DOCSLIB.ORG

Influences of Environmental Settings on Aquatic Ecosystems in the Apalachicola

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Influences of Environmental Settings on Aquatic Ecosystems in the Apalachicola- National Water-Quality / Assessment Program / Chattahoochee- Study Units :e Sidney Lot) let Flint River Basin Chattahoochee River basin U.S. Geological Survey Apalachicola River basin Water-Resources Investigations Report 95-4278 The authors appreciate the extraordinary efforts of the editorial and cartography staff of the Georgia District, including Carolyn A. Casteel, Caryl J. Wipperfurth, and Eric A. Steinnagel. Cover: Photograph by Elizabeth A. Frick showing the view of the Apalachicola River at Alum Bluff in the Apalachicola Bluffs and Ravines Reserve, The Nature Conservancy, near Bristol, Florida. INFLUENCES OF ENVIRONMENTAL SETTINGS ON AQUATIC ECOSYSTEMS IN THE APALACHICOLA-CHATTAHOOCHEE-FLINT RIVER BASIN By Carol A. Couch, Evelyn H. Hopkins, and P. Suzanne Hardy U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY NATIONAL WATER-QUALITY ASSESSMENT PROGRAM Water-Resources Investigations Report 95-4278 Atlanta, Georgia 1996 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Bruce Babbitt, Secretary U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Gordon P. Eaton, Director For additional information, please write to: Copies of this report may be purchased from: District Chief U.S. Geological Survey U.S. Geological Survey Earth Science Information Center Peachtree Business Center Open-File Reports Section Suite 130 Denver Federal Center 3039 Amwiler Road Box 25286, Mail Stop 517 Atlanta, GA 30360-2824 Denver, CO 80225 FOREWORD The mission of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) is to assess the quantity and quality of the earth resources of the Nation and to provide information that will assist resource managers and policymakers at Federal, State, and local levels in making sound decisions. Assessment of water-quality conditions and trends is an important part of this overall mission. One of the greatest challenges faced by water-resources scientists is acquiring reliable information that will guide the use and protection of the Nation's water resources. That challenge is being addressed by Federal, State, interstate, and local water-resource agencies and by many academic institutions. These organizations are collecting water-quality data for a host of purposes that include: compliance with permits and water-supply standards; development of remediation plans for a specific contamination problem; operational decisions on industrial, wastewater, or water-supply facilities; and research on factors that affect water quality. An additional need for water-quality information is to provide a basis on which regional and national-level policy decisions can be based. Wise decisions must be based on sound information. As a society, we need to know whether certain types of water- quality problems are isolated or ubiquitous, whether there are significant differences in conditions among regions, whether the conditions are changing over time, and why these conditions change from place to place and over time. The information can be used to help determine the efficacy of existing water-quality policies and to help analysts determine the need for, and likely consequences, of new policies. To address these needs, the Congress appropriated funds in 1986 for the USGS to begin a pilot program in seven project areas to develop and refine the National Water-Quality Assessment (NAWQA) Program. In 1991, the USGS began full implementation of the program. The NAWQA Program builds upon an existing base of water- quality studies of the USGS, as well as those of other Federal, State, and local agencies. The objectives of the NAWQA Program are to: describe current water-quality conditions for a large part of the Nation's freshwater streams, rivers, and aquifers; describe how water quality is changing over time; and improve understanding of primary natural and human factors that affect water-quality conditions. This information will help support the development and evaluation of management, regulatory, and monitoring decisions by other Federal, State, and local agencies to protect, use, and enhance water resources. The goals of the NAWQA Program are being achieved through ongoing and proposed investigations of 60 of the Nation's most important river basins and aquifer systems, which are referred to as study units. These study units are distributed throughout the Nation and cover a diversity of hydrogeologic settings. More than two-thirds of the Nation's freshwater use occurs within the 60 study units and more than two-thirds of the people served by public water-supply systems live within their boundaries. National synthesis of data analysis, based on aggregation of comparable information obtained from the study units, is a major component of the program. This effort focuses on selected water-quality topics using nationally consistent information. Comparative studies will explain differences and similarities in observed water-quality conditions among study areas and will identify changes and trends and their causes. The first topics addressed by the national synthesis are pesticides, nutrients, volatile organic compounds, and aquatic biology. Discussions on these and other water-quality topics will be published in periodic summaries of the quality of the Nation's ground and surface water as the information becomes available. This report is an element of the comprehensive body of information developed as part of the NAWQA Program. The program depends heavily on the advice, cooperation, and information from many Federal, State, interstate, Tribal, and local agencies and the public. The assistance and suggestions of all are greatly appreciated. Information regarding the NAWQA Program is available on the Internet via the World Wide Web. You may connect to the NAWQA Home Page using the Universal Resources Locator (URL) at: <URL:http://wwwrvares.er.usgs.gov/nawqa/nawqa_home.html> iii CONTENTS Abstract 1 Introduction 3 Physical setting 4 Location 4 Physiography 5 Soils 7 Climate 8 Surface-water hydrology 9 Chattahoochee River 9 Flint River 10 Apalachicola River 11 Ground-water hydrology 12 Natural water quality 13 Biological setting 15 Terrestrial habitats 16 Wetland habitats and aquatic vegetation 17 Aquatic fauna 18 Fish fauna 19 Amphibians and reptiles 20 Aquatic invertebrates 21 Cultural setting 21 Population 22 Land cover and use 22 Water use 23 Power generation 25 Navigation 25 Recreation 26 Wastewater discharge 27 Influences of environmental settings on aquatic ecosystems 27 References 33 ILLUSTRATIONS Figures 1-9. Maps showing: 1. Location of the Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint River basin 4 2. Physiographic provinces and districts of the Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint River basin 5 3. Geology of the Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint River basin and adjacent areas 6 4. Major land-resource areas in the Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint River basin 8 5. Soil-mapping units with a high leaching rating in the Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint River basin 9 6. Soil-mapping units with a high runoff rating in the Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint River basin 11 7. Average annual precipitation (1951 -80) in the Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint River basin and adjacent areas 12 8. Average annual runoff (1951 -80) in the Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint River basin and adjacent areas 13 9. Major basin boundaries and location of selected stream-gaging stations in the Apalachicola- Chattahoochee-Flint River basin 14 IV ILLUSTRATIONS Continued Figure 10. Graph showing discharge for water years 1978-92 for the Chattahoochee River at Columbia, Alabama 15 11. Map showing location of mainstem dams and power-generating plants in the Apalachicola- Chattahoochee-Flint River basin 17 Figures 12-18. Graphs showing: 12. Annual hydrographs for Chattahoochee River at Cornelia, Georgia, Chattahoochee River at Norcross, Georgia, Chattahoochee River at Whitesburg, Georgia, and Chattahoochee River at Columbia, Alabama 18 13. Annual hydrograph for Snake Creek near Whitesburg, Georgia 19 14. Annual hydrograph for Peachtree Creek at Atlanta, Georgia 19 15. Discharge for water years 1978-92 for the Flint River at Newton, Georgia 20 16. Annual hydrographs for Flint River at Newton, Georgia, Ichawaynochaway Creek at Milford, Georgia, Spring Creek near Iron City, Georgia 21 17. Discharge for water years 1978-92 for the Apalachicola River at Sumatra, Florida 22 18. Annual hydrograph for Apalachicola River at Sumatra, Florida 22 Figure 19. Map showing generalized outcrop areas for geologic and hydrogeologic units underlying the Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint River basin 24 20. Correlation chart showing generalized geologic and hydrogeologic units in the Coastal Plain of the Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint River basin 25 21. Map showing land use in the Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint River basin, 1972-78 29 22. Map showing location of counties in the Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint River basin 39 23. Graph showing historical and projected population in the Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint River basin, 1970-2010 40 Figures 24-26. Maps showing: 24. Population density (1990) in the Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint River basin 41 25. Silviculture land in the Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint River basin, 1987, 1989, and 1990 43 26. Percent of county in farmland in the Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint River basin, 1987 44 Figures 27-30. Graphs showing: 27. Total areas in farms; and selected categories of cropland, harvested cropland, woodland, and pastureland in the Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint River basin 45 28. Harvested acres of peanuts, corn, soybeans and cotton in the Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-
Recommended publications
  • Fishing Opportunities Ouachita National Forest

    Fishing Opportunities Ouachita National Forest

    FISHING OPPORTUNITIES Page 1 of 27 IN THE RA-24 OUACHITA NATIONAL FOREST FISHING OPPORTUNITIES Page 2 of 27 IN THE RA-24 OUACHITA NATIONAL FOREST This page intentionally left blank FISHING OPPORTUNITIES Page 3 of 27 IN THE RA-24 OUACHITA NATIONAL FOREST RIVERS ....................................Page • Ouachita........................................................3 • Fourche LaFave ...........................................4 • South Fork Fourche LaFave.......................4 • Little Missouri ..............................................5 • Poteau............................................................6 • Glover............................................................6 • Caddo ............................................................7 • Cossatot.........................................................7 • Mountain Fork .............................................8 • Petit Jean.......................................................9 LAKES/PONDS ………………Page…..Location (Quad) • Dry Fork Lake..............................................10....................C-15 • Cedar Lake ...................................................11....................C-3 • Hunter's Pool ...............................................12....................K-3 • Lake Sylvia ...................................................13....................C-18 • Moss Creek Pond .........................................14....................A-11, A-12* • Rock Creek Lake..........................................14....................B-17 • Little Bear Creek
  • FISHING OPPORTUNITIES in the OUACHITA NATIONAL FOREST Page 1 of 24

    FISHING OPPORTUNITIES in the OUACHITA NATIONAL FOREST Page 1 of 24

    FISHING OPPORTUNITIES IN THE OUACHITA NATIONAL FOREST Page 1 of 24 FISHING OPPORTUNITIES IN THE OUACHITA NATIONAL FOREST FISHING OPPORTUNITIES IN THE OUACHITA NATIONAL FOREST Page 2 of 24 RIVERS Ouachita Fourche LaFave South Fork Fourche LaFave Little Missouri Poteau Glover Caddo Cossatot Mountain Fork Petit Jean LAKES-PONDS Quad Map Location Dry Fork Lake ..............................................C-15 Cedar Lake ...................................................C-3 Hunter's Pool ...............................................K-3 Lake Sylvia ...................................................C-18 Moss Creek Pond .........................................A-11, A-12* Rock Creek Lake ..........................................B-17 Little Bear Creek Lake ................................C-16 Cove Creek Lake ..........................................B-16 Huston Lake .................................................B-17 Macedonia Pond ...........................................D-10 North Fork Lake ..........................................E-10 Shady Lake ...................................................G-8 Caddo Pond ..................................................F-12, F-13, G-12* Crooked Branch Lake .................................C-3 John Burns Pond ..........................................D-11 Mauldin Ponds ............................................E-11 Old Forester Pond ........................................C-10 Story Pond ....................................................D-12 Cedar Creek Lake
  • Okefenokee Swamp and St. Marys River Named Among America's

    Okefenokee Swamp and St. Marys River Named Among America's

    Okefenokee Swamp and St. Marys River named Among America’s Most Endangered Rivers of 2020 Mining threatens, fish and wildlife habitat; wetlands; water quality and flow Contact: Ben Emanuel, American Rivers, 706-340-8868 Christian Hunt, Defenders of Wildlife 828-417-0862 Rena Ann Peck, Georgia River Network, 404-395-6250 Alice Miller Keyes, One Hundred Miles, 912-230-6494 Alex Kearns, St. Marys EarthKeepers, 912-322-7367 Washington, D.C. –American Rivers today named the Okefenokee Swamp and St. Marys River among America’s Most Endangered Rivers®, citing the threat titanium mining would pose to the waterways’ clean water, wetlands and wildlife habitat. American Rivers and its partners called on the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and other permitting agencies to deny any proposals that risk the long-term protection of the Okefenokee Swamp and St. Marys River. “America’s Most Endangered Rivers is a call to action,” said Ben Emanuel, Atlanta- based Clean Water Supply Director with American Rivers. “Some places are simply too precious to allow risky mining operations, and the edge of the unique Okefenokee Swamp is one. The Army Corps of Engineers must deny the permit to save this national treasure.” The annual America’s Most Endangered Rivers report is a list of rivers at a crossroads, where key decisions in the coming months will determine the rivers’ fates. Over the years, the report has helped spur many successes including the removal of outdated dams, the protection of rivers with Wild and Scenic designations, and the prevention of harmful development and pollution. Rena Ann Peck, Executive Director of Georgia River Network, explains "The Okefenokee Swamp is like the heart of the regional Floridan aquifer system in southeast Georgia and northeast Florida.
  • Cobb County, Georgia and Incorporated Areas

    Cobb County, Georgia and Incorporated Areas

    VOLUME 1 OF 4 Cobb County COBB COUNTY, GEORGIA AND INCORPORATED AREAS COMMUNITY NAME COMMUNITY NUMBER ACWORTH, CITY OF 130053 AUSTELL, CITY OF 130054 COBB COUNTY 130052 (UNINCORPORATED AREAS) KENNESAW, CITY OF 130055 MARIETTA, CITY OF 130226 POWDER SPRINGS, CITY OF 130056 SMYRNA, CITY OF 130057 REVISED: MARCH 4, 2013 FLOOD INSURANCE STUDY NUMBER 13067CV001D NOTICE TO FLOOD INSURANCE STUDY USERS Communities participating in the National Flood Insurance Program have established repositories of flood hazard data for floodplain management and flood insurance purposes. This Flood Insurance Study (FIS) report may not contain all data available within the Community Map Repository. Please contact the Community Map Repository for any additional data. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) may revise and republish part or all of this FIS report at any time. In addition, FEMA may revise part of this FIS report by the Letter of Map Revision process, which does not involve republication or redistribution of the FIS report. Therefore, users should consult with community officials and check the Community Map Repository to obtain the most current FIS report components. Initial Countywide FIS Effective Date: August 18, 1992 Revised Countywide FIS Effective Date: December 16, 2008 Revised Countywide FIS Effective Date: March 4, 2013 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1 1.1 Purpose of Study 1 1.2 Authority and Acknowledgments 1 1.3 Coordination 3 2.0 AREA STUDIED 5 2.1 Scope of Study 5 2.2 Community Description 10 2.3 Principal Flood Problems
  • Upper Apalachicola-Chattahoochee

    Upper Apalachicola-Chattahoochee

    Georgia: Upper Apalachicola- Case Study Chattahoochee-Flint River Basin Water Resource Strategies and Information Needs in Response to Extreme Weather/Climate Events ACF Basin The Story in Brief Communities in the Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint River Basin (ACF) in Georgia, including Gwinnett County and the city of Atlanta, faced four consecutive extreme weather events: drought of 2007-08, floods of Sep- tember and winter 2009, and drought of 2011-12. These events cost taxpayers millions of dollars in damaged infrastructure, homes, and businesses and threatened water supply for ecological, agricultural, energy, and urban water users. Water utilities were faced with ensuring reliable service during and after these events. Drought of 2007-2008 and 2012 Impacts Northern Georgia saw record-low precipitation in 2007. By late spring 2008, Lake Lanier, the state’s major water supply, was at 50% of its storage capacity. The drought, combined with record-high temperatures, caused an estimated $1.3 billion in economic losses and threatened local water utilities’ ability to meet demand for four million people. Similar drought conditions unfolded in 2011-2012, during which numerous Water Trends Georgia counties were declared disaster zones. The Chattahoochee River, its tributaries, and Reduced rain affected recharge of the surface-water- Lake Lanier provide water to most of the dependent reservoir. It reduced flows, dried tributaries, “There is nothing simple, nothing one sub-basin Atlanta and Columbus metro populations. The and caused ecological damage in a landscape already river is the most heavily used water resource in affected by urbanization, impervious cover, and reduced can do to solve the problem.
  • List of TMDL Implementation Plans with Tmdls Organized by Basin

    List of TMDL Implementation Plans with Tmdls Organized by Basin

    Latest 305(b)/303(d) List of Streams List of Stream Reaches With TMDLs and TMDL Implementation Plans - Updated June 2011 Total Maximum Daily Loadings TMDL TMDL PLAN DELIST BASIN NAME HUC10 REACH NAME LOCATION VIOLATIONS TMDL YEAR TMDL PLAN YEAR YEAR Altamaha 0307010601 Bullard Creek ~0.25 mi u/s Altamaha Road to Altamaha River Bio(sediment) TMDL 2007 09/30/2009 Altamaha 0307010601 Cobb Creek Oconee Creek to Altamaha River DO TMDL 2001 TMDL PLAN 08/31/2003 Altamaha 0307010601 Cobb Creek Oconee Creek to Altamaha River FC 2012 Altamaha 0307010601 Milligan Creek Uvalda to Altamaha River DO TMDL 2001 TMDL PLAN 08/31/2003 2006 Altamaha 0307010601 Milligan Creek Uvalda to Altamaha River FC TMDL 2001 TMDL PLAN 08/31/2003 Altamaha 0307010601 Oconee Creek Headwaters to Cobb Creek DO TMDL 2001 TMDL PLAN 08/31/2003 Altamaha 0307010601 Oconee Creek Headwaters to Cobb Creek FC TMDL 2001 TMDL PLAN 08/31/2003 Altamaha 0307010602 Ten Mile Creek Little Ten Mile Creek to Altamaha River Bio F 2012 Altamaha 0307010602 Ten Mile Creek Little Ten Mile Creek to Altamaha River DO TMDL 2001 TMDL PLAN 08/31/2003 Altamaha 0307010603 Beards Creek Spring Branch to Altamaha River Bio F 2012 Altamaha 0307010603 Five Mile Creek Headwaters to Altamaha River Bio(sediment) TMDL 2007 09/30/2009 Altamaha 0307010603 Goose Creek U/S Rd. S1922(Walton Griffis Rd.) to Little Goose Creek FC TMDL 2001 TMDL PLAN 08/31/2003 Altamaha 0307010603 Mushmelon Creek Headwaters to Delbos Bay Bio F 2012 Altamaha 0307010604 Altamaha River Confluence of Oconee and Ocmulgee Rivers to ITT Rayonier
  • Characterization of the G Protein-Coupled Receptor Family

    Characterization of the G Protein-Coupled Receptor Family

    www.nature.com/scientificreports OPEN Characterization of the G protein‑coupled receptor family SREB across fsh evolution Timothy S. Breton1*, William G. B. Sampson1, Benjamin Cliford2, Anyssa M. Phaneuf1, Ilze Smidt3, Tamera True1, Andrew R. Wilcox1, Taylor Lipscomb4,5, Casey Murray4 & Matthew A. DiMaggio4 The SREB (Super‑conserved Receptors Expressed in Brain) family of G protein‑coupled receptors is highly conserved across vertebrates and consists of three members: SREB1 (orphan receptor GPR27), SREB2 (GPR85), and SREB3 (GPR173). Ligands for these receptors are largely unknown or only recently identifed, and functions for all three are still beginning to be understood, including roles in glucose homeostasis, neurogenesis, and hypothalamic control of reproduction. In addition to the brain, all three are expressed in gonads, but relatively few studies have focused on this, especially in non‑mammalian models or in an integrated approach across the entire receptor family. The purpose of this study was to more fully characterize sreb genes in fsh, using comparative genomics and gonadal expression analyses in fve diverse ray‑fnned (Actinopterygii) species across evolution. Several unique characteristics were identifed in fsh, including: (1) a novel, fourth euteleost‑specifc gene (sreb3b or gpr173b) that likely emerged from a copy of sreb3 in a separate event after the teleost whole genome duplication, (2) sreb3a gene loss in Order Cyprinodontiformes, and (3) expression diferences between a gar species and teleosts. Overall, gonadal patterns suggested an important role for all sreb genes in teleost testicular development, while gar were characterized by greater ovarian expression that may refect similar roles to mammals. The novel sreb3b gene was also characterized by several unique features, including divergent but highly conserved amino acid positions, and elevated brain expression in pufer (Dichotomyctere nigroviridis) that more closely matched sreb2, not sreb3a.
  • Environmental Sensitivity Index Guidelines Version 2.0

    Environmental Sensitivity Index Guidelines Version 2.0

    NOAA Technical Memorandum NOS ORCA 115 Environmental Sensitivity Index Guidelines Version 2.0 October 1997 Seattle, Washington noaa NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION National Ocean Service Office of Ocean Resources Conservation and Assessment National Ocean Service National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration U.S. Department of Commerce The Office of Ocean Resources Conservation and Assessment (ORCA) provides decisionmakers comprehensive, scientific information on characteristics of the oceans, coastal areas, and estuaries of the United States of America. The information ranges from strategic, national assessments of coastal and estuarine environmental quality to real-time information for navigation or hazardous materials spill response. Through its National Status and Trends (NS&T) Program, ORCA uses uniform techniques to monitor toxic chemical contamination of bottom-feeding fish, mussels and oysters, and sediments at about 300 locations throughout the United States. A related NS&T Program of directed research examines the relationships between contaminant exposure and indicators of biological responses in fish and shellfish. Through the Hazardous Materials Response and Assessment Division (HAZMAT) Scientific Support Coordination program, ORCA provides critical scientific support for planning and responding to spills of oil or hazardous materials into coastal environments. Technical guidance includes spill trajectory predictions, chemical hazard analyses, and assessments of the sensitivity of marine and estuarine environments to spills. To fulfill the responsibilities of the Secretary of Commerce as a trustee for living marine resources, HAZMAT’s Coastal Resource Coordination program provides technical support to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency during all phases of the remedial process to protect the environment and restore natural resources at hundreds of waste sites each year.
  • ECOLOGY of NORTH AMERICAN FRESHWATER FISHES

    ECOLOGY of NORTH AMERICAN FRESHWATER FISHES

    ECOLOGY of NORTH AMERICAN FRESHWATER FISHES Tables STEPHEN T. ROSS University of California Press Berkeley Los Angeles London © 2013 by The Regents of the University of California ISBN 978-0-520-24945-5 uucp-ross-book-color.indbcp-ross-book-color.indb 1 44/5/13/5/13 88:34:34 AAMM uucp-ross-book-color.indbcp-ross-book-color.indb 2 44/5/13/5/13 88:34:34 AAMM TABLE 1.1 Families Composing 95% of North American Freshwater Fish Species Ranked by the Number of Native Species Number Cumulative Family of species percent Cyprinidae 297 28 Percidae 186 45 Catostomidae 71 51 Poeciliidae 69 58 Ictaluridae 46 62 Goodeidae 45 66 Atherinopsidae 39 70 Salmonidae 38 74 Cyprinodontidae 35 77 Fundulidae 34 80 Centrarchidae 31 83 Cottidae 30 86 Petromyzontidae 21 88 Cichlidae 16 89 Clupeidae 10 90 Eleotridae 10 91 Acipenseridae 8 92 Osmeridae 6 92 Elassomatidae 6 93 Gobiidae 6 93 Amblyopsidae 6 94 Pimelodidae 6 94 Gasterosteidae 5 95 source: Compiled primarily from Mayden (1992), Nelson et al. (2004), and Miller and Norris (2005). uucp-ross-book-color.indbcp-ross-book-color.indb 3 44/5/13/5/13 88:34:34 AAMM TABLE 3.1 Biogeographic Relationships of Species from a Sample of Fishes from the Ouachita River, Arkansas, at the Confl uence with the Little Missouri River (Ross, pers. observ.) Origin/ Pre- Pleistocene Taxa distribution Source Highland Stoneroller, Campostoma spadiceum 2 Mayden 1987a; Blum et al. 2008; Cashner et al. 2010 Blacktail Shiner, Cyprinella venusta 3 Mayden 1987a Steelcolor Shiner, Cyprinella whipplei 1 Mayden 1987a Redfi n Shiner, Lythrurus umbratilis 4 Mayden 1987a Bigeye Shiner, Notropis boops 1 Wiley and Mayden 1985; Mayden 1987a Bullhead Minnow, Pimephales vigilax 4 Mayden 1987a Mountain Madtom, Noturus eleutherus 2a Mayden 1985, 1987a Creole Darter, Etheostoma collettei 2a Mayden 1985 Orangebelly Darter, Etheostoma radiosum 2a Page 1983; Mayden 1985, 1987a Speckled Darter, Etheostoma stigmaeum 3 Page 1983; Simon 1997 Redspot Darter, Etheostoma artesiae 3 Mayden 1985; Piller et al.
  • Part IV: Scoring Criteria for the Index of Biotic Integrity to Monitor

    Part IV: Scoring Criteria for the Index of Biotic Integrity to Monitor

    Part IV: Scoring Criteria for the Index of Biotic Integrity to Monitor Fish Communities in Wadeable Streams in the Coosa and Tennessee Drainage Basins of the Ridge and Valley Ecoregion of Georgia Georgia Department of Natural Resources Wildlife Resources Division Fisheries Management Section 2020 Table of Contents Introduction………………………………………………………………… ……... Pg. 1 Map of Ridge and Valley Ecoregion………………………………..……............... Pg. 3 Table 1. State Listed Fish in the Ridge and Valley Ecoregion……………………. Pg. 4 Table 2. IBI Metrics and Scoring Criteria………………………………………….Pg. 5 References………………………………………………….. ………………………Pg. 7 Appendix 1…………………………………………………………………. ………Pg. 8 Coosa Basin Group (ACT) MSR Graphs..………………………………….Pg. 9 Tennessee Basin Group (TEN) MSR Graphs……………………………….Pg. 17 Ridge and Valley Ecoregion Fish List………………………………………Pg. 25 i Introduction The Ridge and Valley ecoregion is one of the six Level III ecoregions found in Georgia (Part 1, Figure 1). It is drained by two major river basins, the Coosa and the Tennessee, in the northwestern corner of Georgia. The Ridge and Valley ecoregion covers nearly 3,000 square miles (United States Census Bureau 2000) and includes all or portions of 10 counties (Figure 1), bordering the Piedmont ecoregion to the south and the Blue Ridge ecoregion to the east. A small portion of the Southwestern Appalachians ecoregion is located in the upper northwestern corner of the Ridge and Valley ecoregion. The biotic index developed by the GAWRD is based on Level III ecoregion delineations (Griffith et al. 2001). The metrics and scoring criteria adapted to the Ridge and Valley ecoregion were developed from biomonitoring samples collected in the two major river basins that drain the Ridge and Valley ecoregion, the Coosa (ACT) and the Tennessee (TEN).
  • The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Regulatory Program in Georgia

    The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Regulatory Program in Georgia

    The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Regulatory Program in Georgia David Lekson, PWS Kelly Finch, PWS Richard Morgan Savannah District August, 2013 US Army Corps of Engineers BUILDING STRONG® Topics § Savannah District Regulatory Division § Regulatory Efficiencies § On the Horizon 2 BUILDING STRONG® Introduction § Joined Savannah District in Jan 2013 § 25 years as Branch Chief in the Wilmington District, NC § Certified Professional Wetland Scientist with extensive field and teaching experience across the country § Participated in regional and national initiatives (wetland delineation and assessment, Mitigation/Banking); Served 6- month detail at the Pentagon in 2012 § Evaluated phosphate/sand/rock mining, wind energy, port and military projects, water supply, landfills, utilities, transportation (highway, airport, rail), and other large-scale commercial and residential projects 3 BUILDING STRONG® Georgia § Largest state east of the Mississippi River TN NC § 59,425 Square miles § Abuts 5 states § 5 Ecoregions SC § 159 Counties AL § 70,000 Miles of waterways § 7.7 Million acres of wetlands FL 4 BUILDING STRONG® Savannah Regulatory Organization Lake Lanier Piedmont Branch Mr. Ed Johnson (678) 422-2722 Morrow Coastal Branch Ms. Kelly Finch (912) 652-5503 Savannah Albany § 35 Team members § 3 Field Offices & Savannah § 3 Branches (Piedmont, Coastal, Multipurpose Management) 5 BUILDING STRONG® Regulatory Efficiencies § General Permits ► Re-issuance of existing Regional and Programmatic General Permits ► New RGP37 for Inshore GADNR Artificial Reefs
  • Fishtraits: a Database on Ecological and Life-History Traits of Freshwater

    Fishtraits: a Database on Ecological and Life-History Traits of Freshwater

    FishTraits database Traits References Allen, D. M., W. S. Johnson, and V. Ogburn-Matthews. 1995. Trophic relationships and seasonal utilization of saltmarsh creeks by zooplanktivorous fishes. Environmental Biology of Fishes 42(1)37-50. [multiple species] Anderson, K. A., P. M. Rosenblum, and B. G. Whiteside. 1998. Controlled spawning of Longnose darters. The Progressive Fish-Culturist 60:137-145. [678] Barber, W. E., D. C. Williams, and W. L. Minckley. 1970. Biology of the Gila Spikedace, Meda fulgida, in Arizona. Copeia 1970(1):9-18. [485] Becker, G. C. 1983. Fishes of Wisconsin. University of Wisconsin Press, Madison, WI. Belk, M. C., J. B. Johnson, K. W. Wilson, M. E. Smith, and D. D. Houston. 2005. Variation in intrinsic individual growth rate among populations of leatherside chub (Snyderichthys copei Jordan & Gilbert): adaptation to temperature or length of growing season? Ecology of Freshwater Fish 14:177-184. [349] Bonner, T. H., J. M. Watson, and C. S. Williams. 2006. Threatened fishes of the world: Cyprinella proserpina Girard, 1857 (Cyprinidae). Environmental Biology of Fishes. In Press. [133] Bonnevier, K., K. Lindstrom, and C. St. Mary. 2003. Parental care and mate attraction in the Florida flagfish, Jordanella floridae. Behavorial Ecology and Sociobiology 53:358-363. [410] Bortone, S. A. 1989. Notropis melanostomus, a new speices of Cyprinid fish from the Blackwater-Yellow River drainage of northwest Florida. Copeia 1989(3):737-741. [575] Boschung, H.T., and R. L. Mayden. 2004. Fishes of Alabama. Smithsonian Books, Washington. [multiple species] 1 FishTraits database Breder, C. M., and D. E. Rosen. 1966. Modes of reproduction in fishes.