DOCSLIB.ORG

2012 Monitoring and Evaluation Annual Report

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

2012 Monitoring and Evaluation Annual Report Revised Land and Resource Management Plan Sumter National Forest September 23, 2013 Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF MONITORING AND EVALUATION ______________________________________ 4 RESULTS AND REPORT FINDINGS _____________________________________________________________ 4 ECOSYSTEM CONDITION, HEALTH AND SUSTAINABILITY ___________________________________________________ 4 Forest Health ______________________________________________________________________________________________________ 7 Watershed Condition and Riparian Areas ________________________________________________________________________ 8 Recreational Opportunities _______________________________________________________________________________________ 8 Heritage Resources ________________________________________________________________________________________________ 9 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION _________________________________________________________________ 10 CHAPTER 2 MONITORING RESULTS AND FINDINGS _____________________________________________ 11 ISSUE 1. ECOSYSTEM CONDITION, HEALTH AND SUSTAINABILITY _______________________________________ 11 Sub-Issue 1.1 – Biological Diversity _____________________________________________________________________________ 11 Sub-Issue 1.3 – Watershed Condition and Riparian Areas _____________________________________________________ 53 ISSUE 2. SUSTAINABLE MULTIPLE FOREST AND RANGE BENEFITS _______________________________________ 56 Sub-Issue 2.1 – Recreational Opportunities ____________________________________________________________________ 56 Sub-Issue 2.2 – Roadless Areas/Wilderness/Wild and Scenic Rivers __________________________________________ 57 Sub-Issue 2.3 – Heritage Resources _____________________________________________________________________________ 58 ISSUE 3. ORGANIZATIONAL EFFECTIVENESS _______________________________________________________ 60 CHAPTER 3 FY 2013 ACTION PLAN AND STATUS _______________________________________________ 64 APPENDIX A - LIST OF PREPARERS ___________________________________________________________ 69 APPENDIX B – AMENDMENT TO FOREST PLAN _________________________________________________ 70 2 Executive Summary of Monitoring and Evaluation Results and Report Findings The Revised Land and Resource Management Plan (forest plan) provides guidance on how the Sumter National Forest will be managed. Monitoring is used to assess how well goals and objectives are being met, if standards are being properly implemented, and whether environmental effects are occurring as predicted. A summary of key results and findings is listed below. Ecosystem Condition, Health and Sustainability Approximately 4,024 acres of commercial thinning, 263 acres of pre-commercial thinning and 2,804 acres of herbicide release treatments were either planned or implemented to increase oak and hickory forest types on the Enoree and Long Cane Ranger districts (piedmont districts). Silvicultural prescriptions generally emphasize release of desirable oaks and hickories where they occur with loblolly pine, especially in stands with regeneration harvest prescriptions. The Forest Service participated with the Carolina Vegetation Survey to sample native plant communities on 80 sites using 60 volunteers on the Enoree Ranger District and adjacent areas in July, 2012. Basic mesic and mesic oak-hickory communities were identified on 150 acres in Chester and Fairfield counties. Several notable bottomland hardwood communities were sampled in Union and Chester counties. The Andrew Pickens (AP) Ranger District is making progress on restoration of natural communities and habitats (forest plan goal #8) by removing non-native loblolly pine stands that were established 20 to 50 years ago. The forest has already both planned or implemented loblolly pine removal and reestablishment of native forest communities on 953 acres. The Geographic Information System (GIS) database now shows 4,568 acres of stands typed as loblolly pine on the district. A number of other stands still have a component of loblolly pine remaining even though they may not be typed as such. The AP Loblolly Pine and Removal and Restoration Project Environmental Impact Statement delineate plans to treat about 5,542 acres, effectively removing most of the remaining loblolly pine on the district. The few scattered stands remaining will be targeted for treatment in future planning. The GIS database currently shows 3,077 acres of shortleaf pine on the piedmont districts, an increase of 20 acres from the 3,057 acres reported in FY 2011. However, because historic erosion from agricultural practices in the Piedmont Region has generally left few places where the soil is adequate to support shortleaf pine communities, the forest is unlikely to meet restoration objectives during the planning period. Shortleaf pine requires at least eight inches of well-drained to moderately well-drained soil in order to stay relatively free from littleleaf disease. Thus far, the suitable areas found tend to be very small, isolated parts of ridges and flats. Early successional habitat, particularly woodland/savanna habitat, continues to be in short supply across all districts. However, decisions are currently in place that will establish more woodland habitat on all three districts. 4 The Forest Service Southern Research Station, Center for Aquatic Technology Transfer implemented a long term mussel monitoring program for the Chattooga River in 2012. Twelve sites totaling over 44.2 km were sampled from the confluence of Camp Creek and up river to the confluence with Lick Log Creek. The goal of the distributed sampling was to assess the overall mussel population condition throughout the entire sample area. At least one mussel species was found at each of 12 sample sites. The brook floater (Alasmidonta varicosa), was found approximately 10 km further upstream than in past surveys. Population estimates declined for Elliptio spp. upstream of site 11 (Adeline Branch) despite the fact that there was no noticeable change in stream habitat. Brook floater, also, was not found above this site. Corbicula fluminea, the introduced Asian clam was present in only the two most downstream sites of the river (Krause and Roghair 2012). In 2011 and 2012, Alderman Environmental Services, Inc. conducted surveys for the federally endangered Carolina heelsplitter (Lasmigona decorata) in Mountain Creek on the Long Cane Ranger District Those surveys documented only five live Carolina heelsplitters, with no juveniles or young adults observed. Thirty fish species were documented from 17 streams on the Enoree Ranger District. Thirty-eight fish species were documented from 14 streams on the Long Cane Ranger District. Thirty two fish species were documented from 27 streams on the Andrew Pickens Ranger District. The fish species diversity in the Chattooga River watershed has not changed in more than 20 years of sampling the main stem of the river. Southern brook trout populations are considered stable in two recently restored streams. An additional stream was stocked with southern brook trout in 2012 on the Andrew Pickens Ranger District. The preliminary results of a 2012 large wood survey on the Chattooga River from the confluence of West Fork Chattooga River to the confluence of Green Creek in North Carolina show that the amount of large wood and associated obstructions increased in some reaches and decreased in others, but the overall distribution and amount were similar to conditions in 2007. In 2012, cut/sawn wood1 was most abundant in the upstream reaches of the river, though there were additional reaches containing large sawn wood further downstream. On the Andrew Pickens Ranger District, large wood was added to Moody Creek, a stream targeted for brook trout restoration, to enhance aquatic habitat. More streams are being reviewed for the potential to add large wood. Georgia aster is listed as a candidate species for federal protection by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service. Georgia aster populations occur along utility line rights-of-way (ROW) on the Enoree Ranger District. The Forest Service is working with Broad River Power Company and Fairfield Electric to minimize impacts to these plant populations during maintenance of their ROWs. Both the Enoree and Long Cane districts plan to restore shortleaf pine and longleaf pine woodlands which will also improve habitat conditions for Georgia aster. 1 Cut or sawn wood in the Chattooga River is an indicator of the amount of recreation use occurring on the river. Past studies have linked sawn wood to adjacent campsites and to recreational boating. Large wood provides habitat for aquatic species and is an important component for the restoration of native brook trout in the Chattooga River and tributaries. 5 The Forest Service continues to monitor and map federally endangered Florida gooseberry along Stevens Creek on the Long Cane Ranger District. Six new sub-colonies were found, all part of a larger population shared with the Stevens Creek Heritage Preserve, of which 16 colonies occur on the Sumter National Forest. Trifoliate orange, Chinese privet and Japanese honeysuckle (non- native invasive species) are invading the floodplain and impacting some of the colonies. Control of non-native invasive plants is ongoing on the state heritage preserve and was initiated on national forest system lands in the area in 2012. The Florida gooseberry population appears to be stable. On the Andrew Pickens district, the sensitive plant
Recommended publications
  • Fisheries Across the Eastern Continental Divide

    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.
  • North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission Gordon Myers, Executive Director

    North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission Gordon Myers, Executive Director

    North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission Gordon Myers, Executive Director March 1, 2016 Honorable Jimmy Dixon Honorable Chuck McGrady N.C. House of Representatives N.C. House of Representatives 300 N. Salisbury Street, Room 416B 300 N. Salisbury Street, Room 304 Raleigh, NC 27603-5925 Raleigh, NC 27603-5925 Senator Trudy Wade N.C. Senate 300 N. Salisbury Street, Room 521 Raleigh, NC 27603-5925 Dear Honorables: I am submitting this report to the Environmental Review Committee in fulfillment of the requirements of Section 4.33 of Session Law 2015-286 (H765). As directed, this report includes a review of methods and criteria used by the NC Wildlife Resources Commission on the State protected animal list as defined in G.S. 113-331 and compares them to federal and state agencies in the region. This report also reviews North Carolina policies specific to introduced species along with determining recommendations for improvements to these policies among state and federally listed species as well as nonlisted animals. If you have questions or need additional information, please contact me by phone at (919) 707-0151 or via email at [email protected]. Sincerely, Gordon Myers Executive Director North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission Report on Study Conducted Pursuant to S.L. 2015-286 To the Environmental Review Commission March 1, 2016 Section 4.33 of Session Law 2015-286 (H765) directed the N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission (WRC) to “review the methods and criteria by which it adds, removes, or changes the status of animals on the state protected animal list as defined in G.S.
  • Lloyd Shoals

    Lloyd Shoals

    Southern Company Generation. 241 Ralph McGill Boulevard, NE BIN 10193 Atlanta, GA 30308-3374 404 506 7219 tel July 3, 2018 FERC Project No. 2336 Lloyd Shoals Project Notice of Intent to Relicense Lloyd Shoals Dam, Preliminary Application Document, Request for Designation under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act and Request for Authorization to Initiate Consultation under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act Ms. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 888 First Street, N.E. Washington, D.C. 20426 Dear Ms. Bose: On behalf of Georgia Power Company, Southern Company is filing this letter to indicate our intent to relicense the Lloyd Shoals Hydroelectric Project, FERC Project No. 2336 (Lloyd Shoals Project). We will file a complete application for a new license for Lloyd Shoals Project utilizing the Integrated Licensing Process (ILP) in accordance with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s (Commission) regulations found at 18 CFR Part 5. The proposed Process, Plan and Schedule for the ILP proceeding is provided in Table 1 of the Preliminary Application Document included with this filing. We are also requesting through this filing designation as the Commission’s non-federal representative for consultation under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act and authorization to initiate consultation under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. There are four components to this filing: 1) Cover Letter (Public) 2) Notification of Intent (Public) 3) Preliminary Application Document (Public) 4) Preliminary Application Document – Appendix C (CEII) If you require further information, please contact me at 404.506.7219. Sincerely, Courtenay R.
  • Information on the NCWRC's Scientific Council of Fishes Rare

    Information on the NCWRC's Scientific Council of Fishes Rare

    A Summary of the 2010 Reevaluation of Status Listings for Jeopardized Freshwater Fishes in North Carolina Submitted by Bryn H. Tracy North Carolina Division of Water Resources North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources Raleigh, NC On behalf of the NCWRC’s Scientific Council of Fishes November 01, 2014 Bigeye Jumprock, Scartomyzon (Moxostoma) ariommum, State Threatened Photograph by Noel Burkhead and Robert Jenkins, courtesy of the Virginia Division of Game and Inland Fisheries and the Southeastern Fishes Council (http://www.sefishescouncil.org/). Table of Contents Page Introduction......................................................................................................................................... 3 2010 Reevaluation of Status Listings for Jeopardized Freshwater Fishes In North Carolina ........... 4 Summaries from the 2010 Reevaluation of Status Listings for Jeopardized Freshwater Fishes in North Carolina .......................................................................................................................... 12 Recent Activities of NCWRC’s Scientific Council of Fishes .................................................. 13 North Carolina’s Imperiled Fish Fauna, Part I, Ohio Lamprey .............................................. 14 North Carolina’s Imperiled Fish Fauna, Part II, “Atlantic” Highfin Carpsucker ...................... 17 North Carolina’s Imperiled Fish Fauna, Part III, Tennessee Darter ...................................... 20 North Carolina’s Imperiled Fish Fauna, Part
  • South Carolina Department of Natural Resources

    South Carolina Department of Natural Resources

    FOREWORD Abundant fish and wildlife, unbroken coastal vistas, miles of scenic rivers, swamps and mountains open to exploration, and well-tended forests and fields…these resources enhance the quality of life that makes South Carolina a place people want to call home. We know our state’s natural resources are a primary reason that individuals and businesses choose to locate here. They are drawn to the high quality natural resources that South Carolinians love and appreciate. The quality of our state’s natural resources is no accident. It is the result of hard work and sound stewardship on the part of many citizens and agencies. The 20th century brought many changes to South Carolina; some of these changes had devastating results to the land. However, people rose to the challenge of restoring our resources. Over the past several decades, deer, wood duck and wild turkey populations have been restored, striped bass populations have recovered, the bald eagle has returned and more than half a million acres of wildlife habitat has been conserved. We in South Carolina are particularly proud of our accomplishments as we prepare to celebrate, in 2006, the 100th anniversary of game and fish law enforcement and management by the state of South Carolina. Since its inception, the South Carolina Department of Natural Resources (SCDNR) has undergone several reorganizations and name changes; however, more has changed in this state than the department’s name. According to the US Census Bureau, the South Carolina’s population has almost doubled since 1950 and the majority of our citizens now live in urban areas.
  • Management Indicator Species Population and Habitat Trends

    Management Indicator Species Population and Habitat Trends

    United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service Management Indicator Species Southern Region Population and Habitat Trends Chattahoochee-Oconee National Forests Revised and Updated May 2003 i CONTENTS Page Introduction......................................................................................................................... 1 Documentation of Management Indicator Species Selection ......................................... 1 Management Indicator Species Habitat Relationships............................................. 8 Forestwide Management Indicator Species Habitat Monitoring and Evaluation ............. 10 Forestwide Management Indicator Species Population Trend Monitoring and Evaluation ....................................................................................................................... 13 White-tailed Deer.......................................................................................................... 15 Black Bear..................................................................................................................... 19 Eastern Wild Turkey..................................................................................................... 23 Ruffed Grouse............................................................................................................... 27 Bobwhite Quail ............................................................................................................. 31 Gray Squirrel................................................................................................................
  • SC Priority Species SC CWCS

    SC Priority Species SC CWCS

    Chapter 2: SC Priority Species SC CWCS CHAPTER 2: SOUTH CAROLINA PRIORITY SPECIES The State Wildlife Grants program established funding for species not traditionally covered under federal funding programs. To qualify for these funds, each state was mandated to develop a Strategy with a focus on “species of greatest conservation concern;” guidance was provided to the states to begin identifying these species. SCDNR recognized the importance of including species that are currently rare or designated as at-risk, those for which we have knowledge deficiencies and those that have not received adequate conservation attention in the past. Additionally, SCDNR included species for which South Carolina is “responsible,” that is, species that may be common in our state, but are declining or rare elsewhere. SCDNR also included species that could be used as indicators of detrimental conditions. These indicator species may be common in South Carolina; as such, changes in their population status are likely to indicate stress to other species that occur in the same habitat. The diversity of animals in South Carolina is vast. Habitats in this state range from the mountains to the ocean and include many different taxonomic animal groups. SCDNR wanted to address as many of those groups as possible for inclusion in the list of priority species for the CWCS; as such, twelve taxonomic groups are included in the Strategy: mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, freshwater fishes, diadromous fishes, marine fishes, marine invertebrates, crayfish, freshwater mussels, freshwater snails, and insects (both freshwater and terrestrial). However, taxonomic groups that are excluded from this version of the SC CWCS may be included in future revisions of the Strategy, as additional information and experts specific to those groups are identified.
  • Appendix A: Equipment & Supplies

    Appendix A: Equipment & Supplies

    National Rivers and Streams Assessment 2018/19 Field Operations Manual Version 1.1 April 2018 Appendix A: Equipment & Supplies T & SUPPLIES & T APPENDIX A: EQUIPMEN A: APPENDIX A-1 National Rivers and Streams Assessment 2018/19 Field Operations Manual Version 1.1 April 2018 T & SUPPLIES & T APPENDIX A: EQUIPMEN A: APPENDIX A-2 National Rivers and Streams Assessment 2018/19 Field Operations Manual Version 1.1 April 2018 Base Kit A Base Kit will be provided to the field crews for all sampling sites that they will go to. Some items are sent in the base kit as extra supplies to be used as needed. Base Kit Item Quantity Protocol Antibiotic Salve 1 Fish Plug Aspirator bulb 1 Fish Plug Beaker (3 L, Nalgene) 1 Water Chemistry Centrifuge tube stand 1 Chlorophyll A Centrifuge tubes (sterile, green screw-top, 50-mL) (10/pack) 1 pack Chlorophyll A Periphyton Chlorophyll bottle (2 L, brown) 1 Chlorophyll A Clinometer† 1 Physical Habitat Compass† 1 Physical Habitat Delimiter – 12 cm2 area 1 Periphyton Densiometer - Convex spherical (modified with taped V)† 1 Physical Habitat D-frame Kick Net (500 µm mesh, 52” handle) † 1 Benthics Dry ice label (Class 9)* 5 Shipping Electrical tape - roll* 1 General FedEx labels, 5 sets of each in file folder (T1, T2, T3, T5)* 1 Shipping Filtration chamber adapter 3 Enterococci, Chlorophyll A, Periphyton Filtration flask 1 Enterococci, Chlorophyll A, Periphyton Filtration flask stopper (silicone, blue) 2 Enterococci, Chlorophyll A, Periphyton Filtration unit (sterile 250 ml funnel, cap and filter holder) - spares 5 Enterococci,
  • Chironomus 16

    Chironomus 16

    CHIRONOMUS NEWSLETTER ON CHIRONOMIDAE RESEARCH Co-Editors: Ruth CONTRERAS-LICHTENBERG Naturhistorisches Museum Wien, Burgring 7, A-1014 WIEN, Austria Peter H. LANGTON 5 Kylebeg Avenue, Mountsandel, Coleraine, Co. Londonderry, Northern Ireland, BT52 1JN - Northern Ireland Bibliography: Odwin HOFFRICHTER Institut f. Biologie I, Albert-Ludwigs-Universität Freiburg, Hauptstrasse 1 D-79104 , Germany Treasurer: Trond ANDERSEN: Museum of Zoology, University of Bergen, Museplass 3, N-5007 Bergen - Norway ISSN 0172-1941 No. 16 October 2003 CONTENTS 16th International Symposium on Chironomidae – Announcement .......................................................................1 Professor Dr. hab. ZDISLAW KAJAK (1929 – 2002) ...........................................................................................2 The Newsletter Grant..................................................................................................................................................3 Current Research.........................................................................................................................................................3 Theses .........................................................................................................................................................................6 Short – Communications ...........................................................................................................................................8 List of regional representatives 2003....................................................................................................................
  • Southeastern Plains Ecoregion Aquatic Habitats

    Southeastern Plains Ecoregion Aquatic Habitats

    Southeastern Plains Ecoregion Aquatic Habitats Description and Location The Southeastern Plains Ecoregion is sandwiched between the piedmont to the north and the coastal plain to the south. It extends northwest from the Savannah River to the Pee Dee River. The southeastern plains encompass portions of 24 counties and 9,106 square miles. Just below the fall line, the ecoregion is dominated by sandy ACE-Southeastern Plains EDU soils with scrub vegetation on moderate Pee Dee-Southeastern Plains EDU Santee-Southeastern Plains EDU sloping lands. This area is known as the Savannah-Southeastern Plains EDU sandhills and varies in elevation from 250 to 450 feet above mean sea level. Moving toward the coast, the topography is reduced to gentle sloping to nearly level lands with elevations of 25 to 450 feet. Savannah–Southeastern Plains Ecobasin The Savannah-Southeastern Plains Ecobasin extends from the southern portions of Edgefield County south to the southern portion of Allendale County. It includes about 85 miles of the Savannah River as it meanders toward the coastal plain and ultimately the Atlantic Ocean. Major South Carolina tributaries to the Savannah River in the ecobasin include Horse Creek, Hollow Creek, Upper Three Runs Creek and Lower Three Runs Creek. The ecobasin encompasses most of six watersheds and parts of ten others in its 980 square miles. A large portion (31 percent) of the ecobasin is protected by federal, private and state entities. Most of this protected land (303 square miles) is included in the Savannah River Site. Other significant protected areas include the Hitchcock Woods Conservation Easement (1,955 acres), the Henderson Heritage Preserve (441 acres) and the Redcliffe State Historic Site (340 acres).
  • Laboratory Operations Manual Version 2.0 May 2014

    Laboratory Operations Manual Version 2.0 May 2014

    United States Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water Washington, DC EPA 841‐B‐12‐010 National Rivers and Streams Assessment 2013‐2014 Laboratory Operations Manual Version 2.0 May 2014 2013‐2014 National Rivers & Streams Assessment Laboratory Operations Manual Version 1.3, May 2014 Page ii of 224 NOTICE The intention of the National Rivers and Streams Assessment 2013‐2014 is to provide a comprehensive “State of Flowing Waters” assessment for rivers and streams across the United States. The complete documentation of overall project management, design, methods, quality assurance, and standards is contained in five companion documents: National Rivers and Streams Assessment 2013‐14: Quality Assurance Project Plan EPA‐841‐B‐12‐007 National Rivers and Streams Assessment 2013‐14: Site Evaluation Guidelines EPA‐841‐B‐12‐008 National Rivers and Streams Assessment 2013‐14: Non‐Wadeable Field Operations Manual EPA‐841‐B‐ 12‐009a National Rivers and Streams Assessment 2013‐14: Wadeable Field Operations Manual EPA‐841‐B‐12‐ 009b National Rivers and Streams Assessment 2013‐14: Laboratory Operations Manual EPA 841‐B‐12‐010 Addendum to the National Rivers and Streams Assessment 2013‐14: Wadeable & Non‐Wadeable Field Operations Manuals This document (Laboratory Operations Manual) contains information on the methods for analyses of the samples to be collected during the project, quality assurance objectives, sample handling, and data reporting. These methods are based on the guidelines developed and followed in the Western Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program (Peck et al. 2003). Methods described in this document are to be used specifically in work relating to the NRSA 2013‐2014.
  • Scoring Criteria for the Index of Biotic

    Scoring Criteria for the Index of Biotic

    Part III: Scoring Criteria for the Index of Biotic Integrity to Monitor Fish Communities in Wadeable Streams in the Apalachicola and Atlantic Slope Drainage Basins of the Southeastern Plains Ecoregion of Georgia Georgia Department of Natural Resources Wildlife Resources Division Fisheries Management Section 2020 Table of Contents Introduction………………………………………………………………… ………Pg. 1 Map of Southeastern Plains Ecoregion………………………………..…………… Pg. 3 Table 1. State Listed Fish in the Southeastern Plains Ecoregion………………….. Pg. 4 Table 2. IBI Metrics and Scoring Criteria………………………………………….Pg. 5 References………………………………………………….. ………………………Pg. 7 Appendix 1…………………………………………………………………………. Pg. 8 Apalachicola Basin Group (ACF) MSR Graphs…………………………… Pg. 9 Atlantic Slope Basins Group (AS) MSR Graphs…………………………... Pg. 17 Southeastern Plains Ecoregion Fish List……………………………………Pg. 25 i Introduction The Southeastern Plains ecoregion (SEP) is the largest of the six Level III ecoregions found in Georgia (Part I, Figure 1). It covers most of the southern portion of Georgia, bordering the Piedmont ecoregion to the north and the Southern Coastal Plain ecoregion to the southeast. It includes all or portions of 80 counties (Figure 1), covering a land area of over 25,000 square miles (United States Census Bureau 2000). Major drainage basins found within the (SEP) include the Chattahoochee, Flint, Ocmulgee, Oconee, Altamaha, Ogeechee, Savannah, Satilla, Suwannee, and Ochlockonee. The biotic index developed by the GAWRD is based on Level III ecoregion delineations (Griffith et al. 2001). The metrics and scoring criteria were developed from biomonitoring samples collected in the Chattahoochee, Flint, Ocmulgee, Oconee, Altamaha, Ogeechee, and the Savannah Drainage Basins. Based on similarities in species richness and composition, these seven drainages were aligned into two groups: the Apalachicola Drainage Basin (ACF), including the Chattahoochee and Flint drainage basins, and the Atlantic Slope Drainage Basin (AS), including the Altamaha, Ocmulgee, Oconee, Ogeechee, and Savannah Drainage Basins.