado in the South Platte and Arkansas River basins. The pres- ence of both S. interpunctatum and B. numerosus in southwestern Kansas sug- gests their possible occurrence in the Arkansas River basin near the Kansas- Colorado border.
    [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]