DOCSLIB.ORG

Species Status Assessment Report for the Barrens Darter (Etheostoma Forbesi)

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Species Status Assessment Report for the Barrens Darter (Etheostoma Forbesi) Species Status Assessment Report for the Barrens Darter (Etheostoma forbesi) Version 2.0 Acknowledgements: This Species Status Assessment would not have been possible without the research and assistance of Dr. Richard Harrington, Yale University Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, Dr. Hayden Mattingly and his students, Tennessee Tech University School of Environmental Studies, Dr. John Johansen, Austin Peay State University Department of Biology, and Mark Thurman, Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency. 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter 1: Introduction ............................................................................................................... 3 Chapter 2: Biology and Life History ........................................................................................... 4 Taxonomy ................................................................................................................................ 4 Genetic Diversity ..................................................................................................................... 5 Morphological Description ...................................................................................................... 5 Habitat ..................................................................................................................................... 6 Lifecycle .................................................................................................................................. 7 Population Needs ..................................................................................................................... 9 Species Needs .......................................................................................................................... 9 Historic Range and Distribution ............................................................................................ 10 Chapter 3: Factors Influencing Viability ................................................................................... 11 Landuse and Associated Impacts ........................................................................................... 11 Predation and Competition .................................................................................................... 15 Climate Events ....................................................................................................................... 16 Demographic Effects ............................................................................................................. 17 Conservation Actions ............................................................................................................ 18 Chapter 4: Current Management Unit Condition and Species Viability ................................... 18 Population Elements .............................................................................................................. 18 Habitat Elements.................................................................................................................... 19 Current Management Units and Population Status................................................................ 20 Current Species Level Status ................................................................................................. 25 Chapter 5: Future Conditions .................................................................................................... 25 Scenario 1 .............................................................................................................................. 27 Scenario 2 .............................................................................................................................. 31 Scenario 3 .............................................................................................................................. 34 Status Summary ..................................................................................................................... 38 Overall Summary ...................................................................................................................... 40 References ................................................................................................................................. 41 2 Chapter 1: Introduction The Barrens Darter (Etheostoma forbesi Page and Ceas 1992) is a small fish endemic (restricted to a locality or region) to streams in the Collins River watershed on the Barrens Plateau in middle Tennessee. The Barrens Darter was designated a Category 2 Candidate species in 1994 (59 FR 58982), and remained such until that list was discontinued in 1996 (61 FR 64481). A species assessment and listing priority form was completed for the Barrens Darter in 2006, but due to the limited amount of data available on the species at the time, it was not determined to be a candidate for listing at the time (USFWS 2006). The Barrens Darter was petitioned to be listed under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act), by the Center for Biological Diversity as part of the 2010 Petition to List 404 Aquatic, Riparian and Wetland Species from the Southeastern United States (CBD 2010, p. 432-433). This SSA Report for the Barrens Darter provides the biological support for the decision on whether or not to propose to list the species as threatened or endangered and, if so, where to propose designating critical habitat. Importantly, the SSA Report is not the decision by the Service on whether this species should be proposed for listing as a threatened or endangered species under the Act. Instead, this SSA Report provides a review of the available information strictly related to the biological status of the Barrens Darter. The listing decision will be made by the Service after reviewing this document and all relevant laws, regulations, and policies, and the results of a proposed decision will be announced in the Federal Register, with appropriate opportunities for public input. For the purpose of this assessment, we generally define viability as the ability of the Barrens Darter to sustain natural populations in its native range over time. Using the SSA framework (Figure 1.1), we consider what the species needs to maintain viability by characterizing the status of the species in terms of its resiliency, redundancy, and representation (Shaffer and Stein, 2000, entire; Wolf et al. 2015, entire). • Resiliency describes the ability of populations to withstand stochastic events (arising from random factors). We can measure resilience based on metrics of population health; for example, birth versus death rates and population size. Highly resilient populations are better able to withstand disturbances such as random fluctuations in birth rates (demographic stochasticity), variations in rainfall (environmental stochasticity), or the effects of anthropogenic activities. • Representation describes the ability of a species to adapt to changing environmental conditions. Representation can be measured by the breadth of genetic or environmental diversity within and among populations and gauges the probability that a species is 3 capable of adapting to environmental changes. The more representation, or diversity, a species has, the more it is capable of adapting to changes (natural or human caused) in its environment. In the absence of species-specific genetic and ecological diversity information, we evaluate representation based on the extent and variability of habitat characteristics across the species’ geographical range and other factors as appropriate. • Redundancy describes the ability of a species to withstand catastrophic events. Measured by the number of populations, their resilience, and their distribution (and connectivity), Figure 1-1 Species Status Assessment redundancy gauges the probability that the Framework species has a margin of safety to withstand or can bounce back from catastrophic events (such as a rare destructive natural event or episode involving many populations). To evaluate the biological status of the Barrens Darter, both currently and into the future, we assessed a range of conditions to allow us to consider the species’ resilience, redundancy, and representation (together, the 3Rs). This SSA Report provides a thorough assessment of biology and natural history and assesses demographic risks, stressors, and limiting factors in the context of determining the viability and risks of extinction for the species. The format for this SSA Report includes: (1) the resource needs of individuals and populations (Chapter 2); (2) the Barrens Darter’s historical distribution and a framework for determining the distribution of resilient populations across its range for species viability (Chapter 3); (3) the likely causes of the current and future status of the species and determining which of these risk factors affect the species’ viability and to what degree (Chapter 4); and (4) a description of the viability in terms of resilience, redundancy, and representation (Chapter 5). This document is a compilation of the best available scientific and commercial information and a description of past, present, and likely future risk factors to the Barrens Darter. Chapter 2: Biology and Life History Taxonomy The Barrens Darter was first described from Duke Creek (Figure 2-4) as Etheostoma forbesi by Page and Ceas in a larger review of the E. squamiceps (Spottail Darter) species complex that described five new species (Page et al. 1992, pp.633-634). Previous collections had be assigned to Spottail Darter, Dirty Darter,
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Fish Inventory at Stones River National Battlefield
    Fish Inventory at Stones River National Battlefield Submitted to: Department of the Interior National Park Service Cumberland Piedmont Network By Dennis Mullen Professor of Biology Department of Biology Middle Tennessee State University Murfreesboro, TN 37132 September 2006 Striped Shiner (Luxilus chrysocephalus) – nuptial male From Lytle Creek at Fortress Rosecrans Photograph by D. Mullen Table of Contents List of Tables……………………………………………………………………….iii List of Figures………………………………………………………………………iv List of Appendices…………………………………………………………………..v Executive Summary…………………………………………………………………1 Introduction…………………………………………………………………...……..2 Methods……………………………………………………………………………...3 Results……………………………………………………………………………….7 Discussion………………………………………………………………………….10 Conclusions………………………………………………………………………...14 Literature Cited…………………………………………………………………….15 ii List of Tables Table1: Location and physical characteristics (during September 2006, and only for the riverine sites) of sample sites for the STRI fish inventory………………………………17 Table 2: Biotic Integrity classes used in assessing fish communities along with general descriptions of their attributes (Karr et al. 1986) ………………………………………18 Table 3: List of fishes potentially occurring in aquatic habitats in and around Stones River National Battlefield………………………………………………………………..19 Table 4: Fish species list (by site) of aquatic habitats at STRI (October 2004 – August 2006). MF = McFadden’s Ford, KP = King Pond, RB = Redoubt Brannan, UP = Unnamed Pond at Redoubt Brannan, LC = Lytle Creek at Fortress Rosecrans……...….22 Table 5: Fish Species Richness estimates for the 3 riverine reaches of STRI and a composite estimate for STRI as a whole…………………………………………………24 Table 6: Index of Biotic Integrity (IBI) scores for three stream reaches at Stones River National Battlefield during August 2005………………………………………………...25 Table 7: Temperature and water chemistry of four of the STRI sample sites for each sampling date…………………………………………………………………………….26 Table 8 : Total length estimates of specific habitat types at each riverine sample site.
    [Show full text]
  • C:\Fish\Eastern Sand Darter Sa.Wpd
    EASTERN SAND DARTER STATUS ASSESSMENT Prepared by: David Grandmaison and Joseph Mayasich Natural Resources Research Institute University of Minnesota 5013 Miller Trunk Highway Duluth, MN 55811-1442 and David Etnier Ecology and Evolutionary Biology University of Tennessee 569 Dabney Hall Knoxville, TN 37996-1610 Prepared for: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Region 3 1 Federal Drive Fort Snelling, MN 55111 January 2004 NRRI Technical Report No. NRRI/TR-2003/40 DISCLAIMER This document is a compilation of biological data and a description of past, present, and likely future threats to the eastern sand darter, Ammocrypta pellucida (Agassiz). It does not represent a decision by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) on whether this taxon should be designated as a candidate species for listing as threatened or endangered under the Federal Endangered Species Act. That decision will be made by the Service after reviewing this document; other relevant biological and threat data not included herein; and all relevant laws, regulations, and policies. The result of the decision will be posted on the Service's Region 3 Web site (refer to: http://midwest.fws.gov/eco_serv/endangrd/lists/concern.html). If designated as a candidate species, the taxon will subsequently be added to the Service's candidate species list that is periodically published in the Federal Register and posted on the World Wide Web (refer to: http://endangered.fws.gov/wildlife.html). Even if the taxon does not warrant candidate status it should benefit from the conservation recommendations that are contained in this document. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS DISCLAIMER...................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Download Download
    The Implications of Rotenone Eradication on the Fish Community of Eagle Creek in Central Indiana William L. Fisher Water Resources Laboratory, University of Louisville, Louisville, Kentucky 40292 and James R. Gammon Department of Zoology, DePauw University Greencastle, Indiana 46135 Introduction The use of rotenone in the reclamation of fish populations first came into use in the United States in 1934 (Krumholz 1948). Since then, the eradication of undesirable fishes from ponds, lakes, and streams by the use of toxicants has become an accepted fisheries management practice. Forty-nine states, including Indiana, have reclaimed their waters by chemical methods, mainly since 1953 (Len- non et al. 1971). In the summer of 1966, Eagle Creek and its tributaries were surveyed prior to impoundment by the Division of Fish and Game of the Indiana Department of Natural Resources to determine the relative abundance of "undesirable" fish species, i.e., carp, Cyprinus carpio, and gizzard shad, Dorosoma cepedianum. It was concluded from the study that, "no part of the watershed of Eagle Creek Reservoir could be omitted from an eradication project" (McGinty 1966). Twelve years later, Eagle Creek was chosen as an experimental study stream in a Model Implementation Program (MIP) initiated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Agriculture. The goal of the study was to assess the effects of improved agricultural land-use practices on the water quali- ty and stream biota of Eagle Creek. A comparison of the data collected prior to the reclamation and impoundment of Eagle Creek with that gathered following yields some disturbing results and raises some serious questions about the validity of this accepted and commonly used reservoir management practice.
    [Show full text]
  • Simonthomas1985.Pdf (8.751Mb)
    r DESCRIPTIONS OF LARVAL PERCIDAE INHABITING THE UPPER MISSISSIPPI RIVER BASIN (OSTEICHTIIYES: ETHEOSTOMATINI) A Thesis Submitted to the Faculty of University. of Wisconsin·· ;.,; La Crosse LaCrosse,Wisconsin 54601 by Thomas P. Simon In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science in Biology May 1~85 • v\)-\ . \ () () UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN ... LA CROSSE La Crosse, Wisconsin 54601 COLLEGE OF ARTS, LETTERS, AND SCIENCES Candidate: Thomas P. Simon We recommend acceptance of this thesis to the College of Arts,. Letters, and Science in partial fulfillment of this candidate's requirements for thedegre~.}fElli3t~:r. ()~ .. SC!E!n.ce .in Biology. The candidate .has completed his oral defense of the thesis. Thesis approved: ~p2?;/J75~· Date qq?C~Tq8? D e 9-:f--~zc4f:s ~ L ~e~ f2~' ~ ?t:~J'J Thesis Committee Member /Dat Ii$<' Dea~: ~~A~~ers. ~:±tJ:jl!!~.C snd-Seienees . _ n •••• ~ulIJ\J ~ .its- rv~ 3<J, /tf~)--- Dean, Office of Graduate Studies Date 86,-00531 l1li ABSTRACT Eggs, larvae, and juveniles of six species of darters inhabiting the Upper Mississippi River are described. Attention to meristic, morphometric, pigment, and morphological apparent were employed for identification. Species of the genus Etheostoma possess well.developed pectoral fins, D1~:xillary, mandible,fewerthari 18 preanal myome:res, and have greater body depth tharacteristics/TL than does the subgenus Percina. The subgenus Catonotus (E. kennicotti, E.flabellare lineolatum, arid E. sguamiceps) has large, robust, spherical yolk sacs when compared to eithe~.. the Microperca, Percina, or Imostoma subgenera. The Microperca subgenus (E. microperca) has 15 preanal and 19 postanal myomeres and hatches at smaller lengths than other Etheostoma.
    [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]
  • Evaluation of Regional Dissolved Oxygen Patterns of Wadeable Streams in Tennessee Based on Diurnal and Daylight Monitoring
    EVALUATION OF REGIONAL DISSOLVED OXYGEN PATTERNS OF WADEABLE STREAMS IN TENNESSEE BASED ON DIURNAL AND DAYLIGHT MONITORING Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation Division of Water Pollution Control 7th Floor L&C Annex 401 Church Street Nashville, TN 37243-1534 EVALUATION OF REGIONAL DISSOLVED OXYGEN PATTERNS OF WADEABLE STREAMS IN TENNESSEE BASED ON DIURNAL AND DAYLIGHT MONITORING by Deborah H. Arnwine Gregory M. Denton January 2003 Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation Division of Water Pollution Control 7th Floor L&C Annex 401 Church Street Nashville, TN 37243-1534 TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ….……………………………………………… vi EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ….……………………………………………… vii 1. INTRODUCTION……………………………………………………….… 1 1.0 Factors Affecting the Amount of Dissolved Oxygen in Streams 2 1.0.0 Natural Factors That Increase or Decrease Stream Oxygen Levels……………………………………………………………... 2 1.0.1 Pollution and Depletion of Dissolved Oxygen…………..……….. 3 1.1 Percent Saturation and the Availability of Oxygen…………………. 3 1.2 Dissolved Oxygen Criteria…………………………………………….. 4 2. DATA COLLECTION………………………………………………….…. 5 2.0 Reference Stream Selection…………………………………………… 7 2.1 Dissolved Oxygen Monitoring………………………………………… 8 2.1.0 Daylight Dissolved Oxygen Monitoring………………………… 8 2.1.1 Diurnal Dissolved Oxygen Monitoring………………………….. 8 2.1.2 Quality Assurance……………………………………………….. 8 2.2 Water Temperature…………………………………………………… 16 3. RESULTS 17 3.0 Dissolved Oxygen in the Mississippi Valley Loess Plains (73a)……... 17 3.1 Ecological Subregions Where the Minimum Reference Dissolved Oxygen Level is Generally 5 ppm…………………………………… 20 3.1.0 Blackland Prairie (65a), Flatwoods/Alluvial Prairie Margins (65b) and Fall Line Hills (65i)……………………………………. 20 3.1.1 Southern Shale Valleys (67g)…………………………………….. 21 3.1.2 Sequatchie Valley (68b)………………………………………….. 23 3.1.3 Plateau Escarpment (68c)………………………………………… 23 3.1.4 Eastern Highland Rim (71g)………...…………………………… 24 3.1.5 Outer Nashville Basin (71h)……………………………………… 27 3.1.6 Inner Nashville Basin (71i)…..…………………………………..
    [Show full text]
  • Spotted Darter Status Assessment
    SPOTTED DARTER STATUS ASSESSMENT Prepared by: Joseph M. Mayasich and David Grandmaison Natural Resources Research Institute University of Minnesota 5013 Miller Trunk Highway Duluth, MN 55811-1442 and David Etnier Ecology and Evolutionary Biology University of Tennessee 569 Dabney Hall Knoxville, TN 37996-1610 Preparedfor: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Region 3 1 Federal Drive Fort Snelling,MN 55111 March 2004 NRRI Technical Report No. NRRI/TR-2004-02 DISCLAIMER This document is a compilation of biological data and a description of past, present, and likely future threats to the spotted darter, Etheostoma maculatum (Kirtland). It does not represent a decision by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) on whether this taxon should be designated as a candidate species for listing as threatened or endangered under the Federal Endangered Species Act. That decision will be made by the Service after reviewing this document; other relevant biological and threat data not included herein; and all relevant laws, regulations, and policies. The result of the decision will be posted on the Service's Region 3 Web site (refer to: http://midwest.fws.gov/eco_serv/endangrd/lists/concem.html ). If designated as a candidate species, the taxon will subsequently be added to the Service's candidate species list that is periodically published in the Federal Register and posted on the World Wide Web (refer to: http://endangered.fws.gov/wildlife.html ). Even if the taxon does not warrant candidate status it should benefit from the conservation recommendations that are contained in this document. n TABLE OF CONTENTS DISCLAIMER......................................................................................................................... ii NARRATIVE..........................................................................................................................
    [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]
  • Geological Survey of Alabama Calibration of The
    GEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF ALABAMA Berry H. (Nick) Tew, Jr. State Geologist ECOSYSTEMS INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM CALIBRATION OF THE INDEX OF BIOTIC INTEGRITY FOR THE SOUTHERN PLAINS ICHTHYOREGION IN ALABAMA OPEN-FILE REPORT 1210 by Patrick E. O'Neil and Thomas E. Shepard Prepared in cooperation with the Alabama Department of Environmental Management and the Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources Tuscaloosa, Alabama 2012 TABLE OF CONTENTS Abstract ............................................................ 1 Introduction.......................................................... 2 Acknowledgments .................................................... 6 Objectives........................................................... 7 Study area .......................................................... 7 Southern Plains ichthyoregion ...................................... 7 Methods ............................................................ 9 IBI sample collection ............................................. 9 Habitat measures............................................... 11 Habitat metrics ........................................... 12 The human disturbance gradient ................................... 16 IBI metrics and scoring criteria..................................... 20 Designation of guilds....................................... 21 Results and discussion................................................ 23 Sampling sites and collection results . 23 Selection and scoring of Southern Plains IBI metrics . 48 Metrics selected for the
    [Show full text]
  • The Hoosier- Shawnee Ecological Assessment Area
    United States Department of Agriculture The Hoosier- Forest Service Shawnee Ecological North Central Assessment Research Station General Frank R. Thompson, III, Editor Technical Report NC-244 Thompson, Frank R., III, ed 2004. The Hoosier-Shawnee Ecological Assessment. Gen. Tech. Rep. NC-244. St. Paul, MN: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, North Central Research Station. 267 p. This report is a scientific assessment of the characteristic composition, structure, and processes of ecosystems in the southern one-third of Illinois and Indiana and a small part of western Kentucky. It includes chapters on ecological sections and soils, water resources, forest, plants and communities, aquatic animals, terrestrial animals, forest diseases and pests, and exotic animals. The information presented provides a context for land and resource management planning on the Hoosier and Shawnee National Forests. ––––––––––––––––––––––––––– Key Words: crayfish, current conditions, communities, exotics, fish, forests, Hoosier National Forest, mussels, plants, Shawnee National Forest, soils, water resources, wildlife. Cover photograph: Camel Rock in Garden of the Gods Recreation Area, with Shawnee Hills and Garden of the Gods Wilderness in the back- ground, Shawnee National Forest, Illinois. Contents Preface....................................................................................................................... II North Central Research Station USDA Forest Service Acknowledgments ...................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Threatened and Endangered Species List
    Effective April 15, 2009 - List is subject to revision For a complete list of Tennessee's Rare and Endangered Species, visit the Natural Areas website at http://tennessee.gov/environment/na/ Aquatic and Semi-aquatic Plants and Aquatic Animals with Protected Status State Federal Type Class Order Scientific Name Common Name Status Status Habit Amphibian Amphibia Anura Gyrinophilus gulolineatus Berry Cave Salamander T Amphibian Amphibia Anura Gyrinophilus palleucus Tennessee Cave Salamander T Crustacean Malacostraca Decapoda Cambarus bouchardi Big South Fork Crayfish E Crustacean Malacostraca Decapoda Cambarus cymatilis A Crayfish E Crustacean Malacostraca Decapoda Cambarus deweesae Valley Flame Crayfish E Crustacean Malacostraca Decapoda Cambarus extraneus Chickamauga Crayfish T Crustacean Malacostraca Decapoda Cambarus obeyensis Obey Crayfish T Crustacean Malacostraca Decapoda Cambarus pristinus A Crayfish E Crustacean Malacostraca Decapoda Cambarus williami "Brawley's Fork Crayfish" E Crustacean Malacostraca Decapoda Fallicambarus hortoni Hatchie Burrowing Crayfish E Crustacean Malocostraca Decapoda Orconectes incomptus Tennessee Cave Crayfish E Crustacean Malocostraca Decapoda Orconectes shoupi Nashville Crayfish E LE Crustacean Malocostraca Decapoda Orconectes wrighti A Crayfish E Fern and Fern Ally Filicopsida Polypodiales Dryopteris carthusiana Spinulose Shield Fern T Bogs Fern and Fern Ally Filicopsida Polypodiales Dryopteris cristata Crested Shield-Fern T FACW, OBL, Bogs Fern and Fern Ally Filicopsida Polypodiales Trichomanes boschianum
    [Show full text]
  • At-Risk Species Assessment on Southern National Forests, Refuges, and Other Protected Areas
    David Moynahan | St. Marks NWR At-Risk Species Assessment on Southern National Forests, Refuges, and Other Protected Areas National Wildlife Refuge Association Mark Sowers, Editor October 2017 1001 Connecticut Avenue NW, Suite 905, Washington, DC 20036 • 202-417-3803 • www.refugeassociation.org At-Risk Species Assessment on Southern National Forests, Refuges, and Other Protected Areas Table of Contents Introduction and Methods ................................................................................................3 Results and Discussion ......................................................................................................9 Suites of Species: Occurrences and Habitat Management ...........................................12 Progress and Next Steps .................................................................................................13 Appendix I: Suites of Species ..........................................................................................17 Florida Panhandle ............................................................................................................................18 Peninsular Florida .............................................................................................................................28 Southern Blue Ridge and Southern Ridge and Valley ...............................................................................................................................39 Interior Low Plateau and Cumberland Plateau, Central Ridge and Valley ...............................................................................................46
    [Show full text]