DOCSLIB.ORG

Biological Evaluation

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Smith Mountain Project Area BE Caddo-Womble Ranger District BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION for Activities Related to Timber, Wildlife, Prescribed Fire, and Watershed in the Smith Mountain Project Area USDA-Forest Service Ouachita National Forest Caddo-Womble Ranger District Montgomery County, Arkansas by Laura Morris Wildlife Biologist Caddo-Womble Ranger District 1523 Hwy 270 E Mount Ida, AR 71957 (870) 867-2101 (voice) (870) 867-3338 (fax) [email protected] August 11, 2010 1 of 33 Smith Mountain Project Area BE Caddo-Womble Ranger District CONTENTS I) PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION 3 II) PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE PROPOSED ACTION 4 III) PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION 4 IV) PROPOSED MANAGEMENT ACTIONS 5 V) INVENTORY HISTORY 6 VI) SPECIES CONSIDERED AND SPECIES EVALUATED 6 VII) EVALUATED SPECIES SURVEY INFORMATION 6 VIII) ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE AND EFFECTS OF PROPOSED MANAGEMENT ACTIONS 6 a. Arkansas Fatmucket Mussel 7 b. Paleback Darter 9 c. Caddo Madtom 9 d. Diana Fritillary 10 e. Bald Eagle 11 f. Eastern Small-footed Bat 12 g. Waterfall’s Sedge 14 h. Ozark Chinquapin 15 i. Small’s Woodfern 16 j. Southern Lady-slipper 16 IX) CONSULTATION HISTORY WITH THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR – U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 18 X) DETERMINATION OF EFFECTS 18 XI) LITERATURE CITED and REFERENCES 20 XII) APPENDIX A – PETS Species Checklist 28 XIII) APPENDIX B – Herbicide Toxicity Ratings 33 2 of 33 Smith Mountain Project Area BE Caddo-Womble Ranger District PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION The USDA Forest Service, Ouachita National Forest (ONF), Caddo-Womble Ranger District (CWRD), proposes to implement management activities in the 15,296-acre project area known as Smith Mountain that primarily lies within the watersheds identified as Smokey Hollow and Collier. These areas are also identified as Management Areas 14 and 17 in the Revised Land and Resource Management Plan (RLRMP 2005). Compartments 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 52, 53, 54, 56, 57, 63 and 1636 fall completely or partially within the project area, which is located in T3S and T4S, R23 and 24W in Montgomery County, Arkansas. Specifically, the Forest Service proposes the following activities: * Vegetation Management Activities: Seed tree regeneration harvest -711 acres Commercial thinning -2321 acres Timber Stand Improvement -125 acres Pre commercial thinning - up to 1,053 acres Mechanical site preparation for artificial regeneration – up to 572 acres Wildlife stand improvements –within 1,586 acres Woodland stand restoration-166 acres Over Story Development (OSD) -434 acres Linear wildlife opening improvements- 1.6 miles (8 acres) Wildlife opening construction - 3.5 acres Wildlife opening improvement -8 acres Non-native invasive plant species treatment throughout area Infrastructure / Road Improvement / Maintenance Activities: Temporary road construction -8 miles Pre-haul road maintenance - 14 miles Road Reconstruction – 8 miles Road Closures – 3 miles Road Barriers-34 each Pond improvements to existing ponds - 12 each Watershed improvements - 0.22 miles Fish passage barrier removal -34 each Fish passage improvement -replace slab with box culvert or other suitable structure - 1 each Nest box installation -54 Changes to MVUM road status Prescribed Burning Activities: Ecosystem/ Site Prep Prescribed burn (National Forest) - 9,525 acres Fire line construction/Reconstruction – 18/13 miles *All figures are approximate. When harvest activities are completed, log landings and temporary roads would be utilized for temporary wildlife openings. These openings would be limed, fertilized, and seeded and planted with native warm and cool season grasses and non-persistent cultivars. 3 of 33 Smith Mountain Project Area BE Caddo-Womble Ranger District PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE PROPOSED ACTION Purpose: The purpose of this action is to improve the health and vigor of the Ouachita National Forest in accordance to the requirements of the National Forest Management Act (NFMA). These goals and objectives are designed to meet an ecosystem management approach and each prescription is intended to foster a healthy native system to create a more natural appearing mixed pine and hardwood stands, increase biological diversity, reduce the threat of severe wildfires, minimize impacts of non-native invasive species and improve wildlife habitat. These management decisions are based on experience, ecological concepts and scientific research. By implementing these activities we will provide for a diversity of plant and animal communities throughout the project area, provide early seral habitat in a well-distributed grass/forb or shrub/seedling stage, reduce fuel accumulation and produce a sustainable yield of wood products. Need: Current conditions exist in the Ouachita National Forest that does not meet the desired conditions for the forest Management Areas (MA’s) and the ecological systems that occur within. Past fire suppression activities have removed the natural role of fire from the landscape. This absence of fire has resulted in excessive fuel accumulations, increasing the risk of damage to resources in the event of wildfire. The absence of fire has also resulted in reduced open understories necessary for wildlife foods, the natural regeneration of pine and oak and loss of habitat conditions for plants adapted to fire. Pine stands contain damaged, poorly formed and diseased trees. The trees are overcrowded or densely stocked, reducing growth and crown development. These conditions result in stress and reduced vigor and health, thus increasing susceptibility to insects and disease. There is limited access to those identified stands in need of silvicultural treatment, resulting in temporary road construction. Some existing roads are not useable by log trucks for hauling creating the need for road re-construction. Presently, only 3.23% of the watershed area is in early successional habitat (0-10 years). There is a lack of high quality forage and a lack of nesting habitat for species requiring early successional habitat in the form of permanent wildlife openings within the project area. Trees and shrubs are encroaching on the existing wildlife openings that occur within the area. There is a lack of suitable natural cavities for nesting within the project area. There are too many open roads in the watershed. PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION This Biological Evaluation (BE) documents the possible effects of the proposed actions on known and potential populations and habitat of the ONF Proposed, Endangered, Threatened (USDI FWS 1999), and Sensitive (PETS) species. This BE is in accordance with direction given in Forest Service Manual 2672.43 (USDA FS 2005e). 4 of 33 Smith Mountain Project Area BE Caddo-Womble Ranger District As part of the National Environmental Policy Act decision-making process, the BE provides a review of Forest Service (FS) activities in sufficient detail to determine how a proposed action may affect or will affect any PETS species. Objectives of the BE are as follows: to ensure that FS actions do not contribute to loss of viability of any native or desired non-native plant or animal species or contribute to trends toward Federal listing of any species, to comply with the requirements of the Endangered Species Act, that actions of Federal agencies not put at risk or adversely modify critical habitat of Federally listed species, to provide a standard process to ensure that PETS species receive full consideration in the decision- making process. Decision makers will consider information in this BE to ensure that no species is placed in jeopardy by management actions. to meet the requirements of Forest Service Manual 2672.43 (USDA FS 2005e), which provides direction for the preparation of site-specific BEs, including inventory requirements for PETS species. to incorporate any conservation measures specifically addressing any potential impacts from management activities related to known PETS habitat or potential habitat. Only those PETS species known to occur or have suitable habitat in the action area will be considered in this BE. PROPOSED MANAGEMENT ACTIONS Proposed management actions would be conducted in accordance with the Revised Land and Resource Management Plan (RLRMP) (USDA FS 2005a) and the Revised Forest Plan Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) (USDA FS 2005b) on a site-by-site basis. All treatments will follow Best Management Practices (BMPs) to protect or enhance resources and to prevent detrimental impacts. An overview of the proposed management actions and alternatives can be found in the ―PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION‖ section above. For a detailed account of the Preferred Alternative (―Proposed Action‖), as well as the other two alternatives, see Chapter 2 of the EA. This BE also incorporates recently proposed changes to motor vehicle use on Forest Service system roads within the Smith Mountain Project Area of the Ouachita National Forest. On January 4, 2010, a Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant Impact was signed by the Forest Supervisor to implement the Travel Management Project on the Ouachita National Forest (USDA FS 2010). The Travel Management Project meets legal obligations established under the Final Rule for Travel Management; Designated Routes and Areas for Motor Vehicle Use (as published by the Department of Agriculture on November 9, 2005); 36 CFR Parts 212, 251, 261, and 295 (70 Fed. Reg. 68,290). This final rule requires designation of roads, trails, and areas that are open to motor vehicle use. Under the rule, motor vehicle
Recommended publications
  • Missouri Bladderpod Rocky, Open Areas

    Missouri Bladderpod Rocky, Open Areas

    bladderpod were restricted to limestone glades and Missouri Bladderpod rocky, open areas. Encroachment of woody Physaria filiformis vegetation and introduced grasses such as tall fescue into these habitats, along with large fluctuations in bladderpod populations and urban Guidelines for Landowners development were the reasons for the concern and listing of this species. Using Conservation Practices Missouri Department of Conservation Common name ▪ Missouri Bladderpod Scientific name ▪ Physaria filiformis State status ▪ Endangered Federal status ▪ Threatened Ecology Missouri bladderpod is a small yellow-flowered plant Photo Credit: Missouri Department of Conservation in the mustard family found in southwest Missouri and in northern and western Arkansas. It gets its Recommendations name from the spherical fruits or "bladders" that Managing Missouri bladderpod requires protecting contain seeds. Missouri bladderpods live on and restoring glade communities. Promote land limestone glades and rocky outcroppings and can management activities that reduce woody be locally abundant in rocky pastures. Missouri vegetation and reduce competition from invasive bladderpod is a herbaceous, annual plant growing 4 plants. Areas adjacent to existing Missouri to 8 inches tall, producing numerous slender stems bladderpod sites should be managed in such a way from its base. Missouri bladderpods flower from as to prevent the introduction of nonnative species April to May, producing showy, 4-petaled, bright or possible degradation of the native plant yellow blossoms clustered at the tops of the stems. community. Protect glade habitat from ground Distinctive spherical fruiting “pods” form in mid-May disturbing activities such as highway construction and are located near the top of the stem. The seeds and urban development by avoiding glades for drop to the ground in late May and early June, lie these activities.
  • Arkansas Species Listed Under the Endangered Species Act and Pending Evaluations of Other Species

    Arkansas Species Listed Under the Endangered Species Act and Pending Evaluations of Other Species

    U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service December 2012 Arkansas Species listed under the Endangered Species Act and Pending Evaluations of Other Species Taxonomic Species in Multi- Species Other Listed Group District Litigation in Mega- Petitioned Species and Other Candidates Petition Species Mammals - - 4 4 Birds 1 1 1 5 Fishes 1 9 1 5 Amphibians - 1 3 1 Plants - 4 - 5 Reptiles - 1 1 - Mussels/ Snails 2 8 - 14 Ouachita Madtom, by Brian Wagner/ Arkansas Game and Fish Commission Crayfish - 9 - 2 Insects - 2 2 1 Total 4 35 12 37 Note: All numbers are subject to change based on new petitions, litigation and findings. Legal actions brought under the deadlines have been set for those final Endangered Species Act have listing decisions. dramatically increased the workload of the Southeast Region of the U.S. Fish Mega-Petition Caddo Mountain Salamander, by Stan and Wildlife Service. Under the 1973 Act, The Mega-Petition is a large petition Trauth, Arkansas State University any citizen may petition the Service to list filed in 2010 by several advocacy groups species as threatened or endangered. In that requested the Service to list 404 addition, the Service’s decisions may be aquatic and aquatic-dependent species challenged in a court of law. found mostly in the Southeast. In 2011, the Service determined 374 of those Multi-District Litigation species need to be further evaluated. No and Other Candidates deadlines have been set. In 2009 and 2010, two advocacy groups filed lawsuits related to the Service’s Other Petitions missed deadlines under the Act, and The Service continues to receive other the national backlog of 251 species petitions to list species as threatened or categorized as candidates for the Federal endangered under the Act.
  • Endangered Species

    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.
  • Field Release of the Gall Mite, Aceria Drabae

    Field Release of the Gall Mite, Aceria Drabae

    United States Department of Field release of the gall mite, Agriculture Aceria drabae (Acari: Marketing and Regulatory Eriophyidae), for classical Programs biological control of hoary Animal and Plant Health Inspection cress (Lepidium draba L., Service Lepidium chalapense L., and Lepidium appelianum Al- Shehbaz) (Brassicaceae), in the contiguous United States. Environmental Assessment, January 2018 Field release of the gall mite, Aceria drabae (Acari: Eriophyidae), for classical biological control of hoary cress (Lepidium draba L., Lepidium chalapense L., and Lepidium appelianum Al-Shehbaz) (Brassicaceae), in the contiguous United States. Environmental Assessment, January 2018 Agency Contact: Colin D. Stewart, Assistant Director Pests, Pathogens, and Biocontrol Permits Plant Protection and Quarantine Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service U.S. Department of Agriculture 4700 River Rd., Unit 133 Riverdale, MD 20737 Non-Discrimination Policy The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination against its customers, employees, and applicants for employment on the bases of race, color, national origin, age, disability, sex, gender identity, religion, reprisal, and where applicable, political beliefs, marital status, familial or parental status, sexual orientation, or all or part of an individual's income is derived from any public assistance program, or protected genetic information in employment or in any program or activity conducted or funded by the Department. (Not all prohibited bases will apply to all programs and/or employment activities.) To File an Employment Complaint If you wish to file an employment complaint, you must contact your agency's EEO Counselor (PDF) within 45 days of the date of the alleged discriminatory act, event, or in the case of a personnel action.
  • Aquatic Fish Report

    Aquatic Fish Report

    Aquatic Fish Report Acipenser fulvescens Lake St urgeon Class: Actinopterygii Order: Acipenseriformes Family: Acipenseridae Priority Score: 27 out of 100 Population Trend: Unknown Gobal Rank: G3G4 — Vulnerable (uncertain rank) State Rank: S2 — Imperiled in Arkansas Distribution Occurrence Records Ecoregions where the species occurs: Ozark Highlands Boston Mountains Ouachita Mountains Arkansas Valley South Central Plains Mississippi Alluvial Plain Mississippi Valley Loess Plains Acipenser fulvescens Lake Sturgeon 362 Aquatic Fish Report Ecobasins Mississippi River Alluvial Plain - Arkansas River Mississippi River Alluvial Plain - St. Francis River Mississippi River Alluvial Plain - White River Mississippi River Alluvial Plain (Lake Chicot) - Mississippi River Habitats Weight Natural Littoral: - Large Suitable Natural Pool: - Medium - Large Optimal Natural Shoal: - Medium - Large Obligate Problems Faced Threat: Biological alteration Source: Commercial harvest Threat: Biological alteration Source: Exotic species Threat: Biological alteration Source: Incidental take Threat: Habitat destruction Source: Channel alteration Threat: Hydrological alteration Source: Dam Data Gaps/Research Needs Continue to track incidental catches. Conservation Actions Importance Category Restore fish passage in dammed rivers. High Habitat Restoration/Improvement Restrict commercial harvest (Mississippi River High Population Management closed to harvest). Monitoring Strategies Monitor population distribution and abundance in large river faunal surveys in cooperation
  • Five Fish Species Proposed As Endangered

    Five Fish Species Proposed As Endangered

    DEPARTMENT of the INTERIOR FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE news release For Release December 30, 1977 Levitt 202/343-5634 FIVE FISH SPECIES PROPOSEDAS ENDANGERED Five species of fish found in North Carolina, Arkansas, and Tennessee have been proposed for the endangered list by the Interior Department’s U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, .Keith M. Schreiner, Associate Director, announced today. The proposal, published in the December 30, 1977, Federal Register, also lists critical habitat for the Waccamaw darter, Waccamaw killifish. Waccamaw silverside, Ouachita madtom, and Barrens topminnow. Interested persons have until February 28, 1978, to comment on this rulemaking. North Carolina’s Lake Waccamaw, where three of the species occur, is a shallow, mostly sandy bottomed, coastal plain lake that is spring-fed. Its clear water is in contrast to the bog-stained “black water” that is characteristic of most lakes and ponds in the area. The three species depend upon the water quality of the lake which is being threatened by a rapidly growing seasonal tourist and resident population. The area is without a modern waste disposal system, and much of the domestic waste seeps into the lake. Run-off from fertilizer applied to gardens and lawns along the developed northern lake shore creates additional problems in the lake. Excavation of drainage canals for real estate development also jeopardizes these species by increasing siltation. Herbicides used for vegetation control in canals which drain into the lake have also severely depleted fish populations. The Ouachita madtom, which is found in south-central Arkansas, is threatened by stream alteration projects and construction activities.
  • 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

    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.
  • Learning Networks Field Guide

    Learning Networks Field Guide

    LEARNING NETWORKS January 2015 FIELD GUIDE Fire Learning Network Fire Adapted Communities Learning Network Prescribed Fire Training Exchanges Scaling-up to Promote Ecosystem Resiliency Copyright 2015 The Nature Conservancy The Fire Learning Network is part of the “Promoting Ecosystem Resilience and Fire Adapted Communities Together: Collaborative Engagement, Collective Action and Co- Ownership of Fire” cooperative agreement among The Nature Conservancy, USDA Forest Service and agencies of the Department of the Interior (Bureau of Indian Affairs, Bureau of Land Management, Fish & Wildlife Service, National Park Service). In addition to the network of landscape collaboratives, it includes prescribed fire training exchanges and targeted treatments under Scaling-up to Promote Ecosystem Resiliency. For more information, please visit www.conservationgateway.org/fln Network Contacts FLN Director Lynn Decker [email protected] (801) 320-0524 USDA Forest Service Tim Melchert [email protected] (208) 387-5512 Dept. of the Interior Richard Bahr [email protected] (208) 334-1550 The Fire Learning Network Team The Nature Conservancy Fire Team: Jeremy Bailey, Lynn Decker, Guy Duffner, Wendy Fulks, Blane Heumann, Mary Huffman, Heather Montanye, Liz Rank and Chris Topik. The FLN Field Guide is compiled and produced by Liz Rank ([email protected]). Thanks to the numerous landscape and community leaders and partners who provided text, photos and review for this document, and for the valuable work they do in the field. Photo Credits Front cover (top to bottom): Riley Bergseng, Coalition for the Upper South Platte, Robert B. Clontz/TNC; (center) Jeffrey Kane. This page: Jeffrey Kane. Back cover (left to right): Liz Rank/TNC, Katherine Medlock/TNC, Chris Topik/TNC, Mary Huffman/TNC.
  • Standardization and Quality Control in Data Collection and Assessment of Threatened Plant Species

    Standardization and Quality Control in Data Collection and Assessment of Threatened Plant Species

    data Review Standardization and Quality Control in Data Collection and Assessment of Threatened Plant Species Lloyd W. Morrison 1,2,* and Craig C. Young 1 1 National Park Service, Heartland Inventory and Monitoring Program, 6424 W. Farm Road 182, Republic, MO 65738, USA; [email protected] 2 Department of Biology, Missouri State University, Springfield, MO 65897, USA * Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +1-417-836-3119 Academic Editor: Martin M. Gossner Received: 10 May 2016; Accepted: 9 December 2016; Published: 14 December 2016 Abstract: Informative data collection is important in the identification and conservation of rare plant species. Data sets generated by many small-scale studies may be integrated into large, distributed databases, and statistical tools are being developed to extract meaningful information from such databases. A diversity of field methodologies may be employed across smaller studies, however, resulting in a lack of standardization and quality control, which makes integration more difficult. Here, we present a case study of the population-level monitoring of two threatened plant species with contrasting life history traits that require different field sampling methodologies: the limestone glade bladderpod, Physaria filiformis, and the western prairie fringed orchid, Plantanthera praeclara. Although different data collection methodologies are necessary for these species based on population sizes and plant morphology, the resulting data allow for similar inferences. Different sample designs may frequently be necessary for rare plant sampling, yet still provide comparable data. Various sources of uncertainty may be associated with data collection (e.g., random sampling error, methodological imprecision, observer error), and should always be quantified if possible and included in data sets, and described in metadata.
  • Ouachita Mountains Ecoregional Assessment December 2003

    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
  • Checklist of Arkansas Fishes Thomas M

    Checklist of Arkansas Fishes Thomas M

    Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science Volume 27 Article 11 1973 Checklist of Arkansas Fishes Thomas M. Buchanan University of Arkansas – Fort Smith Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarworks.uark.edu/jaas Part of the Population Biology Commons, and the Terrestrial and Aquatic Ecology Commons Recommended Citation Buchanan, Thomas M. (1973) "Checklist of Arkansas Fishes," Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science: Vol. 27 , Article 11. Available at: http://scholarworks.uark.edu/jaas/vol27/iss1/11 This article is available for use under the Creative Commons license: Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International (CC BY-ND 4.0). Users are able to read, download, copy, print, distribute, search, link to the full texts of these articles, or use them for any other lawful purpose, without asking prior permission from the publisher or the author. This Article is brought to you for free and open access by ScholarWorks@UARK. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science by an authorized editor of ScholarWorks@UARK. For more information, please contact [email protected], [email protected]. Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science, Vol. 27 [1973], Art. 11 Checklist of Arkansas Fishes THOMAS M.BUCHANAN Department ot Natural Science, Westark Community College, Fort Smith, Arkansas 72901 ABSTRACT Arkansas has a large, diverse fish fauna consisting of 193 species known to have been collected from the state's waters. The checklist is an up-to-date listing of both native and introduced species, and is intended to correct some of the longstanding and more recent erroneous Arkansas records.
  • Fishtraits: a Database on Ecological and Life-History Traits of Freshwater

    Fishtraits: a Database on Ecological and Life-History Traits of Freshwater

    FishTraits database Traits References Allen, D. M., W. S. Johnson, and V. Ogburn-Matthews. 1995. Trophic relationships and seasonal utilization of saltmarsh creeks by zooplanktivorous fishes. Environmental Biology of Fishes 42(1)37-50. [multiple species] Anderson, K. A., P. M. Rosenblum, and B. G. Whiteside. 1998. Controlled spawning of Longnose darters. The Progressive Fish-Culturist 60:137-145. [678] Barber, W. E., D. C. Williams, and W. L. Minckley. 1970. Biology of the Gila Spikedace, Meda fulgida, in Arizona. Copeia 1970(1):9-18. [485] Becker, G. C. 1983. Fishes of Wisconsin. University of Wisconsin Press, Madison, WI. Belk, M. C., J. B. Johnson, K. W. Wilson, M. E. Smith, and D. D. Houston. 2005. Variation in intrinsic individual growth rate among populations of leatherside chub (Snyderichthys copei Jordan & Gilbert): adaptation to temperature or length of growing season? Ecology of Freshwater Fish 14:177-184. [349] Bonner, T. H., J. M. Watson, and C. S. Williams. 2006. Threatened fishes of the world: Cyprinella proserpina Girard, 1857 (Cyprinidae). Environmental Biology of Fishes. In Press. [133] Bonnevier, K., K. Lindstrom, and C. St. Mary. 2003. Parental care and mate attraction in the Florida flagfish, Jordanella floridae. Behavorial Ecology and Sociobiology 53:358-363. [410] Bortone, S. A. 1989. Notropis melanostomus, a new speices of Cyprinid fish from the Blackwater-Yellow River drainage of northwest Florida. Copeia 1989(3):737-741. [575] Boschung, H.T., and R. L. Mayden. 2004. Fishes of Alabama. Smithsonian Books, Washington. [multiple species] 1 FishTraits database Breder, C. M., and D. E. Rosen. 1966. Modes of reproduction in fishes.