DOCSLIB.ORG

DRAFT FSC National Risk Assessment

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
DRAFT FSC National Risk Assessment DRAFT FSC National Risk Assessment For the conterminous United States of America DEVELOPED ACCORDING TO PROCEDURE FSC-PRO-60-002 V 3-0 Version V 2-0 Code FSC-NRA-USA V2-0 National approval National decision body: FSC US Board of Directors Date: XXX International approval FSC International Center: Policy and Standards Unit Date: XX MONTH 201X International contact Name: Amy Clark Eagle Email address: [email protected] Period of validity Date of approval: XX MONTH 201X Valid until: (date of approval + 5 years) Body responsible for NRA FSC US – Amy Clark Eagle, Director of Science & maintenance Certification, [email protected] FSC-NRA-USA V2-0 DRAFT (REVISED 01/03/18) NATIONAL RISK ASSESSMENT FOR THE CONTERMINOUS UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 2017 – 1 of 241 – Contents Risk designations in finalized risk assessments for the conterminous United States .................. 3 Background information ............................................................................................................... 4 List of experts involved in the risk assessment and their contact details ..................................... 6 National Risk Assessment maintenance ...................................................................................... 9 Complaints and disputes regarding the approved National Risk Assessment ............................. 9 List of key stakeholders for consultation .................................................................................... 10 Risk assessments ...................................................................................................................... 11 Controlled wood category 1: Illegally harvested wood ............................................................... 11 Overview ............................................................................................................................. 11 Sources of legal timber in the conterminous United States ................................................ 11 Risk assessment ................................................................................................................ 12 Control measures ............................................................................................................... 66 Controlled wood category 2: Wood harvested in violation of traditional and human rights ........ 67 Risk assessment ................................................................................................................ 68 Control measures ............................................................................................................... 82 Information Sources ........................................................................................................... 82 Controlled wood category 3: Wood from forests in which high conservation values are threatened by management activities ......................................................................................... 91 Overview ............................................................................................................................. 91 Experts consulted ............................................................................................................... 94 Risk assessment ................................................................................................................ 96 Control measures ............................................................................................................. 119 Information sources .......................................................................................................... 121 Controlled wood category 4: Wood from forests being converted to plantations or non-forest use .................................................................................................................................................. 130 Risk assessment .............................................................................................................. 130 Control measures ............................................................................................................. 133 Controlled wood category 5: Wood from forests in which genetically modified trees are planted .................................................................................................................................................. 136 Risk assessment .............................................................................................................. 136 Control measures ............................................................................................................. 139 Annex A – Glossary .................................................................................................................. 140 Annex B – FSC US Regional Map ........................................................................................... 142 Annex C – Risk Designations by FSC US Region ................................................................... 143 Annex D – Evaluation of Draft CNRA and Additional Assessments for Category 2 ................ 144 Annex E – Detailed Description of HCV Risk Designations ..................................................... 166 Annex F – G1-S1 Species for HCV 1 Assessment .................................................................. 223 Annex G – Detailed Description of Conversion Risk Designations .......................................... 233 FSC-NRA-USA V2-0 DRAFT (REVISED 01/03/18) NATIONAL RISK ASSESSMENT FOR THE CONTERMINOUS UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 2017 – 2 of 241 – Risk designations in finalized risk assessments for the conterminous United States Indicator Risk designation (including functional scale when relevant) Controlled wood category 1: Illegally harvested wood 1.1 Low Risk 1.2 Low Risk 1.3 Low Risk 1.4 Low Risk 1.5 Low Risk 1.6 Low Risk 1.7 Low Risk 1.8 Low Risk 1.9 Low Risk 1.10 Low Risk 1.11 Low Risk 1.12 Low Risk 1.13 Low Risk 1.14 Low Risk 1.15 Low Risk 1.16 Low Risk 1.17 Low Risk 1.18 Low Risk 1.19 Low Risk 1.20 Low Risk 1.21 Low Risk Controlled wood category 2: Wood harvested in violation of traditional and human rights 2.1 Low Risk 2.2 Low Risk 2.3 Low Risk Controlled wood category 3: Wood from forests where high conservation values are threatened by management activities 3.0 Low Risk 3.1 Specified Risk for identified portions of Critical Biodiversity Areas; Specified Risk for documented ranges of identified HCV 1 species; Low Risk for the remainder of the assessment area 3.2 Low Risk 3.3 Specified Risk for public lands in the FSC US Pacific Coast and Rocky Mountain Regions that are not permanently protected; Specified Risk for identified portions of FSC US Regions with identified priority forest types; Low Risk for the remainder of the assessment area 3.4 Low Risk 3.5 Low Risk 3.6 Low Risk FSC-NRA-USA V2-0 DRAFT (REVISED 01/03/18) NATIONAL RISK ASSESSMENT FOR THE CONTERMINOUS UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 2017 – 3 of 241 – Controlled wood category 4: Wood from forests being converted to plantations or non-forest use 4.1 Specified Risk for the entire FSC US Pacific Coast Region; Specified Risk for the portions of the Southeast region that do not occur within the states of Mississippi, Alabama, and Arkansas; Specified Risk for the portion of the Mississippi Alluvia Valley region that occurs within the state of Louisiana; Low Risk for the remainder of the assessment area Controlled wood category 5: Wood from forests in which genetically modified trees are planted 5.1 Low Risk Background information FSC US began development of a National Risk Assessment in 2012 by assembling a working group. However, this was done prior to the finalization of FSC-PRO-60-002 V3-0. FSC US, with input from the working group, developed and publicly consulted a first draft of an NRA for Categories 3 and 4 in early 2015, which was not approved by PSU prior to the consultation. At PSU’s request, the working group’s efforts were put on hold in mid-2015 while the Controlled Wood standard (FSC-STD-40-005 V3-0) was finalized. After the Controlled Wood standard was completed, it was not possible to re-assemble the Working Group, and therefore the subsequent second draft was developed by the chamber-balanced FSC US Board’s Policy and Standards Committee (PSC; see below), with the assistance of a chamber- balanced Technical Advisory Group. Near the end of development of this second draft, one environmental member of the FSC US PSC resigned from the Board, but chamber balance was maintained by giving the remaining environmental member an equal weight in decision-making as the other chambers. This second draft also incorporated the final CNRA’s for Categories 1 and 5 and draft CNRA for Category 2, developed on behalf of FSC International by independent contractors. Additionally, incorporates stakeholder comments from the public consultation of the first draft of the NRA, following discussion by the working group and technical advisory group. This second draft received PSU’s approval prior to a second public consultation in late 2017. The original US Controlled Wood Working Group members were: • Sophie Beckham – International Paper – Economic Chamber • Brad Holt – Boise Inc. – Economic Chamber • Jim Sitts – Columbia Forest Products – Economic Chamber • Andrew Goldberg – Dogwood Alliance – Environmental Chamber • Daniel Hall – Environmental Consultant – Environmental Chamber • Greg Meade – The Nature Conservancy – Environmental Chamber • Jeff Stringer – The University of Kentucky – Social Chamber • Mike Debonis – Green
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Fisheries Across the Eastern Continental Divide
    Fisheries Across the Eastern Continental Divide Abstracts for oral presentations and posters, 2010 Spring Meeting of the Southern Division of the American Fisheries Society Asheville, NC 1 Contributed Paper Oral Presentation Potential for trophic competition between introduced spotted bass and native shoal bass in the Flint River Sammons, S.M.*, Auburn University. Largemouth bass, shoal bass, and spotted bass were collected from six sites over four seasons on the Flint River, Georgia to assess food habits. Diets of all three species was very broad; 10 categories of invertebrates and 15 species of fish were identified from diets. Since few large spotted bass were collected, all comparisons among species were conducted only for juvenile fish (< 200 mm) and subadult fish (200-300 mm). Juvenile largemouth bass diets were dominated by fish in all seasons, mainly sunfish. Juvenile largemouth bass rarely ate insects except in spring, when all three species consumed large numbers of insects. In contrast, juvenile shoal bass diets were dominated by insects in all seasons but winter. Juvenile spotted bass diets were more varied- highly piscivorous in the fall and winter and highly insectivorous in spring and summer. Diets of subadult largemouth bass were similar to that of juvenile fish, and heavily dominated by fish, particularly sunfish. Similar to juveniles, diets of subadult shoal bass were much less piscivorous than largemouth bass. Crayfish were important components of subadult shoal bass diets in all seasons but summer. Insects were important components of shoal bass diets in fall and summer. Diets of subadult spotted bass were generally more piscivorous than shoal bass, but less than largemouth bass.
    [Show full text]
  • Conservation Fisheries, Inc. and the Reintroduction of Our Native Species
    Summer (Aug.) 2011 American Currents 18 Conservation Fisheries, Inc. and the Reintroduction of Our Native Species J.R. Shute1 and Pat Rakes1 with edits by Casper Cox2 1 - Conservation Fisheries, Inc., 3424 Division St., Knoxville, TN 37919, (865)-521-6665 2 - 1200 B. Dodds Ave., Chattanooga, TN 37404, [email protected] n the southeastern U.S. there have been only a few fish In 1957, a “reclamation” project was conducted in Abrams reintroductions attempted. The reintroduction of a spe- Creek. In conjunction with the closing of Chilhowee Dam on the cies where it formerly occurred, but is presently extir- Little Tennessee River, all fish between Abrams Falls and the mouth pated,I is a technique used to recover a federally listed species. of the creek (19.4 km/12 miles to Chilhowee Reservoir) were elimi- This technique is often suggested as a specific task by the U.S. nated. This was done using a powerful ichthyocide (Rotenone) in an Fish & Wildlife Service when they prepare recovery plans for attempt to create a “trophy” trout fishery in the park. Since then, many endangered species. Four fishes, which formerly occurred in of the 63 fishes historically reported from Abrams Creek have made Abrams Creek, located in the Great Smoky Mountains National their way back, however nearly half have been permanently extirpated Park, are now on the federal Endangered Species List. These because of the impassable habitat that separates Abrams Creek from are: the Smoky Madtom; Yellowfin Madtom; Citico Darter; other stream communities, including the aforementioned species. and the Spotfin Chub. The recovery plans for all of these fishes These stream fishes are not able to survive in or make their way recommend reintroduction into areas historically occupied by through the reservoir that Chilhowee Dam created to repopulate flow- the species.
    [Show full text]
  • Kyfishid[1].Pdf
    Kentucky Fishes Kentucky Department of Fish and Wildlife Resources Kentucky Fish & Wildlife’s Mission To conserve, protect and enhance Kentucky’s fish and wildlife resources and provide outstanding opportunities for hunting, fishing, trapping, boating, shooting sports, wildlife viewing, and related activities. Federal Aid Project funded by your purchase of fishing equipment and motor boat fuels Kentucky Department of Fish & Wildlife Resources #1 Sportsman’s Lane, Frankfort, KY 40601 1-800-858-1549 • fw.ky.gov Kentucky Fish & Wildlife’s Mission Kentucky Fishes by Matthew R. Thomas Fisheries Program Coordinator 2011 (Third edition, 2021) Kentucky Department of Fish & Wildlife Resources Division of Fisheries Cover paintings by Rick Hill • Publication design by Adrienne Yancy Preface entucky is home to a total of 245 native fish species with an additional 24 that have been introduced either intentionally (i.e., for sport) or accidentally. Within Kthe United States, Kentucky’s native freshwater fish diversity is exceeded only by Alabama and Tennessee. This high diversity of native fishes corresponds to an abun- dance of water bodies and wide variety of aquatic habitats across the state – from swift upland streams to large sluggish rivers, oxbow lakes, and wetlands. Approximately 25 species are most frequently caught by anglers either for sport or food. Many of these species occur in streams and rivers statewide, while several are routinely stocked in public and private water bodies across the state, especially ponds and reservoirs. The largest proportion of Kentucky’s fish fauna (80%) includes darters, minnows, suckers, madtoms, smaller sunfishes, and other groups (e.g., lam- preys) that are rarely seen by most people.
    [Show full text]
  • And the Eastern Sand Darter (Ammocrypta Pellucida) in the Elk River, West Virginia
    Graduate Theses, Dissertations, and Problem Reports 2016 Distribution and habitat use of the western sand darter (Ammocrypta clara) and the eastern sand darter (Ammocrypta pellucida) in the Elk River, West Virginia Patricia A. Thompson Follow this and additional works at: https://researchrepository.wvu.edu/etd Recommended Citation Thompson, Patricia A., "Distribution and habitat use of the western sand darter (Ammocrypta clara) and the eastern sand darter (Ammocrypta pellucida) in the Elk River, West Virginia" (2016). Graduate Theses, Dissertations, and Problem Reports. 6800. https://researchrepository.wvu.edu/etd/6800 This Thesis is protected by copyright and/or related rights. It has been brought to you by the The Research Repository @ WVU with permission from the rights-holder(s). You are free to use this Thesis in any way that is permitted by the copyright and related rights legislation that applies to your use. For other uses you must obtain permission from the rights-holder(s) directly, unless additional rights are indicated by a Creative Commons license in the record and/ or on the work itself. This Thesis has been accepted for inclusion in WVU Graduate Theses, Dissertations, and Problem Reports collection by an authorized administrator of The Research Repository @ WVU. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Distribution and habitat use of the western sand darter (Ammocrypta clara) and the eastern sand darter (Ammocrypta pellucida) in the Elk River, West Virginia Patricia A. Thompson Thesis submitted to the Davis College of Agriculture, Natural Resources and Design at West Virginia University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science in Wildlife and Fisheries Resources Stuart A.
    [Show full text]
  • Etheostoma Maydeni) Species Status Assessment
    Redlips Darter (Etheostoma maydeni) Species Status Assessment Version 1.1 Photo courtesy of Dr. David Neely, Tennessee Aquarium Conservation Institute (East Fork Obey River, Fentress County, Tennessee, December 2017) U.S Fish and Wildlife Service Region 4 Atlanta, Georgia May 2018 Redlips Darter SSA This document was prepared by Dr. Michael A. Floyd, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Kentucky Ecological Services Field Office, Frankfort, Kentucky. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service greatly appreciates the assistance of Tom Barbour (Kentucky Division of Mine Permits), Darrell Bernd (Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency (TWRA)), Davy Black (Eastern Kentucky University), Stephanie Brandt (Kentucky Department of Fish and Wildlife Resources (KDFWR)), Bart Carter (TWRA), Stephanie Chance (USFWS – Tennessee Ecological Services Field Office (TFO)), Brian Evans (USFWS – Atlanta), Mike Compton (Kentucky State Nature Preserves Commission (KSNPC)), Dr. Bernie Kuhajda (Tennessee Aquarium Conservation Institute (TNACI), Pam Martin (U.S. Forest Service - Daniel Boone National Forest (DBNF)), Matt Moran (U.S. Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement), Dr. Dave Neely (TNACI), Dr. Steve Powers (Roanoke College), Pat Rakes (Conservation Fisheries, Inc. (CFI)), Rebecca Schapansky (National Park Service – Big South Fork National River and Recreation Area), J.R. Shute (CFI), Jeff Simmons (Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA)), Justin Spaulding (TWRA), Kurt Snider (USFWS – TFO), Dr. Matthew Thomas (KDFWR), Keith Wethington (KDFWR), David Withers (Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation (TDEC)), and Brian Zimmerman (The Ohio State University), who provided helpful information and/or review of the draft document. Suggested reference: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2018. Redlips Darter (Etheostoma maydeni) Species Status Assessment, Version 1.1. May 2018.
    [Show full text]
  • RSG Book Template 2011 V4 051211
    IUCN IUCN, International Union for Conservation of Nature, helps the world find pragmatic solutions to our most pressing environment and development challenges. IUCN works on biodiversity, climate change, energy, human livelihoods and greening the world economy by supporting scientific research, managing field projects all over the world, and bringing governments, NGOs, the UN and companies together to develop policy, laws and best practice. IUCN is the world’s oldest and largest global environmental organization, with more than 1,200 government and NGO members and almost 11,000 volunteer experts in some 160 countries. IUCN’s work is supported by over 1,000 staff in 60 offices and hundreds of partners in public, NGO and private sectors around the world. IUCN Species Survival Commission (SSC) The SSC is a science-based network of close to 8,000 volunteer experts from almost every country of the world, all working together towards achieving the vision of, “A world that values and conserves present levels of biodiversity.” Environment Agency - ABU DHABI (EAD) The EAD was established in 1996 to preserve Abu Dhabi’s natural heritage, protect our future, and raise awareness about environmental issues. EAD is Abu Dhabi’s environmental regulator and advises the government on environmental policy. It works to create sustainable communities, and protect and conserve wildlife and natural resources. EAD also works to ensure integrated and sustainable water resources management, and to ensure clean air and minimize climate change and its impacts. Denver Zoological Foundation (DZF) The DZF is a non-profit organization whose mission is to “secure a better world for animals through human understanding.” DZF oversees Denver Zoo and conducts conservation education and biological conservation programs at the zoo, in the greater Denver area, and worldwide.
    [Show full text]
  • The David H. Smith Conservation Research Fellowship Program 2010-2011
    The David H. Smith Conservation Research Fellowship Program 2010-2011 The Smith Fellowship Program is a partnership between the Cedar Tree Foundation and the Society for Conservation Biology Clare Aslan Keryn Gedan Ph.D. University of California, Davis Ph.D. Brown University Project Project Dissecting taxon substitution: Can nonnative Ecosystem services provided by shellfish: mutualists rescue native species from extinction? Improving water quality in nutrient-polluted estuaries Mentors Dr. Erika Zavaleta, University of California, Mentors Santa Cruz; Dr. Robert Robichaux, Hawaiian Dr. Denise Breitburg, Smithsonian Silversword Foundation Environmental Research Center; Dr. Rob Brumbaugh, The Nature Conservancy Background Background Clare’s dissertation research explored the role of bird dispersal in plant Keryn is a marine community ecologist who studies estuarine invasiveness. This fed her general interest in mutualism function in the conservation issues. Her dissertation research explored past, present, context of human-caused extinctions. Her Smith Fellowship focuses on and future human impacts in New England salt marsh ecosystems. plant-animal interactions and particularly mutualisms under various Keryn has also investigated climate change and eutrophication impacts drivers of environmental change in an effort to predict and prevent on rocky intertidal communities and the potential for coastal wetland extinction cascades. Clare’s previous experiences include an internship vegetation to protect shorelines from erosion and storms. Prior to with the National Park Service and serving for three years as a Natural becoming a Smith Fellow, Keryn taught Environmental Science at Resources volunteer in Honduras with the Peace Corps. American University. She earned a B.A. in Biology and Environmental Science at Tufts University.
    [Show full text]
  • Kentucky Outdoor Recreation Plan 2020-2025
    Kentucky Outdoor Recreation Plan 2020-2025 October 2019 Department for Local Government Federal Grants Division 1 Outdoor Recreation in Kentucky Assessment, Policies and Actions 2020-2025 Matt Bevin, Governor Commonwealth of Kentucky Sandy Dunahoo, Commissioner Office of the Governor Department for Local Government The Office of the Governor, Department for Local Government prohibits discrimination on the basis of age, sex, race, color, creed, religion, national origin or disability in its programs and activities. Anyone who believes he or she has been discriminated against for any of these reasons may file a complaint alleging discrimination with either the Department for Local Government or the Office of Equal Opportunity, U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C. 20240 The preparation of this plan was financed in part by a planning grant under the provisions of the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965 (Public Law 88-578) from the U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service. 2 Commonwealth of Kentucky OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR Matthew G. Bevin 700 Capitol Avenue Governor Suite 100 Frankfort, KY 40601 (502) 564-2611 Fax: (502) 564-2517 September 26, 2019 Mr. Robert Vogel, Regional Director National Park Service 1849 C Street, Northwest Washington, DC 20240 Dear Mr. Vogel: It is my pleasure to present the 2020 Kentucky Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan (SCORP). The Kentucky Department for Local Government prepared this five-year plan with extensive input from its fifteen area development districts, several federal, state and local government agencies, and community recreational-user groups. The 2020 SCORP outlines strategies and recommendations for addressing outdoor recreation to promote healthy lifestyles, boost outdoor recreational activities and tourism in our communities.
    [Show full text]
  • Oral Presentations
    Organizing Societies American Elasmobranch Society 33rd Annual Meeting President: Dean Grubbs Treasurer: Cathy Walsh Secretary: Jennifer Wyffels Editor and Webmaster: David Shiffman Immediate Past President: Chris Lowe American Society of Ichthyologists and Herpetologists 97th Annual Meeting President: Carole Baldwin President Elect: Brian Crother Past President: Maureen A. Donnelly Prior Past President: Larry G. Allen Treasurer: F. Douglas Martin Secretary: Prosanta Chakrabarty Editor: Christopher Beachy Herpetologists’ League 75th Annual Meeting President: David M. Green Immediate Past President: James Spotila Vice-President: David Sever Treasurer: Laurie Mauger Secretary: Renata Platenburg Publications Secretary: Ken Cabarle Communications Secretary: Wendy Palin Herpetologica Editor: Stephen Mullin Herpetological Monographs Editor: Michael Harvey Society for the Study of Amphibians and Reptiles 60th Annual Meeting President: Richard Shine President-Elect: Marty Crump Immediate Past-President: Aaron Bauer Secretary: Marion R. Preest Treasurer: Kim Lovich Publications Secretary: Cari-Ann Hickerson Thank you to our generous sponsor We would like to thank the following: Local Hosts David Hillis, University of Texas at Austin, LHC Chair Dean Hendrickson, University of Texas at Austin Becca Tarvin, University of Texas at Austin Anne Chambers, University of Texas at Austin Christopher Peterson, University of Texas at Austin Volunteers We wish to thank the following volunteers who have helped make the Joint Meeting of Ichthyologists and Herpetologists
    [Show full text]
  • The Critical Fish Habitat Project: Reintroductions of Threatened Fish Species in the Coorong, Lower Lakes and Murray Mouth
    The Critical Fish Habitat Project: Reintroductions of threatened fish species in the Coorong, Lower Lakes and Murray Mouth region 2011–13 C. Bice, N. Whiterod, P. Wilson, B. Zampatti and M. Hammer SARDI Publication No. F2012/000348-2 SARDI Research Report Series No. 697 SARDI Aquatic Sciences PO Box 120 Henley Beach SA 5022 July 2013 The Critical Fish Habitat Project: Reintroductions of threatened fish species in the Coorong, Lower Lakes and Murray Mouth region in 2011–13 C. Bice, N. Whiterod, P. Wilson, B. Zampatti and M. Hammer SARDI Publication No. F2012/000348-2 SARDI Research Report Series No. 697 July 2013 This publication may be cited as: Bice, C., Whiterod, N., Wilson, P., Zampatti, B. and Hammer, M. (2013). The Critical Fish Habitat Project: Reintroductions of threatened fish species in the Coorong, Lower Lakes and Murray Mouth region 2011–2013. South Australian Research and Development Institute (Aquatic Sciences), Adelaide. SARDI Publication No. F2012/000348-2. SARDI Research Report Series No 697. 67pp. South Australian Research and Development Institute SARDI Aquatic Sciences 2 Hamra Avenue West Beach SA 5024 Telephone: (08) 8207 5400 Facsimile: (08) 8207 5406 http://www.sardi.sa.gov.au DISCLAIMER The authors warrant that they have taken all reasonable care in producing this report. The report has been through the SARDI internal review process, and has been formally approved for release by the Research Chief, Aquatic Sciences. Although all reasonable efforts have been made to ensure quality, SARDI does not warrant that the information in this report is free from errors or omissions. SARDI does not accept any liability for the contents of this report or for any consequences arising from its use or any reliance placed upon it.
    [Show full text]
  • 2011 Annual Meeting
    Southeastern Fishes Council Annual Meeting Abstracts November 10 & 11, 2011 Chattanooga, Tennessee Abstracts are listed alphabetically by presenter in two different sections: Contributed Oral Presentations and Posters. RECOVERY OF A LOWLAND FISH ASSEMBLAGE FOLLOWING LARGE-SCALE ROTENONE APPLICATION IN EASTERN ARKANSAS Ginny Adams, Clint Johnson and S. Reid Adams University of Central Arkansas, Department of Biology In Spring 2009, Arkansas Game and Fish Commission and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service attempted to eradicate northern snakehead, Channa argus, from the Big Piney watershed in eastern Arkansas by applying rotenone to approximately 640 km of streams. To examine long- term fish community recovery, we sampled at 17 sites in Spring 2009, Summer 2009, Spring 2010, and Summer 2010. Although species richness was unchanged (1-way ANOVA, F3,64=2.61, P=0.059) over time, many other community characteristics varied. Fish densities increased significantly after the eradication (1-way ANOVA, F3,64=16, P<0.0001) due to high abundances of YOY. Life history guild was found to significantly affect density (periodic species 1-way ANOVA, F3,64=7.20, P=0.0003; opportunistic 1-way ANOVA, F3,64=9.69, P<0.0001; Tukey HSD) with early recolonizing species possessing traits including mobile adults, high fecundity, and/or early ² reproduction. Trophic structure also changed significantly over time (χ 0.05, 4= 26032.76, P<<0.0001) with variability in proportions of omnivores and invertivores, though piscivores showed relatively little change. Piscivore composition, however, did vary significantly by sample ² (χ 0.05, 4= 1621.47, P<<0.0001) with an increase in small piscivores and a decrease in large- bodied piscivores.
    [Show full text]
  • 2013 Southeastern Fishes Council State Reports
    Southeastern Fishes Council Proceedings Volume 1 Number 55 Number 55 Article 5 August 2015 2013 Southeastern Fishes Council State Reports Compiled by the Editors Follow this and additional works at: https://trace.tennessee.edu/sfcproceedings Recommended Citation Compiled by the Editors (2015) "2013 Southeastern Fishes Council State Reports," Southeastern Fishes Council Proceedings: No. 55. Available at: https://trace.tennessee.edu/sfcproceedings/vol1/iss55/5 This Regional Report is brought to you for free and open access by Volunteer, Open Access, Library Journals (VOL Journals), published in partnership with The University of Tennessee (UT) University Libraries. This article has been accepted for inclusion in Southeastern Fishes Council Proceedings by an authorized editor. For more information, please visit https://trace.tennessee.edu/sfcproceedings. 2013 Southeastern Fishes Council State Reports Abstract State reports of research, activities, and events of interest to the membership. Creative Commons License This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. This regional report is available in Southeastern Fishes Council Proceedings: https://trace.tennessee.edu/ sfcproceedings/vol1/iss55/5 2013 State Reports SFC Proceedings No. 55 2013 Southeastern Fishes Council State Reports (Including: Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Missouri, North Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and Virginia) Alabama: (Brook Fluker, [email protected] ) • Auburn University Museum Projects- Submitted by Jonathan W. Armbruster o The Auburn University Museum moved into its new home in the Biodiversity Learning Center in April/May 2013. The new facility is located near all of the other Biological Sciences Buildings and across the street from the School of Fisheries, Aquaculture, and Aquatic Sciences.
    [Show full text]