DOCSLIB.ORG

2025 Greater Berrien Comprehensive Plan

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
2025 Greater Berrien Comprehensive Plan 2025 GREATER BERRIEN COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 2025 GREATER BERRIEN COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR BERRIEN COUNTY CITY OF ALAPAHA CITY OF ENIGMA CITY OF NASHVILLE CITY OF RAY CITY ii TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ...........................................................................................................................................1 WATER RESOURCES...................................................................................................................................1 GENERAL DESCRIPTION............................................................................................................................1 FLOOD PLAINS.............................................................................................................................................7 LAND CAPABILITY .....................................................................................................................................26 LAND CAPABILITY FOR SEPTIC TANK DRAINAGE FIELDS............................27 Septic Tank Absorption Fields.......................................................................................27 POPULATION ..................................................................................................................................213 INVENTORY ....................................................................................................................................214 ASSESSMENT..................................................................................................................................249 ECONOMIC INVENTORY..............................................................................................................30 ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT............................................................................................................52 GOALS AND IMPLEMENTATION................................................................................................60 NATURAL AND CULTURAL RESOURCES INVENTORY........................................................61 NATURAL AND CULTURAL ASSESSMENT..............................................................................118 NATURAL AND CULTURAL GOALS .................................................................................... 129 HOUSING INVENTORY .................................................................................................................132 HOUSING ASSESSMENT OF CURRENT AND FUTURE NEEDS .............................................149 HOUSING GOALS ...........................................................................................................................155 COMMUNITY FACILITIES INVENTORY....................................................................................156 COMMUNITY FACILITIES ASSESSMENT..................................................................................163 COMMUNITY FACILITIES GOALS..............................................................................................167 iii EXISTING LAND USE ....................................................................................................................168 Berrien Co. Existing Land Use ..............................................................................................169 Nashville Existing Land Use .................................................................................................171 Alapaha Existing Land Use ...................................................................................................172 Enigma Existing Land Use ....................................................................................................174 Ray City Existing Land Use ..................................................................................................175 FUTURE LAND USE .......................................................................................................................187 Berrien Co. Future Land Use..................................................................................................188 Nashville Future Land Use .....................................................................................................189 Alapaha Future Land Use .......................................................................................................190 Enigma Future Land Use ........................................................................................................191 Ray City Future Land Use ......................................................................................................192 REPORT OF ACCOMPLISHMETS.................................................................................................193 SHORT TERM WORK PROGRAM ................................................................................................201 INTERGOVERNMENTAL COORDINATION...............................................................................207 Inventory..........................................................................................................................208 Assessment.......................................................................................................................211 Goals ................................................................................................................................212 TABLES OF FIGURE TABLES OF FIGURE....................................................................................................................... IV Berrien County Soil Associations Figure 7 ...............................................................................25 TABLE 1-4 ........................................................................................................................................27 TABLE 1-5 ........................................................................................................................................28 TABLE 1............................................................................................................................................30 TABLE 2............................................................................................................................................31 TABLE 3............................................................................................................................................32 TABLE 4............................................................................................................................................33 TABLE 5............................................................................................................................................34 TABLE 6............................................................................................................................................35 TABLE 7............................................................................................................................................36 TABLE 8............................................................................................................................................36 TABLE 9............................................................................................................................................37 TABLE 10..........................................................................................................................................38 TABLE 11..........................................................................................................................................39 TABLE 12..........................................................................................................................................40 TABLE 13..........................................................................................................................................41 TABLE 14..........................................................................................................................................42 TABLE 15..........................................................................................................................................43 iv TABLE 16..........................................................................................................................................44 TABLE 17..........................................................................................................................................45 TABLE 18..........................................................................................................................................46 TABLE 19..........................................................................................................................................47 TABLE 20..........................................................................................................................................48 TABLE 21..........................................................................................................................................49 TABLE 22.................................................................................................................................... .....49 TABLE 23..........................................................................................................................................50 TABLE 24..........................................................................................................................................51 TABLE 1-1 ........................................................................................................................................64
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Length-Weight Relationshiips of Alabama Fishes
    LENGTH-WEIGHT RELATIONSHIIPS OF ALABAMA FISHES From: River and Impoundment Surveys, 1949-1964 by Fisheries Staffs of Auburn University and Alabama Department of Conservation Wayne E. Swingle Fisheries and Allied Aquacultures Departmental Series No. 1 AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION AUBURN UNIVERSITY R. Dennis Rouse, Director June--' 965 Auburn, Alabama Revised July 1972 I I I I I I I I I I U I I I I I I I, 1 LENGTH-WEIGHT RELATIONS1AIPS OF ALABAMA FISHES From: River and Impoundment Surveys, 1949-1964 by Fisheries Staffs of Auburn University and Alabama Department of Conservation Wayne E. Swingle Fisheries and Allied Aquacultures Departmental Series No. 1 AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION AUBURN UNIVERSITY R. Dennis Rouse, Director June,.1965 Auburn, Alabama Revised July 1972 LENGTH-WEIGHT RELATIONSHIPS OF ALABAMA FISHES Wayne E. Swingle* The tables presented herein contain length-weight data of Alabama fishes from river and river impoundment surveys conducted by the fisheries staffs of Auburn University Agricultural Experiment Station and the Alabama Department of Conservation, and those surveys made in cooperation with the Tennessee Valley Authority, Georgia Game and Fish Commission, and the Florida Game and Freshwater Fish Commission. The values presented in the following tables represent data collected during the period of 1949 to 1964. Pages 1 through 81 contain total length-weight values for 95 species of fish arranged alphabetically by common name. The common names used are those given in the American Fisheries Society Special Publication No. 2 (1960), with the following exceptions: The carp, Cyprinis carpio, is called the common carp, following FAO usage to distinguish it from Chinese and Indian carps.
    [Show full text]
  • List of TMDL Implementation Plans with Tmdls Organized by Basin
    Latest 305(b)/303(d) List of Streams List of Stream Reaches With TMDLs and TMDL Implementation Plans - Updated June 2011 Total Maximum Daily Loadings TMDL TMDL PLAN DELIST BASIN NAME HUC10 REACH NAME LOCATION VIOLATIONS TMDL YEAR TMDL PLAN YEAR YEAR Altamaha 0307010601 Bullard Creek ~0.25 mi u/s Altamaha Road to Altamaha River Bio(sediment) TMDL 2007 09/30/2009 Altamaha 0307010601 Cobb Creek Oconee Creek to Altamaha River DO TMDL 2001 TMDL PLAN 08/31/2003 Altamaha 0307010601 Cobb Creek Oconee Creek to Altamaha River FC 2012 Altamaha 0307010601 Milligan Creek Uvalda to Altamaha River DO TMDL 2001 TMDL PLAN 08/31/2003 2006 Altamaha 0307010601 Milligan Creek Uvalda to Altamaha River FC TMDL 2001 TMDL PLAN 08/31/2003 Altamaha 0307010601 Oconee Creek Headwaters to Cobb Creek DO TMDL 2001 TMDL PLAN 08/31/2003 Altamaha 0307010601 Oconee Creek Headwaters to Cobb Creek FC TMDL 2001 TMDL PLAN 08/31/2003 Altamaha 0307010602 Ten Mile Creek Little Ten Mile Creek to Altamaha River Bio F 2012 Altamaha 0307010602 Ten Mile Creek Little Ten Mile Creek to Altamaha River DO TMDL 2001 TMDL PLAN 08/31/2003 Altamaha 0307010603 Beards Creek Spring Branch to Altamaha River Bio F 2012 Altamaha 0307010603 Five Mile Creek Headwaters to Altamaha River Bio(sediment) TMDL 2007 09/30/2009 Altamaha 0307010603 Goose Creek U/S Rd. S1922(Walton Griffis Rd.) to Little Goose Creek FC TMDL 2001 TMDL PLAN 08/31/2003 Altamaha 0307010603 Mushmelon Creek Headwaters to Delbos Bay Bio F 2012 Altamaha 0307010604 Altamaha River Confluence of Oconee and Ocmulgee Rivers to ITT Rayonier
    [Show full text]
  • 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
    [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]
  • Part IV: Scoring Criteria for the Index of Biotic Integrity to Monitor
    Part IV: Scoring Criteria for the Index of Biotic Integrity to Monitor Fish Communities in Wadeable Streams in the Coosa and Tennessee Drainage Basins of the Ridge and Valley Ecoregion of Georgia Georgia Department of Natural Resources Wildlife Resources Division Fisheries Management Section 2020 Table of Contents Introduction………………………………………………………………… ……... Pg. 1 Map of Ridge and Valley Ecoregion………………………………..……............... Pg. 3 Table 1. State Listed Fish in the Ridge and Valley Ecoregion……………………. Pg. 4 Table 2. IBI Metrics and Scoring Criteria………………………………………….Pg. 5 References………………………………………………….. ………………………Pg. 7 Appendix 1…………………………………………………………………. ………Pg. 8 Coosa Basin Group (ACT) MSR Graphs..………………………………….Pg. 9 Tennessee Basin Group (TEN) MSR Graphs……………………………….Pg. 17 Ridge and Valley Ecoregion Fish List………………………………………Pg. 25 i Introduction The Ridge and Valley ecoregion is one of the six Level III ecoregions found in Georgia (Part 1, Figure 1). It is drained by two major river basins, the Coosa and the Tennessee, in the northwestern corner of Georgia. The Ridge and Valley ecoregion covers nearly 3,000 square miles (United States Census Bureau 2000) and includes all or portions of 10 counties (Figure 1), bordering the Piedmont ecoregion to the south and the Blue Ridge ecoregion to the east. A small portion of the Southwestern Appalachians ecoregion is located in the upper northwestern corner of the Ridge and Valley ecoregion. The biotic index developed by the GAWRD is based on Level III ecoregion delineations (Griffith et al. 2001). The metrics and scoring criteria adapted to the Ridge and Valley ecoregion were developed from biomonitoring samples collected in the two major river basins that drain the Ridge and Valley ecoregion, the Coosa (ACT) and the Tennessee (TEN).
    [Show full text]
  • DISTRIBUTION, ECOLOGY, and REPRODUCTIVE BIOLOGY of the ORANGEFIN MADTOM (NOTURUS GILBERTI) by Timothy Dale Simonson
    DISTRIBUTION, ECOLOGY, AND REPRODUCTIVE BIOLOGY OF THE ORANGEFIN MADTOM (NOTURUS GILBERTI) by Timothy Dale Simonson Thesis submitted to the Faculty of the Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE in Fisheries and Wildlife Sciences APPROVED: Richard J. Neves, Chair Dona:;[d J. Orth Johm J. Ney Louis A. Hel:frich April 1987 Blacksburg, Virginia DISTRIBUTION, ECOLOGY, AND REPRODUCTIVE BIOLOGY OF THE ORANGEFIN MADTOM (NOTURUS GILBERTI) by Timothy Dale Simonson Richard J. Neves, Chair Fisheries and Wildlife Sciences (ABSTRACT) Distribution of the orangefin madtom (Noturus gilberti) was determined from 347 sites sampled in Virginia and North Carolina. This species inhabited 264 stream kilometers, over twice the reported range, in the following systems: Craig Creek, Roanoke River, Dan River, Big Chestnut Creek, South Mayo River, Pigg River, and Smith River. The orangefin madtom was somewhat common; 33% (Dan River) to 70% (Craig Creek) of the sites sampled were occupied. Negative interspecific associates of orangefin madtoms included chubs, mountain redbelly dace, rosyside dace, crescent shiners, and crayfish; only Roanoke darters were considered positive associates. Sand and silt levels were significantly lower at sites with !L. gilberti, while per- centage of small cobble, local gradient, and depth were sig- nificantly higher. Discriminant function analysis identified large gravel, local gradient, silt, and occurrence of rosyside dace and crayfish, as significant predictors of the occurrence of the orangefin madtom. Seasonal samples from Craig Creek consisted of three age groups. The smallest individual captured was 33 mm total length (TL) and the largest was 111 mm TL.
    [Show full text]
  • Geological Survey of Alabama Calibration of The
    GEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF ALABAMA Berry H. (Nick) Tew, Jr. State Geologist WATER INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM CALIBRATION OF THE INDEX OF BIOTIC INTEGRITY FOR THE SOUTHERN PLAINS ICHTHYOREGION IN ALABAMA OPEN-FILE REPORT 0908 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 2009 TABLE OF CONTENTS Abstract ............................................................ 1 Introduction.......................................................... 1 Acknowledgments .................................................... 6 Objectives........................................................... 7 Study area .......................................................... 7 Southern Plains ichthyoregion ...................................... 7 Methods ............................................................ 8 IBI sample collection ............................................. 8 Habitat measures............................................... 10 Habitat metrics ........................................... 12 The human disturbance gradient ................................... 15 IBI metrics and scoring criteria..................................... 19 Designation of guilds....................................... 20 Results and discussion................................................ 22 Sampling sites and collection results . 22 Selection and scoring of Southern Plains IBI metrics . 41 1. Number of native species ................................
    [Show full text]
  • GCP LCC Regional Hypotheses of Ecological Responses to Flow
    Gulf Coast Prairie Landscape Conservation Cooperative Regional Hypotheses of Ecological Responses to Flow Alteration Photo credit: Brandon Brown A report by the GCP LCC Flow-Ecology Hypotheses Committee Edited by: Mary Davis, Coordinator, Southern Aquatic Resources Partnership 3563 Hamstead Ct, Durham, North Carolina 27707, email: [email protected] and Shannon K. Brewer, U.S. Geological Survey Oklahoma Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, 007 Agriculture Hall, Stillwater, Oklahoma 74078 email: [email protected] Wildlife Management Institute Grant Number GCP LCC 2012-003 May 2014 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS We thank the GCP LCC Flow-Ecology Hypotheses Committee members for their time and thoughtful input into the development and testing of the regional flow-ecology hypotheses. Shannon Brewer, Jacquelyn Duke, Kimberly Elkin, Nicole Farless, Timothy Grabowski, Kevin Mayes, Robert Mollenhauer, Trevor Starks, Kevin Stubbs, Andrew Taylor, and Caryn Vaughn authored the flow-ecology hypotheses presented in this report. Daniel Fenner, Thom Hardy, David Martinez, Robby Maxwell, Bryan Piazza, and Ryan Smith provided helpful reviews and improved the quality of the report. Funding for this work was provided by the Gulf Coastal Prairie Landscape Conservation Cooperative of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and administered by the Wildlife Management Institute (Grant Number GCP LCC 2012-003). Any use of trade, firm, or product names is for descriptive purposes and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government. Suggested Citation: Davis, M. M. and S. Brewer (eds.). 2014. Gulf Coast Prairie Landscape Conservation Cooperative Regional Hypotheses of Ecological Responses to Flow Alteration. A report by the GCP LCC Flow-Ecology Hypotheses Committee to the Southeast Aquatic Resources Partnership (SARP) for the GCP LCC Instream Flow Project.
    [Show full text]
  • 2011 Regionally Important Resources Plan Regionally Important Resources 2011 1
    2011 Regionally Important Resources Plan Regionally Important Resources 2011 1 REGIONALLY IMPORTANT RESOURCES PLAN Southern Georgia July 2011 Prepared by: Valdosta Office 327 West Savannah Avenue Valdosta, GA 31601 Phone: 229.333.5277 Fax: 229.333.5312 Waycross Office 1725 S. GA Parkway, W. Waycross, GA 31503 Phone: 912.285.6097 Fax: 912.285.6126 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary The Purpose The Process The Plan Identification of Resources Introduction Background Designation of Regionally Important Resources Methodology and Process Nomination and Evaluation Research and Data Collection Criteria for Determining Value of RIR Identification of Vulnerability of RIR Stakeholder Review Regionally Important Resources Map Value Matrix Vulnerability Matrix Resource Narrative: Historic & Cultural Resources Resource Narrative: Areas of Conservation & Recreational Value Appendices Appendix A: Stakeholder List Appendix B: Regionally Important Resources Nomination Form Appendix C: List of Regionally Important Resources Appendix D: Regional Resource Plan Briefings and Presentations Appendix E: References 3 Regionally Important Resources Plan EXECUTIVE SUMMARY THE PURPOSE Pursuant to Rules of the Department of Community Affairs, Chapter 110-12-4, Regionally Important Resources are defined as “Any natural or cultural resource area identified for protection by a Regional Commission following the minimum requirements established by the Department.” The Regional Resource Plan is designed to: Enhance the focus on protection and management of important natural and cultural resources in the Southern Georgia Region. Provide for careful consideration of, and planning for, impacts of new development on these important resources. Improve local, regional, and state level coordination in the protection and management of identified resources. THE PROCESS The public nomination process resulted in twenty—one nominations from local governments, non-profit agencies, and private citizens.
    [Show full text]
  • Magnitude and Frequency of Rural Floods in the Southeastern United States, 2006: Volume 1, Georgia
    Prepared in cooperation with the Georgia Department of Transportation Preconstruction Division Office of Bridge Design Magnitude and Frequency of Rural Floods in the Southeastern United States, 2006: Volume 1, Georgia Scientific Investigations Report 2009–5043 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey Cover: Flint River at North Bridge Road near Lovejoy, Georgia, July 11, 2005. Photograph by Arthur C. Day, U.S. Geological Survey. Magnitude and Frequency of Rural Floods in the Southeastern United States, 2006: Volume 1, Georgia By Anthony J. Gotvald, Toby D. Feaster, and J. Curtis Weaver Prepared in cooperation with the Georgia Department of Transportation Preconstruction Division Office of Bridge Design Scientific Investigations Report 2009–5043 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey U.S. Department of the Interior KEN SALAZAR, Secretary U.S. Geological Survey Suzette M. Kimball, Acting Director U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia: 2009 For more information on the USGS--the Federal source for science about the Earth, its natural and living resources, natural hazards, and the environment, visit http://www.usgs.gov or call 1-888-ASK-USGS For an overview of USGS information products, including maps, imagery, and publications, visit http://www.usgs.gov/pubprod To order USGS information products, visit http://store.usgs.gov Any use of trade, product, or firm names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government. Although this report is in the public domain, permission must be secured from the individual copyright owners to reproduce any copyrighted materials contained within this report.
    [Show full text]
  • A Review of the Interactions Between Catfishes and Freshwater Mollusks
    American Fisheries Society Symposium 77:733–743, 2011 © 2011 by the American Fisheries Society A Review of the Interactions between Catfi shes and Freshwater Mollusks in North America JEREMY S. TIEMANN* Illinois Natural History Survey Institute of Natural Resource Sustainability at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign 1816 South Oak Street, Champaign, Illinois 61820, USA STEPHEN E. MCMURRAY Missouri Department of Conservation, Resource Science Division 1110 South College Avenue, Columbia, Missouri 65201, USA M. CHRISTOPHER BARNHART Missouri State University, Department of Biology 901 South National, Springfi eld, Missouri 65897, USA G. THOMAS WATTERS The Ohio State University, Department of Evolution, Ecology, and Organismal Biology 1315 Kinnear Road, Columbus, Ohio 43212, USA Abstract.—Catfi shes are important in freshwater ecosystems not only as consumers, but also as essential partners in symbiotic relationships with other organisms. Freshwater mol- lusks are among the many organisms that have interactions with catfi shes. For example, icta- lurids are hosts for larvae of several native freshwater mussel species. The larvae, which attach briefl y to gills or fi ns of fi sh to complete their development to the free-living juvenile stage, disperse via upstream and downstream movement of host fi sh. In turn, freshwater mussels serve as a food source for some catfi sh species while other catfi sh species may use spent mus- sel shells for habitat. Ictalurids also benefi t from the conservation status of many freshwater mussel species. Federal and state laws protecting these invertebrates can preserve water qual- ity and habitat and, at times, provide incentives and funding for conservation and restoration of stream and riparian habitats.
    [Show full text]
  • Natural Resource Condition Assessment Horseshoe Bend National Military Park
    National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior Natural Resource Stewardship and Science Natural Resource Condition Assessment Horseshoe Bend National Military Park Natural Resource Report NPS/SECN/NRR—2015/981 ON THE COVER Photo of the Tallapoosa River, viewed from Horseshoe Bend National Military Park Photo Courtesy of Elle Allen Natural Resource Condition Assessment Horseshoe Bend National Military Park Natural Resource Report NPS/SECN/NRR—2015/981 JoAnn M. Burkholder, Elle H. Allen, Stacie Flood, and Carol A. Kinder Center for Applied Aquatic Ecology North Carolina State University 620 Hutton Street, Suite 104 Raleigh, NC 27606 June 2015 U.S. Department of the Interior National Park Service Natural Resource Stewardship and Science Fort Collins, Colorado The National Park Service, Natural Resource Stewardship and Science office in Fort Collins, Colorado publishes a range of reports that address natural resource topics. These reports are of interest and applicability to a broad audience in the National Park Service and others in natural resource management, including scientists, conservation and environmental constituencies, and the public. The Natural Resource Report Series is used to disseminate comprehensive information and analysis about natural resources and related topics concerning lands managed by the National Park Service. The series supports the advancement of science, informed decision-making, and the achievement of the National Park Service mission. The series also provides a forum for presenting more lengthy results that may not be accepted by publications with page limitations. All manuscripts in the series receive the appropriate level of peer review to ensure that the information is scientifically credible, technically accurate, appropriately written for the intended audience, and designed and published in a professional manner.
    [Show full text]