DOCSLIB.ORG

Alternative Restoration Plan for the Fishing Creek Watershed

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Alternative Restoration Plan for the Fishing Creek Watershed FISHING CREEK WATERSHED ALTERNATIVE RESTORATION PLAN Lancaster County, Pennsylvania Prepared by: September 2019 TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .......................................................................................................................................................... 5 INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................................................................... 6 THREATENED AND RARE SPECIES ........................................................................................................................... 7 CLASSIFICATION AND POLLUTION STATUS ............................................................................................................. 8 TABLE 1. INTEGRATED WATER QUALITY MONITORING AND ASSESSMENT REPORT LISTED SEGMENTS SUMMARY ................................................................................................................................................................. 8 BASIC STEPS FOR DETERMINING AN ARP ............................................................................................................................ 9 ARP ELEMENTS: AL = UF + SL ................................................................................................................................................ 9 FUTURE MODIFICATIONS ................................................................................................................................................... 10 ARP APPROACH ................................................................................................................................................................... 10 SELECTION OF THE REFERENCE WATERSHED ................................................................................................................... 10 TABLE 2. COMPARISON OF THE FISHING CREEK WATERSHED AND MARSH CREEK WATERSHED.................... 11 Figure 1. Fishing Creek Watershed (left side/impaired) and Marsh Creek Watershed (right side/reference), not to scale. ....................................................................................................................................................... 12 HYDROLOGIC / WATER QUALITY MODELING .................................................................................................................... 12 WATERSHED ASSESSMENT AND MODELING ..................................................................................................................... 13 Figure 2. Unstable streambanks and cattle with free access to the stream in the Fishing Creek Watershed ........................................................................................................................................................................... 15 TABLE 3. EXISTING SEDIMENT LOADING VALUES FOR FISHING CREEK, IMPAIRED.......................................... 16 TABLE 4. EXISTING SEDIMENT VALUES FOR MARSH CREEK, REFERENCE ........................................................ 16 DEVELOPMENT OF ARP ....................................................................................................................................................... 17 TABLE 5. AL VALUES FOR THE FISHING CREEK WATERSHED ........................................................................... 17 UNCERTAINTY FACTOR ....................................................................................................................................................... 18 SOURCE LOAD ..................................................................................................................................................................... 18 LOADS NOT REDUCED AND ADJUSTED SOURCE LOAD ..................................................................................................... 18 TABLE 6. SL, LNR AND ASL ................................................................................................................................. 19 ARP SUMMARY .................................................................................................................................................................... 19 TABLE 7. AL COMPONENTS FOR THE FISHING CREEK WATERSHED ................................................................. 20 CALCULATION OF LOAD REDUCTIONS NEEDED ................................................................................................................ 20 TABLE 8. SEDIMENT REDUCTIONS NEEDED FROM SOURCES IN THE FISHING CREEK WATERSHED, ANNUAL VALUES ................................................................................................................................................................... 21 CRITICAL CONDITIONS ........................................................................................................................................................ 21 SEASONAL VARIATIONS ...................................................................................................................................................... 21 BACKGROUND CONTRIBUTIONS ........................................................................................................................................ 22 PHASED RESTORATION MILESTONES ................................................................................................................................. 22 Figure 3. Project partners in watershed restoration at a stream stabilization site in Fishing Creek. ............. 24 Figure 4. Stream Restoration Design. This has been successfully constructed. ............................................... 25 Figure 5. Unstable streambanks carving through legacy sediments pre-construction. Before photo ........... 26 Figure 6. Stabilized streambanks post-treatment at the same site. After photo ............................................ 26 TABLE 9. PHASED SEDIMENT LOAD REDUCTIONS ............................................................................................... 27 ECOLOGICAL MONITORING ................................................................................................................................................ 27 Figure 7. Macroinvertebrate and habitat assessment results in the Fishing Creek Watershed pre-BMP implementation. ................................................................................................................................................ 28 RECOMMENDATIONS ......................................................................................................................................................... 28 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION ....................................................................................................................................................... 29 ATTACHMENT A .................................................................................................................................................................. 30 MAPS ...................................................................................................................................................................... 30 Figure A1. Fishing Creek Watershed Impairments and ARP Zone ...................................................................... 31 Figure A2. Fishing Creek Watershed Designated Uses and ARP Zone ................................................................ 32 Figure A3. Marsh Creek Watershed, Reference for ARP ..................................................................................... 33 ATTACHMENT B ................................................................................................................................................................... 34 EQUAL MARGINAL PERCENT REDUCTION METHOD ............................................................................................ 34 TABLE B1. SEDIMENT EQUAL MARGINAL PERCENT REDUCTION CALCULATIONS FOR THE FISHING CREEK WATERSHED ........................................................................................................................................................... 36 ATTACHMENT C ................................................................................................................................................................... 37 STREAM RESTORATION PROJECTS AND BMPS .................................................................................................... 37 FIGURE C1. STREAM RESTORATION DESIGN. CONSTRUCTION WAS SUCCESSFULLY COMPLETED. .................. 38 FIGURE C2. STREAM RESTORATION DESIGN. CONSTRUCTION WAS SUCCESSFULLY COMPLETED. DRONE VIDEO OF CONSTRUCTION CAN BE FOUND AT THIS LINK: HTTPS://WWW.YOUTUBE.COM/WATCH?V=YBE90H62KJM&FEATURE=YOUTU.BE ................................................. 39 FIGURE C3. FUTURE STREAM RESTORATION DESIGN. CONSTRUCTION IN LATE 2019. ..................................... 40 TABLE C4. WATERSHED BMPS MODELED INTO PHASES 1 AND 2. ...................................................................... 41 ATTACHMENT D .................................................................................................................................................................. 42 PENNSYLVANIA INTEGRATED WATER QUALITY MONITORING AND ASSESSMENT REPORT - STREAMS, CATEGORY 5 WATERBODIES ................................................................................................................................. 42 TABLE D1. FISHING CREEK WATERSHED LIST OF IMPAIRED STREAM SEGMENTS ..........................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Endangered Species
    FEATURE: ENDANGERED SPECIES Conservation Status of Imperiled North American Freshwater and Diadromous Fishes ABSTRACT: This is the third compilation of imperiled (i.e., endangered, threatened, vulnerable) plus extinct freshwater and diadromous fishes of North America prepared by the American Fisheries Society’s Endangered Species Committee. Since the last revision in 1989, imperilment of inland fishes has increased substantially. This list includes 700 extant taxa representing 133 genera and 36 families, a 92% increase over the 364 listed in 1989. The increase reflects the addition of distinct populations, previously non-imperiled fishes, and recently described or discovered taxa. Approximately 39% of described fish species of the continent are imperiled. There are 230 vulnerable, 190 threatened, and 280 endangered extant taxa, and 61 taxa presumed extinct or extirpated from nature. Of those that were imperiled in 1989, most (89%) are the same or worse in conservation status; only 6% have improved in status, and 5% were delisted for various reasons. Habitat degradation and nonindigenous species are the main threats to at-risk fishes, many of which are restricted to small ranges. Documenting the diversity and status of rare fishes is a critical step in identifying and implementing appropriate actions necessary for their protection and management. Howard L. Jelks, Frank McCormick, Stephen J. Walsh, Joseph S. Nelson, Noel M. Burkhead, Steven P. Platania, Salvador Contreras-Balderas, Brady A. Porter, Edmundo Díaz-Pardo, Claude B. Renaud, Dean A. Hendrickson, Juan Jacobo Schmitter-Soto, John Lyons, Eric B. Taylor, and Nicholas E. Mandrak, Melvin L. Warren, Jr. Jelks, Walsh, and Burkhead are research McCormick is a biologist with the biologists with the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • 2015-2025 Pennsylvania Wildlife Action Plan
    2 0 1 5 – 2 0 2 5 Species Assessments Appendix 1.1A – Birds A Comprehensive Status Assessment of Pennsylvania’s Avifauna for Application to the State Wildlife Action Plan Update 2015 (Jason Hill, PhD) Assessment of eBird data for the importance of Pennsylvania as a bird migratory corridor (Andy Wilson, PhD) Appendix 1.1B – Mammals A Comprehensive Status Assessment of Pennsylvania’s Mammals, Utilizing NatureServe Ranking Methodology and Rank Calculator Version 3.1 for Application to the State Wildlife Action Plan Update 2015 (Charlie Eichelberger and Joe Wisgo) Appendix 1.1C – Reptiles and Amphibians A Revision of the State Conservation Ranks of Pennsylvania’s Herpetofauna Appendix 1.1D – Fishes A Revision of the State Conservation Ranks of Pennsylvania’s Fishes Appendix 1.1E – Invertebrates Invertebrate Assessment for the 2015 Pennsylvania Wildlife Action Plan Revision 2015-2025 Pennsylvania Wildlife Action Plan Appendix 1.1A - Birds A Comprehensive Status Assessment of Pennsylvania’s Avifauna for Application to the State Wildlife Action Plan Update 2015 Jason M. Hill, PhD. Table of Contents Assessment ............................................................................................................................................. 3 Data Sources ....................................................................................................................................... 3 Species Selection ................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • The 2020 Technical Meeting Aquatic Resource Restoration
    Presents The 2020 Technical Meeting Aquatic Resource Restoration February 6 – 7, 2020 Juniata College Ellis Hall, Ballroom Huntingdon, PA Schedule Thursday February 6th, 2020 Ellis Hall Ballroom Time Activity 7:30 – 8:00 Light breakfast, coffee, check-in and registration open until 1:30, poster set up 8:15 Welcome and introductions: Greg Moyer PLENARY: Dr. Jay Stauffer, Penn State University, Aquatic Resources Restoration Case 8:30 Histories: Schistosomiasis in Malaŵi; Chesapeake Logperch in Susquehanna River MORNING TECHNICAL SESSION: SPECIES DETECTION, MONITORING, AND STRESSORS 9:15 Moyer et al., Identification of Moxostoma in the Susquehanna River, via DNA barcoding 9:35 **Smith et al., Rusty Crayfish in the Juniata River watershed 9:55 **Kim et al., Standardizing Methods for environmental DNA (eDNA) sampling in stream water 10:15 Yergin et al., First report of three freshwater sponges in Western Pennsylvania (Ohio River) 10:35 BREAK (refreshments provided) 10:50 Blakeslee and Galbraith, Experimental investigation into the thermal biology of American eel 11:10 Wertz, Thermal Fish Index – A tool for monitoring and assessing fish communities **Massie et al., Do lake-specific characteristics mediate the temporal relationship between 11:30 Walleye growth and warming water temperatures? 11:50 Lunch (provided) AFTERNOON TECHNICAL SESSION: STRESSORS (CONT.) AND RESTORATION **McClure et al., Maternal sourcing of contaminants from ovary to juvenile Smallmouth Bass in 1:30 the Chesapeake Bay Watershed 1:50 **Parks et al., Diet analysis of Smallmouth Bass in the Susquehanna River **Jeffers et el., Comparative analysis of oxytetracyline levels in farm-raised and wild Brook 2:10 Trout 2:30 **Letourneau et al., Digital vs.
    [Show full text]
  • Biological Condition Gradient (BCG) Attribute Assignments for Macroinvertebrates and Fish in the Mid-Atlantic Region (Virginia, West Virginia, and Maryland)
    Mid-Atlantic Biological Condition Gradient Attributes Final Report Biological Condition Gradient (BCG) Attribute Assignments for Macroinvertebrates and Fish in the Mid-Atlantic Region (Virginia, West Virginia, and Maryland) Prepared for Jason Hill and Larry Willis VDEQ Susan Jackson USEPA Prepared by Ben Jessup, Jen Stamp, Michael Paul, and Erik Leppo Tetra Tech Final Report August 5, 2019 Mid-Atlantic BCG Attributes Final Report; August 5, 2019 Executive Summary Macroinvertebrates and fish have varying levels of sensitivity to pollution based on their taxa specific adaptations and the magnitude, frequency, and type of stressors. Environmental conditions influence the structure of lotic communities in the Mid-Atlantic. The Biological Condition Gradient is a conceptual model that describes the condition of waterbodies relative to well-defined levels of condition that are known to vary with levels of disturbance based on the pollution tolerances of aquatic organisms. In biological assessment programs, the tolerance characteristics of the aquatic organisms are part of the determination of overall stream health. This study represents the first phase of statewide BCG development in Virginia by assigning tolerance attributes to many common macroinvertebrates and fish in the Mid-Atlantic. BCG tolerance attributes reflect taxa sensitivity to stream conditions. The attributes (I – X) represent commonness, rarity, regional specialization, tolerance to disturbance, organism condition, ecosystem function and connectivity (Table 1, Appendix A). Attributes I – VI are related to tolerance to disturbance. These are used in BCG models to describe aspects of the community relative to disturbance (Table 2). Attributes I, VI, and X can be assigned to taxa to describe the natural biological condition of a waterbody.
    [Show full text]
  • Conservation Status of Imperiled North American Freshwater And
    FEATURE: ENDANGERED SPECIES Conservation Status of Imperiled North American Freshwater and Diadromous Fishes ABSTRACT: This is the third compilation of imperiled (i.e., endangered, threatened, vulnerable) plus extinct freshwater and diadromous fishes of North America prepared by the American Fisheries Society’s Endangered Species Committee. Since the last revision in 1989, imperilment of inland fishes has increased substantially. This list includes 700 extant taxa representing 133 genera and 36 families, a 92% increase over the 364 listed in 1989. The increase reflects the addition of distinct populations, previously non-imperiled fishes, and recently described or discovered taxa. Approximately 39% of described fish species of the continent are imperiled. There are 230 vulnerable, 190 threatened, and 280 endangered extant taxa, and 61 taxa presumed extinct or extirpated from nature. Of those that were imperiled in 1989, most (89%) are the same or worse in conservation status; only 6% have improved in status, and 5% were delisted for various reasons. Habitat degradation and nonindigenous species are the main threats to at-risk fishes, many of which are restricted to small ranges. Documenting the diversity and status of rare fishes is a critical step in identifying and implementing appropriate actions necessary for their protection and management. Howard L. Jelks, Frank McCormick, Stephen J. Walsh, Joseph S. Nelson, Noel M. Burkhead, Steven P. Platania, Salvador Contreras-Balderas, Brady A. Porter, Edmundo Díaz-Pardo, Claude B. Renaud, Dean A. Hendrickson, Juan Jacobo Schmitter-Soto, John Lyons, Eric B. Taylor, and Nicholas E. Mandrak, Melvin L. Warren, Jr. Jelks, Walsh, and Burkhead are research McCormick is a biologist with the biologists with the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Susquehanna River Basin Commission
    Susquehanna River Basin Commission Lower Susquehanna River Publication 288 Subbasin Year-2 October 2013 Focused Watershed Study A Water Quality and Biological Assessment of the Lower Reservoirs of the Susquehanna River Report by Luanne Steffy Aquatic Ecologist SRBC • 4423 N. Front St. • Harrisburg, PA 17110 • 717-238-0423 • 717-238-2436 Fax • www.srbc.net 1 Introduction The Susquehanna River Basin Commission (SRBC) completed a water quality and biological assessment in the lower reservoirs of the Susquehanna River from April-October 2012, as part of the Lower Susquehanna Subbasin Survey Year-2 project (Figure 1). This project was an exploratory pilot study representing the first focused, extensive monitoring effort by SRBC on this portion of the river. The lower reservoirs are located in the final 45 miles of the Susquehanna River before its confluence with the Chesapeake Bay. Three large hydroelectric dam facilities within this reach of river create the three main reservoirs. The objectives of this project were to assess current chemical and biological conditions within the reservoirs while also exploring a variety of assessment methodologies with which to incorporate routine monitoring of the reservoirs into SRBC’s on-going monitoring program. The Subbasin Survey Program is one of SRBC’s longest standing monitoring programs, ongoing since the mid-1980s, and is funded by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). This program consists of two-year assessments in each of the six major subbasins of the Susquehanna River Basin Figure 1. Location of the Lower Reservoir Section of the on a rotating basis. The Year-1 studies involve broad-brush, one- Susquehanna River within the Susquehanna River Basin time sampling efforts of about 100 stream sites to assess water quality, macroinvertebrate communities, and physical habitat three reservoirs serve as drinking water supplies and are also throughout an entire subbasin.
    [Show full text]
  • Technical Reports Are Outcroppings and Small Islands
    Susquehanna River Basin Commission Lower Susquehanna River Publication 288 Subbasin Year-2 October 2013 Focused Watershed Study A Water Quality and Biological Assessment of the Lower Reservoirs of the Susquehanna River Report by Luanne Steffy Aquatic Ecologist SRBC • 4423 N. Front St. • Harrisburg, PA 17110 • 717-238-0423 • 717-238-2436 Fax • www.srbc.net 1 Introduction The Susquehanna River Basin Commission (SRBC) completed a water quality and biological assessment in the lower reservoirs of the Susquehanna River from April-October 2012, as part of the Lower Susquehanna Subbasin Survey Year-2 project (Figure 1). This project was an exploratory pilot study representing the first focused, extensive monitoring effort by SRBC on this portion of the river. The lower reservoirs are located in the final 45 miles of the Susquehanna River before its confluence with the Chesapeake Bay. Three large hydroelectric dam facilities within this reach of river create the three main reservoirs. The objectives of this project were to assess current chemical and biological conditions within the reservoirs while also exploring a variety of assessment methodologies with which to incorporate routine monitoring of the reservoirs into SRBC’s on-going monitoring program. The Subbasin Survey Program is one of SRBC’s longest standing monitoring programs, ongoing since the mid-1980s, and is funded by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). This program consists of two-year assessments in each of the six major subbasins of the Susquehanna River Basin Figure 1. Location of the Lower Reservoir Section of the on a rotating basis. The Year-1 studies involve broad-brush, one- Susquehanna River within the Susquehanna River Basin time sampling efforts of about 100 stream sites to assess water quality, macroinvertebrate communities, and physical habitat three reservoirs serve as drinking water supplies and are also throughout an entire subbasin.
    [Show full text]
  • Fishes May Compete for Food Resources; Exotic Mussels May Impact Soft Substrate and Vegetation Growth
    2 0 1 5 – 2 0 2 5 Species of Greatest Conservation Need Species Accounts Appendix 1.4E-Fish Fish Species of Greatest Conservation Need Maps: Physiographic Provinces and HUC Watersheds Species Accounts (Click species name below or bookmark to navigate to species account) FISH Ohio Lamprey Tonguetied Minnow Tadpole Madtom Northern Brook Lamprey Cutlip Minnow Margined Madtom Mountain Brook Lamprey Bigmouth Shiner Brindled Madtom Least Brook Lamprey Redfin Shiner Northern Madtom Shortnose Sturgeon Allegheny Pearl Dace Cisco Lake Sturgeon Hornyhead Chub Brook Trout Atlantic Sturgeon Comely Shiner Central Mudminnow Paddlefish Bridle Shiner Eastern Mudminnow Spotted Gar River Shiner Burbot Bowfin Ghost Shiner Allegheny Burbot American Eel Ironcolor Shiner Brook Stickleback Blueback Herring Blackchin Shiner Threespine Stickleback Hickory Shad Swallowtail Shiner Checkered Sculpin Alewife Longnose Sucker Banded Sunfish American Shad Bigmouth Buffalo Warmouth Northern Redbelly Dace Spotted Sucker Longear Sunfish Southern Redbelly Dace White Catfish Eastern Sand Darter Redside Dace Black Bullhead Iowa Darter Streamline Chub Blue Catfish Spotted Darter Gravel Chub Mountain Madtom Tessellated Darter FISH, CONTINUED Tippecanoe Darter Chesapeake Logperch Shield Darter Variegate Darter Longhead Darter The following Physiographic Province and HUC Watershed maps are presented here for reference with conservation actions identified in the species accounts. Species account authors identified appropriate Physiographic Provinces or HUC Watershed (Level 4, 6, 8, 10, or statewide) for specific conservation actions to address identified threats. HUC watersheds used in this document were developed from the Watershed Boundary Dataset, a joint project of the U.S. Dept. of Agriculture-Natural Resources Conservation Service, the U.S. Geological Survey, and the Environmental Protection Agency.
    [Show full text]
  • Status of Plants in Virginia
    SPRING/SUMMER 2015 VOL. 66, No. 1 & 2 SPRINGFall/SUMMER 2015 2015 VOL. 66,V No.OL. 1 66,& 2No. 3 inia Fall 2015 VOL. 66, No. 3 rg ORGN. AGE SUMMER/SPRING 2014 VOL. 65, No. 1 & 2 T Vi AID P U.S. POST Permit No. 2276 Richmond, NON-PROFI VIRGINIA JOURNAL OF SCIENCE VIRVGIRGINIINIAA JO JOURURNALNAL OF O SFC SIECIENCENCE VIRGINIAVIRGINIA JOURNAL JOURNAL OF SCIENCE OF SCIENCE SPRING/SUMMER 2015 VOL. 66, No. 1 & 2 Fall 2015 VOL. 66, No. 3 VIRGINIA JOURNAL OF SCIENCE VIRGINIA JOURNAL OF SCIENCE OFFICIAL PUBLICATION OF THE VIRGINIA ACADEMY OF SCIENCE OFFICIAL PUBLICATION OF THE VIRGINIA ACADEMY OF SCIENCE OFFIOCFFICIALIAL PUB LPUBICALTICATIOION OFN T OHFE TH VIER GVIRGINIAINIA ACA ACADEMDEMY OFY SOCFI ESCIENCENCE e ginia r Vi eet A23220 oadStr r .B OFFICIAL PUBLICATION OF THE VIRGINIA ACADEMY OF SCIENCE W ess Service Requested giniaAcademyofScienc r Vi ScienceMuseumof Addr 2500 Richmond,V OFFICIAL PUBLICATION OF THE VIRGINIA ACADEMY OF SCIENCE OFFICIAL PUBLICATION OF THE VIRGINIA ACADEMY OF SCIENCE THE VIRGINIA JOURNAL OF SCIENCE Instructions to Authors All manuscripts and correspondence should be sent to the Editor ([email protected]). The Virginia Journal of Science welcomes for consideration original articles and short notes in the various disciplines of engineering and science. Cross-disciplinary papers dealing with advancements in science and technology and the impact of these on man and society are particularly welcome. Submission of an article implies that the article has not been published elsewhere while under consideration by the Journal. Submit manuscripts in electronic form as an MS Word OR WordPerfect file.
    [Show full text]
  • List of Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Animals of Maryland
    List of Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Animals of Maryland December 2016 Maryland Wildlife and Heritage Service Natural Heritage Program Larry Hogan, Governor Mark Belton, Secretary Wildlife & Heritage Service Natural Heritage Program Tawes State Office Building, E-1 580 Taylor Avenue Annapolis, MD 21401 410-260-8540 Fax 410-260-8596 dnr.maryland.gov Additional Telephone Contact Information: Toll free in Maryland: 877-620-8DNR ext. 8540 OR Individual unit/program toll-free number Out of state call: 410-260-8540 Text Telephone (TTY) users call via the Maryland Relay The facilities and services of the Maryland Department of Natural Resources are available to all without regard to race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, age, national origin or physical or mental disability. This document is available in alternative format upon request from a qualified individual with disability. Cover photo: A mating pair of the Appalachian Jewelwing (Calopteryx angustipennis), a rare damselfly in Maryland. (Photo credit, James McCann) ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The Maryland Department of Natural Resources would like to express sincere appreciation to the many scientists and naturalists who willingly share information and provide their expertise to further our mission of conserving Maryland’s natural heritage. Publication of this list is made possible by taxpayer donations to Maryland’s Chesapeake Bay and Endangered Species Fund. Suggested citation: Maryland Natural Heritage Program. 2016. List of Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Animals of Maryland. Maryland Department of Natural Resources, 580 Taylor Avenue, Annapolis, MD 21401. 03-1272016-633. INTRODUCTION The following list comprises 514 native Maryland animals that are among the least understood, the rarest, and the most in need of conservation efforts.
    [Show full text]
  • Species Action Plan: Chesapeake Logperch (Percina Bimaculata)
    Species Action Plan Chesapeake Logperch Natural Diversity Section April 2015 Species Action Plan: Chesapeake Logperch (Percina bimaculata) Chesapeake Logperch (Percina bimaculata). Credit: Rob Criswell. Purpose and Goals restricted to the Chesapeake Bay watershed. Purpose: This Species Action Plan is an initial Near (2008) stated that genetic analyses of five-year blueprint for actions to address near- Logperch and Chesapeake Logperch did not term and long-term goals for the conservation and result in monophyletic groups and that the recovery of the Chesapeake Logperch. As new Chesapeake Logperch was morphologically information becomes available this document will distinct in multiple characters from other be updated to reflect progress toward those goals. logperches. The Chesapeake Logperch usually has the following combination of characters: 7 to Goals: The near-term goal is to maintain extant 11 irregular lateral bars; orange-yellow band in populations of Chesapeake Logperch in the the first dorsal fin (poorly defined in females), Commonwealth and to protect its habitat. A nape of adults naked, breast naked except for secondary near-term goal is to describe the modified breast scales, supraoccipital and pre- autecology of the Chesapeake Logperch (i.e., the pectoral naked, and no pre-pectoral blotch. The relationship of this species with its habitat and Logperch has many more regular lateral bars, other species) and develop appropriate re- higher scale counts, and no orange-yellow on the introduction and monitoring strategies. The long- first dorsal fin. term goal is to sufficiently secure the species for its removal from the Pennsylvania list of Life-History and Habitat: Little information is threatened species (58 Pa.
    [Show full text]
  • Surveys for the Endangered Maryland Darter (August 2008 – September 2010)
    © D. Neely Surveys for the Endangered Maryland Darter (August 2008 – September 2010) Prepared by: Jay Kilian1 Richard Raesly2 Thomas Jones3 Submitted to: Andy Moser Chesapeake Bay Field Office US Fish and Wildlife Service Annapolis, Maryland 1 Maryland Department of Natural Resources, Resource Assessment Service, Annapolis, MD 2 Frostburg State University, Department of Biology, Frostburg, MD 3 Marshall University, Department of Integrated Science and Technology, Huntington, WV Foreword The work on which this report is based was a cooperative effort between the Maryland Department of Natural Resources’ Monitoring and Non-Tidal Assessment Division, Dr. Richard Raesly of Frostburg State University, and Dr. Thomas Jones of Marshall University. Dr. Raesly was funded through an ESA Section 6 Grant, while the Maryland Department of Natural Resources and Dr. Jones were funded through endangered species recovery grants. This report is one of three summaries of the efforts put forth by all partners to find the Maryland Darter from August 2008 to September 2010. See Raesly (2010) and Hern (2011) for additional analyses and summaries of data collected as part of this survey. ii Table of Contents Foreword ..........................................................................................................................................................................ii List of Tables...................................................................................................................................................................iv
    [Show full text]