DOCSLIB.ORG

Programmatic Evaluation: Activities of The

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Programmatic Evaluation: Activities of The Programmatic Evaluation ACTIVITIES OF THE U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE FISHERIES PROGRAM Sport Fishing FY 2005–2009 and Boating Partnership Council SPORT FISHING AND BOATING PARTNERSHIP COUNCIL Sport Fishing & Boating Partnership Council Programmatic Evaluation Activities of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Fisheries Program FY 2005–2009 Report of the 2009 Ad Hoc Evaluation Team to the Sport Fishing and Boating Partnership Council June 21, 2010 PROGRAMMATIC ASSESSMENT OF THE FISHERIES PROGRAM SPORT FISHING AND BOATING PARTNERSHIP COUNCIL Table of Contents Report Summary and Findings i Introduction 1 Conduct of the Evaluation 2 PROGRAMMATIC EVALUATION 1. Accountability 9 Context 9 Basis for Evaluation 10 Results 11 Accountability to Authorities 11 Accountability to Stakeholders and Partners 13 Accountability to Open, Interactive Communication 15 Accountability through Performance Reporting Systems 15 Findings and Observations 18 Recommendations to Increase Effectiveness 20 2. Habitat Conservation and Management 21 Context 21 Basis for Evaluation 22 Results 23 National Fish Habitat Action Plan 23 National Fish Passage Program 28 Fish and Wildlife Conservation Offices 30 Findings and Observations 33 Recommendations to Increase Effectiveness 34 3. Species Conservation and Management 35 Context 35 Basis for Evaluation 35 Results 36 Native Species 36 Robust Redhorse Conservation Efforts (Box) 39 Interjurisdictional Species 39 Aquatic Invasive Species 40 Findings and Observations 43 Recommendations to Increase Effectiveness 45 4. Cooperation with Native American Tribes 46 Context 46 Basis for Evaluation 48 Results 50 Understanding Tribal Expectations 51 Delivery of Trust Services 52 Building Tribal Capacity 54 Cultural Acuity 57 Findings and Observations 58 Recommendations to Increase Effectiveness 60 5. Recreational Fishing and other Public Uses 61 Context 61 Basis for Evaluation 62 PROGRAMMATIC ASSESSMENT OF THE FISHERIES PROGRAM Results 64 Recreational Fishing 64 Fisheries Mitigation Services 65 Outreach and Education 70 Findings and Observations 73 Recommendation to Increase Effectiveness 74 6. Science and Technology 75 Context 75 Aquatic Animal Drug Approval Partnership (Box) 77 Basis for Evaluation 78 Results 79 Science Capacity 79 USGS Science Support 81 Quality of Science 83 Cooperative Research Units 85 Findings and Observations 86 Recommendation to Increase Effectiveness 88 Alaska’s Conservation Genetics Laboratory (Box) 89 7. Asset Maintenance 90 Context 90 Basis for Evaluation 91 Results 92 Condition of Facilities 93 Equipment 94 Energy Costs 95 Lost Opportunities 95 Lessons from the National Wildlife Refuge System 96 Findings and Observations 96 Recommendations to Increase Effectiveness 97 8. Workforce Management 98 Context 98 Basis for Evaluation 99 Results 100 Budget Trends 100 Staffing Levels 103 Training and Advancement 106 Findings and Observations 107 Recommendation to Increase Effectiveness 108 Conclusion and Acknowledgements 109 FIGURES 1. Organizational Chart of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 9 2. Fish Habitat Partnerships, March 2010 25 3. Available FTEs for FWCO, AIS & Marine Mammals, FY 2004–2008 103 SPORT FISHING AND BOATING PARTNERSHIP COUNCIL TABLES 1. SFBPC 2009 Fisheries Program Evaluation Team 3 2. Accountability: Indicators, Baselines and Benchmarks 10 3. Principle Legislation and Other Authorities 12 4. Regionally Specific Authorities 13 5. Benefits of Healthy Aquatic Ecosystems 21 6. Habitat: Indicators, Baselines and Benchmarks 22 7. National Fish Habitat Action Plan Objectives and Status 23 8. National Fish Habitat Action Plan Fish Habitat Partnerships 26 9. National Fish Habitat Action Plan Funding Per Fish Habitat Partnership 28 10. Selected Fish Passage Metrics 30 11. Funding Levels for Selected Habitat Programs 33 12. Species: Indicators, Baselines and Benchmarks 36 13. Selected Native Species Metrics 38 14. Summary of Aquatic Species of Interest to Fisheries Program 39 15. Selected Aquatic Invasive Species Metrics 42 16. Tribal Cooperation: Indicators, Baselines, and Benchmarks 49 17. Selected Cooperation with Tribes Metrics 53 18. Recreational Fishing and Public Use: Indicators, Baselines and Benchmarks 63 19. Selected Recreational Fishing & NFHS Metrics 65 20. Selected Fisheries Mitigation Services Metrics 66 21. Summary of Mitigation Activities 66 22. National Fish Hatcheries with Mitigation Responsibilities 67 23. Reimbursed and Non-Reimbursed Mitigation Costs 67 24. Examples of Outreach Activities on NFHs 71 25. Selected Education and Outreach Metrics 72 26. Science and Technology: Indicators, Baselines, and Benchmarks 78 27. Selected Science & Technology Metrics 81 28. Field Evaluations of Fisheries Program Science Centers 84 29. Cooperative Research Units Annual Performance Summary 86 30. The Science Gap 87 31. Asset Maintenance: Indicators, Baselines and Benchmarks 92 32. Selected Asset Maintenance Metrics 92 33. Workforce Management: Indicators, Baselines and Benchmarks 99 34. Fisheries Program Budget 101 35. Selected Program Salary and Operations Budgets 103 36. Fisheries Program Staffing and Budgets by Field Station 105 EXHIBITS 1. FWS letter to SFBPC re: Evaluation, March 9, 2009 112 2. SFBPC letter to FWS re: Evaluation, July 10, 2009 114 3. FWS Fisheries Evaluation 2009 Assessment Inventory of Resources 116 4. Authorities, Policies & Directives 146 5. Fisheries Program Aquatic “Trust” Species 164 6. National Fish Hatchery System Summary Data 185 7. Species Benefitting from FY 2009 Fisheries Projects 189 8. List of Tribes with Fisheries-Related Trust Responsibilities by FWS Region 191 9. Summary of FWS Fisheries Mitigation Programs 195 10. Fisheries Program Field Station Staffing and Budgets 202 PROGRAMMATIC ASSESSMENT OF THE FISHERIES PROGRAM SPORT FISHING AND BOATING PARTNERSHIP COUNCIL REPORT SUMMARY AND FINDINGS In March 2009, the Director of the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (FWS) requested the Sport Fishing and Boating Partnership Council (SFBPC or Council) undertake a “follow- up evaluation” to assess the Fisheries Program’s progress in meeting its core aquatic resource conservation obligations. The FWS asked the SFBPC for assistance because of the Council’s long involvement with the FWS’s Fisheries Program as an advisory committee chartered under the Federal Advisory Committee Act. To conduct this evaluation, the SFBPC empanelled an eight-person Evaluation Team, chaired by Ken Haddad, representing a cross section of those organizations interested and experienced in aquatic resource conservation and in the conduct and impact of the Fisheries Program. To staff the Evaluation Team, SFBPC contracted with D.J. Case and Associates as project consultants and Whitney Tilt, Conservation BenchMarks, as the principal investigator. Evaluation design and data collection was initiated in July 2009 with a report delivered to the SFBPC in May 2010. The 2009 Evaluation examined the Fisheries Program’s performance for the period October 1, 2004, through September 30, 2009. The Team organized its examination according to eight areas of strategic emphasis common to both the FWS FY 2004 – 2008 Strategic Plan and the SFBPC Partnership Agenda report: 1. Accountability 2. Habitat Conservation and Management 3. Species Conservation and Management a. Native Species b. Interjurisdictional Fisheries c. Aquatic Invasive Species 4. Cooperation with Native American Tribes 5. Recreational Fishing and Other Public Uses • Recreational Fishing • Mitigation Fisheries • Outreach and Education 6. Aquatic Science and Technology 7. Asset Maintenance 8. Workforce Management One chapter of this report is devoted to each of the eight areas of emphasis. Each of the eight chapters is organized by: context, basis for evaluation, results, findings and observations, and recommendations to increase effectiveness. The following summary of results and findings is organized by areas of strategic emphasis. PROGRAMMATIC ASSESSMENT OF THE FISHERIES PROGRAM i This report also presents a set of findings and recommendations that the SFBPC believes warrants the full attention of the Fisheries Program and the FWS. The following seven themes encapsulate these findings, and are deserving of the Program’s continued vigilance. The Fisheries Program should: 1. Undertake a consistent approach to stakeholder/partner involvement and communications. 2. Develop consistent data and definitions (e.g., nomenclature and species list, “denominator,” mitigation expenses). 3. Develop a single set of performance measures (combining PART, GPRA, Strategic Plan, etc.) and be accountable to them. 4. Undergo meaningful workforce management to right-size the Fisheries Program to current and future budget realities. 5. Undertake a comprehensive evaluation and review of the existing science support model in cooperation with USGS, stakeholders and partners. 6. Synchronize strategic planning effort to budget formation and include budget estimates as part of program planning. 7. Monitor and evaluate program activities on an ongoing basis in cooperation with stakeholders and partners. 1. Accountability (pages 9–20) The Evaluation Team assessed the Fisheries Program’s accountability in four distinct pieces: 1) Accountability to Authority, 2) Accountability to Stakeholders and Partners, 3) Accountability through Open, Interactive Communications, and 4) Accountability through Performance Reporting Systems. The Fisheries Program works on an ongoing basis with the Administration, Congress, stakeholders, and partners to ensure its activities best meet
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Indiana Species April 2007
    Fishes of Indiana April 2007 The Wildlife Diversity Section (WDS) is responsible for the conservation and management of over 750 species of nongame and endangered wildlife. The list of Indiana's species was compiled by WDS biologists based on accepted taxonomic standards. The list will be periodically reviewed and updated. References used for scientific names are included at the bottom of this list. ORDER FAMILY GENUS SPECIES COMMON NAME STATUS* CLASS CEPHALASPIDOMORPHI Petromyzontiformes Petromyzontidae Ichthyomyzon bdellium Ohio lamprey lampreys Ichthyomyzon castaneus chestnut lamprey Ichthyomyzon fossor northern brook lamprey SE Ichthyomyzon unicuspis silver lamprey Lampetra aepyptera least brook lamprey Lampetra appendix American brook lamprey Petromyzon marinus sea lamprey X CLASS ACTINOPTERYGII Acipenseriformes Acipenseridae Acipenser fulvescens lake sturgeon SE sturgeons Scaphirhynchus platorynchus shovelnose sturgeon Polyodontidae Polyodon spathula paddlefish paddlefishes Lepisosteiformes Lepisosteidae Lepisosteus oculatus spotted gar gars Lepisosteus osseus longnose gar Lepisosteus platostomus shortnose gar Amiiformes Amiidae Amia calva bowfin bowfins Hiodonotiformes Hiodontidae Hiodon alosoides goldeye mooneyes Hiodon tergisus mooneye Anguilliformes Anguillidae Anguilla rostrata American eel freshwater eels Clupeiformes Clupeidae Alosa chrysochloris skipjack herring herrings Alosa pseudoharengus alewife X Dorosoma cepedianum gizzard shad Dorosoma petenense threadfin shad Cypriniformes Cyprinidae Campostoma anomalum central stoneroller
    [Show full text]
  • Edna Assay Development
    Environmental DNA assays available for species detection via qPCR analysis at the U.S.D.A Forest Service National Genomics Center for Wildlife and Fish Conservation (NGC). Asterisks indicate the assay was designed at the NGC. This list was last updated in June 2021 and is subject to change. Please contact [email protected] with questions. Family Species Common name Ready for use? Mustelidae Martes americana, Martes caurina American and Pacific marten* Y Castoridae Castor canadensis American beaver Y Ranidae Lithobates catesbeianus American bullfrog Y Cinclidae Cinclus mexicanus American dipper* N Anguillidae Anguilla rostrata American eel Y Soricidae Sorex palustris American water shrew* N Salmonidae Oncorhynchus clarkii ssp Any cutthroat trout* N Petromyzontidae Lampetra spp. Any Lampetra* Y Salmonidae Salmonidae Any salmonid* Y Cottidae Cottidae Any sculpin* Y Salmonidae Thymallus arcticus Arctic grayling* Y Cyrenidae Corbicula fluminea Asian clam* N Salmonidae Salmo salar Atlantic Salmon Y Lymnaeidae Radix auricularia Big-eared radix* N Cyprinidae Mylopharyngodon piceus Black carp N Ictaluridae Ameiurus melas Black Bullhead* N Catostomidae Cycleptus elongatus Blue Sucker* N Cichlidae Oreochromis aureus Blue tilapia* N Catostomidae Catostomus discobolus Bluehead sucker* N Catostomidae Catostomus virescens Bluehead sucker* Y Felidae Lynx rufus Bobcat* Y Hylidae Pseudocris maculata Boreal chorus frog N Hydrocharitaceae Egeria densa Brazilian elodea N Salmonidae Salvelinus fontinalis Brook trout* Y Colubridae Boiga irregularis Brown tree snake*
    [Show full text]
  • Minnesota River Flood Plain Lakes Report
    Minnesota F-29-R(P)-26 Area F314 Study 4 Job 764 March 16, 2007 MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES DIVISION OF FISH AND WILDLIFE SECTION OF FISHERIES Completion Report Fish Communities of Minnesota River Flood Plain Lakes By Konrad Schmidt MN-DNR Ecological Services and Taylor Polomis MN-DNR West Metro Area Fisheries Office Funded Under Federal Aid by the Sport Fish Restoration Act, F-29-R(P)-26 FISH COMMUNITIES OF MINNESOTA RIVER FLOOD PLAIN LAKES Yellow Lotus Horseshoe Lake (Carver County, MN) Konrad Schmidt & Taylor Polomis Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Division of Ecological Services March 16, 2007 2 Introduction For approximately 50 miles, from Belle Plaine to the mouth of the Minnesota River, several lakes and wetlands dot the flood plain that includes portions of Carver, Dakota, Hennepin and Scott counties (Appendix X). Most of this river reach’s adjacent shorelands are large undeveloped tracts of public lands that include Fort Snelling State Park, Minnesota Valley State Recreation Area and Minnesota Valley National Wildlife Refuge. In most cases, these flood plain lakes have no or very primitive watercraft access. Some of these waters are accessible only via hiking trails or from watercraft on the Minnesota River. Because of these waters’ remoteness, inaccessibility, or shallowness, their fish communities are rarely, if ever, surveyed. In 2006, fish were sampled in 21 flood plain lakes to establish baseline data on community composition, species occurrence and relative abundance. Methods and Materials Using multiple sampling gears, surveys were conducted from mid-May to mid-September 2006. The waters were initially sampled with electrofishing (backpack and boat shockers), gill nets, trap nets, minnow traps and seines.
    [Show full text]
  • Endangered Species
    FEATURE: ENDANGERED SPECIES Conservation Status of Imperiled North American Freshwater and Diadromous Fishes ABSTRACT: This is the third compilation of imperiled (i.e., endangered, threatened, vulnerable) plus extinct freshwater and diadromous fishes of North America prepared by the American Fisheries Society’s Endangered Species Committee. Since the last revision in 1989, imperilment of inland fishes has increased substantially. This list includes 700 extant taxa representing 133 genera and 36 families, a 92% increase over the 364 listed in 1989. The increase reflects the addition of distinct populations, previously non-imperiled fishes, and recently described or discovered taxa. Approximately 39% of described fish species of the continent are imperiled. There are 230 vulnerable, 190 threatened, and 280 endangered extant taxa, and 61 taxa presumed extinct or extirpated from nature. Of those that were imperiled in 1989, most (89%) are the same or worse in conservation status; only 6% have improved in status, and 5% were delisted for various reasons. Habitat degradation and nonindigenous species are the main threats to at-risk fishes, many of which are restricted to small ranges. Documenting the diversity and status of rare fishes is a critical step in identifying and implementing appropriate actions necessary for their protection and management. Howard L. Jelks, Frank McCormick, Stephen J. Walsh, Joseph S. Nelson, Noel M. Burkhead, Steven P. Platania, Salvador Contreras-Balderas, Brady A. Porter, Edmundo Díaz-Pardo, Claude B. Renaud, Dean A. Hendrickson, Juan Jacobo Schmitter-Soto, John Lyons, Eric B. Taylor, and Nicholas E. Mandrak, Melvin L. Warren, Jr. Jelks, Walsh, and Burkhead are research McCormick is a biologist with the biologists with the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Fishes of South Dakota
    MISCELLANEOUS PUBLICATIONS MUSEUM OF ZOOLOGY, UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN, NO. 119 Fishes of South Dakota REEVE M. BAILEY AND MARVIN 0. ALLUM South Dakota State College ANN ARBOR MUSEUM OF ZOOLOGY, UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN JUNE 5, 1962 MISCELLANEOUS PUBLICATIONS MUSEUM OF ZOOLOGY, UNIVERSITY 01; MICHIGAN The publications of the Museum of Zoology, University of Michigan, consist of two series-the Occasional Papers and the Miscellaneous Publications. Both series were founded by Dr. Bryant Walker, Mr. Bradshaw H. Swales, and Dr. W. W. Newcomb. The Occasional Papers, publication of which was begun in 1913, serve as a medium for original studies based principally upon the collections in the Museum. They are issued separately. When a sufficient number of pages has been printed to make a volume, a title page, table of contents, and an index are supplied to libraries and indi- viduals on the mailing list for the series. The Miscellaneous Publications, which include papers on field and museum tech- niques, monographic studies, and other contributions not within the scope of the Occasional Papers, are published separately. It is not intended that they be grouped into volumes. Each number has a title page and, when necessary, a table of contents. A conlplete list of publications on Birds, Fishes, Insects, Mammals, Mollusks, and Reptiles and Amphibians is available. Address inquiries to the Director, Museum of Zoology, Ann Arbor, Michigan No. 13. Studies of the fishes of the order Cyprinodontes. By CARL L. HUBBS. (1924) 23 pp., 4 pls. ............................................. No. 15. A check-list of the fishes of the Great Lakes and tributary waters, with nomenclatorial notes and analytical keys.
    [Show full text]
  • Gila Topminnow Revised Recovery Plan December 1998
    GILA TOPMINNOW, Poeciliopsis occidentalis occidentalis, REVISED RECOVERY PLAN (Original Approval: March 15, 1984) Prepared by David A. Weedman Arizona Game and Fish Department Phoenix, Arizona for Region 2 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Albuquerque, New Mexico December 1998 Approved: Regional Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Date: Gila Topminnow Revised Recovery Plan December 1998 DISCLAIMER Recovery plans delineate reasonable actions required to recover and protect the species. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) prepares the plans, sometimes with the assistance of recovery teams, contractors, State and Federal Agencies, and others. Objectives are attained and any necessary funds made available subject to budgetary and other constraints affecting the parties involved, as well as the need to address other priorities. Time and costs provided for individual tasks are estimates only, and not to be taken as actual or budgeted expenditures. Recovery plans do not necessarily represent the views nor official positions or approval of any persons or agencies involved in the plan formulation, other than the Service. They represent the official position of the Service only after they have been signed by the Regional Director or Director as approved. Approved recovery plans are subject to modification as dictated by new findings, changes in species status, and the completion of recovery tasks. ii Gila Topminnow Revised Recovery Plan December 1998 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Original preparation of the revised Gila topminnow Recovery Plan (1994) was done by Francisco J. Abarca 1, Brian E. Bagley, Dean A. Hendrickson 1 and Jeffrey R. Simms 1. That document was modified to this current version and the work conducted by those individuals is greatly appreciated and now acknowledged.
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • Kansas Stream Fishes
    A POCKET GUIDE TO Kansas Stream Fishes ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ By Jessica Mounts Illustrations © Joseph Tomelleri Sponsored by Chickadee Checkoff, Westar Energy Green Team, Kansas Department of Wildlife, Parks and Tourism, Kansas Alliance for Wetlands & Streams, and Kansas Chapter of the American Fisheries Society Published by the Friends of the Great Plains Nature Center Table of Contents • Introduction • 2 • Fish Anatomy • 3 • Species Accounts: Sturgeons (Family Acipenseridae) • 4 ■ Shovelnose Sturgeon • 5 ■ Pallid Sturgeon • 6 Minnows (Family Cyprinidae) • 7 ■ Southern Redbelly Dace • 8 ■ Western Blacknose Dace • 9 ©Ryan Waters ■ Bluntface Shiner • 10 ■ Red Shiner • 10 ■ Spotfin Shiner • 11 ■ Central Stoneroller • 12 ■ Creek Chub • 12 ■ Peppered Chub / Shoal Chub • 13 Plains Minnow ■ Silver Chub • 14 ■ Hornyhead Chub / Redspot Chub • 15 ■ Gravel Chub • 16 ■ Brassy Minnow • 17 ■ Plains Minnow / Western Silvery Minnow • 18 ■ Cardinal Shiner • 19 ■ Common Shiner • 20 ■ Bigmouth Shiner • 21 ■ • 21 Redfin Shiner Cover Photo: Photo by Ryan ■ Carmine Shiner • 22 Waters. KDWPT Stream ■ Golden Shiner • 22 Survey and Assessment ■ Program collected these Topeka Shiner • 23 male Orangespotted Sunfish ■ Bluntnose Minnow • 24 from Buckner Creek in Hodgeman County, Kansas. ■ Bigeye Shiner • 25 The fish were catalogued ■ Emerald Shiner • 26 and returned to the stream ■ Sand Shiner • 26 after the photograph. ■ Bullhead Minnow • 27 ■ Fathead Minnow • 27 ■ Slim Minnow • 28 ■ Suckermouth Minnow • 28 Suckers (Family Catostomidae) • 29 ■ River Carpsucker •
    [Show full text]
  • Summary Report of Freshwater Nonindigenous Aquatic Species in U.S
    Summary Report of Freshwater Nonindigenous Aquatic Species in U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Region 4—An Update April 2013 Prepared by: Pam L. Fuller, Amy J. Benson, and Matthew J. Cannister U.S. Geological Survey Southeast Ecological Science Center Gainesville, Florida Prepared for: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Southeast Region Atlanta, Georgia Cover Photos: Silver Carp, Hypophthalmichthys molitrix – Auburn University Giant Applesnail, Pomacea maculata – David Knott Straightedge Crayfish, Procambarus hayi – U.S. Forest Service i Table of Contents Table of Contents ...................................................................................................................................... ii List of Figures ............................................................................................................................................ v List of Tables ............................................................................................................................................ vi INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................. 1 Overview of Region 4 Introductions Since 2000 ....................................................................................... 1 Format of Species Accounts ...................................................................................................................... 2 Explanation of Maps ................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Factors Influencing Community Structure of Riverine
    FACTORS INFLUENCING COMMUNITY STRUCTURE OF RIVERINE ORGANISMS: IMPLICATIONS FOR IMPERILED SPECIES MANAGEMENT by David S. Ruppel, M.S. A dissertation submitted to the Graduate Council of Texas State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy with a Major in Aquatic Resources and Integrative Biology May 2019 Committee Members: Timothy H. Bonner, Chair Noland H. Martin Joseph A. Veech Kenneth G. Ostrand James A. Stoeckel COPYRIGHT by David S. Ruppel 2019 FAIR USE AND AUTHOR’S PERMISSION STATEMENT Fair Use This work is protected by the Copyright Laws of the United States (Public Law 94-553, section 107). Consistent with fair use as defined in the Copyright Laws, brief quotations from this material are allowed with proper acknowledgement. Use of this material for financial gain without the author’s express written permission is not allowed. Duplication Permission As the copyright holder of this work I, David S. Ruppel, authorize duplication of this work, in whole or in part, for educational or scholarly purposes only. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS First, I thank my major advisor, Timothy H. Bonner, who has been a great mentor throughout my time at Texas State University. He has passed along his vast knowledge and has provided exceptional professional guidance and support with will benefit me immensely as I continue to pursue an academic career. I also thank my committee members Dr. Noland H. Martin, Dr. Joseph A. Veech, Dr. Kenneth G. Ostrand, and Dr. James A. Stoeckel who provided great comments on my dissertation and have helped in shaping manuscripts that will be produced in the future from each one of my chapters.
    [Show full text]
  • Food Habits of Imperiled Plains Topminnow and Diet Overlap With
    University of Nebraska - Lincoln DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln Transactions of the Nebraska Academy of Sciences Nebraska Academy of Sciences and Affiliated Societies Winter 3-1-2018 Food habits of imperiled Plains Topminnow and diet overlap with invasive Western Mosquitofish in the Central Great Plains Joseph Thiessen University of Nebraska at Kearney, [email protected] Keith D. Koupal Nebraska Game and Parks Commission, [email protected] Casey W. Schoenebeck University of Nebraska at Kearney, [email protected] Julie J. Shaffer University of Nebraska, Kearney Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/tnas Part of the Population Biology Commons, and the Terrestrial and Aquatic Ecology Commons Thiessen, Joseph; Koupal, Keith D.; Schoenebeck, Casey W.; and Shaffer, Julie J., "Food habits of imperiled Plains Topminnow and diet overlap with invasive Western Mosquitofish in the Central Great Plains" (2018). Transactions of the Nebraska Academy of Sciences and Affiliated Societies. 513. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/tnas/513 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Nebraska Academy of Sciences at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. It has been accepted for inclusion in Transactions of the Nebraska Academy of Sciences and Affiliated Societies by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. Food habits of imperiled Plains Topminnow and diet overlap with invasive Western Mosquitofish in the Central Great Plains Joseph D. Thiessen,1,4 Keith D. Koupal,2 Casey W. Schoenebeck,1,3 and Julie J. Shaffer 1 1 Department of Biology, University of Nebraska at Kearney, Kearney, NE 68849 2 Nebraska Game and Parks Commission, Kearney Field Office, Kearney, NE 68847 3 Present address: Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, 23070 North Lakeshore Drive, Glenwood, MN 56334 4 Present address: Idaho Department of Fish and Game, 1414 E.
    [Show full text]
  • Ouachita Mountains Ecoregional Assessment December 2003
    Ouachita Mountains Ecoregional Assessment December 2003 Ouachita Ecoregional Assessment Team Arkansas Field Office 601 North University Ave. Little Rock, AR 72205 Oklahoma Field Office 2727 East 21st Street Tulsa, OK 74114 Ouachita Mountains Ecoregional Assessment ii 12/2003 Table of Contents Ouachita Mountains Ecoregional Assessment............................................................................................................................i Table of Contents ........................................................................................................................................................................iii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY..............................................................................................................1 INTRODUCTION..........................................................................................................................3 BACKGROUND ...........................................................................................................................4 Ecoregional Boundary Delineation.............................................................................................................................................4 Geology..........................................................................................................................................................................................5 Soils................................................................................................................................................................................................6
    [Show full text]