DOCSLIB.ORG

Distribution, Relative Abundance, and Habitat Association of Tallapoosa Bass Micropterus Tallapoosae in the Tallapoosa River Drainage, Alabama

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Distribution, Relative Abundance, and Habitat Association of Tallapoosa Bass Micropterus Tallapoosae in the Tallapoosa River Drainage, Alabama Distribution, Relative Abundance, and Habitat Association of Tallapoosa Bass Micropterus tallapoosae in the Tallapoosa River Drainage, Alabama. by Nathan Grant Thompson A thesis submitted to the Graduate Faculty of Auburn University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of Fisheries, Master of Science Auburn, Alabama August 7, 2021 Keywords: Tallapoosa Bass, occupancy, disturbance, sub-basin, rock score, watershed area Copyright 2021 by Nathan Grant Thompson Approved by Dr. Terrill R. Hanson, Chair, Professor, School of Fisheries, Aquaculture, and Aquatic Sciences Dr. Steven M. Sammons, Co-chair, Research Fellow IV, School of Fisheries, Aquaculture, and Aquatic Sciences Dr. Brandon Peoples, Assistant Professor of Fisheries Ecology, Forestry and Environmental Conservation Department Abstract The diversity of freshwater fishes and black bass Micropterus spp. in the United States are concentrated in the southeastern region. Dams, anthropogenic land use, fragmentation, invasive species and other factors are contributing to decreasing distributions and increasing imperilment of native fishes in this region. Some black bass, such as the Tallapoosa Bass Micropterus tallapoosae, have recently been elevated to species status but their distribution and imperilment status are unknown. The goal of this study was to determine the distribution of Tallapoosa Bass and examine the land use, habitat, and abiotic variables that contribute to the occurrence and relative abundance of Tallapoosa Bass. Fifty-eight creeks were sampled from May 2019-June 2020 using canoe and backpack electrofishing across six sub-basins. Results indicated that Tallapoosa Bass are well-distributed throughout the Piedmont region, and both average detection and occurrence probability were high. Tallapoosa Bass presence was positively related to the relative abundance of rocky substrate and watersheds that contained a majority percent of hydrologic soil group B (MPSB), which is a measure of runoff potential. Abundance was positively related to rocky substrate, MPSB, the amount of disturbance in the watershed, pool, and gradient; it was negatively related to watershed area. There was good variation in habitat characteristics across the range of Tallapoosa Bass streams sampled during this study. The Little Tallapoosa River Basin above Lake Wedowee seems to have the best assemblage of good streams and habitat characteristics of all the areas examined during this study. Some streams in other areas were also typified by ideal characteristics for Tallapoosa Bass habitat. Streams with small watersheds, high rock scores, and medium to 2 high gradients should be prioritized for protection. Several specific streams across the sub-basin with quality populations based on genetic results, CPUE, and quality habitat characteristics are suggested for protection and conservation. Urban land use impacts, a more extensive temperature study, investigating the effects of flow on movement, migration dynamics, spawning characteristics, influence of shoal and specific rocky substrates, influence of various mesohabitats, interactions with native Alabama Bass, diet, and influence of vegetative cover are suggested as areas of further research for Tallapoosa Bass. 3 Acknowledgments First and foremost, I would like to thank Dr. Steven M. Sammons for giving me the opportunity to pursue a master’s degree and study an incredible fish species. This research has challenged me and enabled me to grow and learn in many new ways. Thanks for all your support, guidance, and commitment to helping me see this through. Thanks for your patience and advice throughout the research and especially the writing process. I thank Dr. Terry Hanson for taking me on as a graduate student and allowing me to pursue a master’s degree. I thank my committee member Dr. Brandon Peoples for all his advice and guidance during the study design and data analysis processes. Thanks to Dr. Shannon Brewer for her additional help during data analysis on occupancy models. I would like to thank Kat Hoenke from Southeast Aquatic Research Partnership (SARP) for all her invaluable help in learning GIS and calculating land use data. I would like to thank Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources (ADCNR) for funding this project. Thanks to ADCNR employees Mike Holley, Nathan Aycock, Kevin Baswell, Jason Datillo, Graves Lovell, and Greg Miles for helping sample streams and providing field support. I thank fellow graduate students Sarah Baker and Amber Young for helping with field work and for the brainstorming sessions. Thanks to undergraduate technicians AnaSara Gillem, Jake Gillem, and Matt Maloof and lab assistant Dan Bryant for help with field work and gear maintenance. Thanks especially to lab assistant and fellow graduate student Phil Carson for all his help as we stumbled through the initial learning stages of field sampling and proving guidance and support in learning a new sampling gear. Thanks again for showing me around Alabama and acquainting me with its creeks. 4 Finally, I would like to thank my parents Kevin and Cindy Thompson and my family for all their unwavering support in my pursuit of a graduate degree and a fisheries career. 5 Table of Contents Abstract……………………………………………………………………………………2 Acknowledgements………………………………………………………………………..4 List of Tables……………………………………………………………………………...8 List of Figures……………………………………………………………………………..9 List of Abbreviations…………………………………………………………………….10 I. Introduction……………………………………………………………………………12 II. Methods……………………………………………………………………………….24 II.1. Study area…………………………………………………………………...24 II.2. Site selection………………………………………………………………..25 II.3. Sampling design and data collection………………………………………..26 II.4. Additional data collection…………………………………………………..29 II.5. Data analysis…………………………………………………………….….31 II.6. Occupancy model…………………………………………………………...32 II.7. Relative abundance model………………………….………………………37 II.8. Variable comparisons……………………………………………………….39 III. Results………………………………………………………………………………..39 III.1. Field collection……………………………………………………………..39 III.2. Model results: occupancy………………………………………………….43 III.3. Model results: relative abundance………………………………………....46 III.4. Variable comparison……………...………………………………………..48 IV. Discussion……………………………………………………………………………49 V. Conclusions and Management Implications………………………………………….63 6 VI. Literature Cited………………………………………………………………………67 VII. Tables……………………………………………………………………………….92 VIII. Figures…………………………………………………………………………….112 IX. Appendices…………………………………………………………………………127 IX.1. Tallapoosa Project Sampling Datasheet………………………………….128 IX.2. Tallapoosa Project Sampling Protocol……...…………………………….129 IX.3. List of Coordinates for Canoe Sites..……………………………………..131 IX.4. List of Coordinates for Backpack Sites…..……………………………....133 IX.5. Occupancy Model Code………………………………………………….135 IX.6. Relative Abundance Model Code………………………………………...147 7 List of Tables Table 1: List of Stream Sites……………………………………………………………..93 Table 2: LWD scoring protocol.…………………………………………………………85 Table 3: Rock scoring protocol…..………………………………………………………96 Table 4: Summary of all field-collected habitat data per sub-basin and Tallapoosa River drainage..............................................................................................................................97 Table 5: Summary of all GIS-collected habitat data per sub-basin and Tallapoosa River drainage…………………………………………………………………………………..99 Table 6: Summary of total bass sampled and CPUE per sub-basin and Tallapoosa River drainage…………………………………………………………………………………102 Table 7: Correlation matrix for detection sub-model covariates.…………...….............103 Table 8: List of covariates used in occupancy model……...…………………...….…...104 Table 9: Correlation matrix for occurrence sub-model covariates …………………….105 Table 10: List of top occurrence sub-models ……………………………...……….…..106 Table 11: Coefficients and confidence intervals from top occupancy model ………….107 Table 12: Correlation matrix for relative abundance covariates…...………...………....108 Table 13: List of covariates used in relative abundance model……………...…………109 Table 14: Summary for individual relative abundance candidate models…….………..110 Table 15: Coefficients and confidence intervals from relative abundance model- average………………………………………………………………………………….111 8 List of Figures Figure 1: Map of Tallapoosa River drainage study area…………………………..........113 Figure 2: Length-frequency histogram for Tallapoosa Bass ………………………...…114 Figure 3: Boxplot of Tallapoosa Bass CPUE per sub-basin ………………….………..115 Figure 4: Frequency histogram of Tallapoosa Bass CPUE per site by month ………....116 Figure 5: Frequency histogram of stream orders sampled……………………..……….117 Figure 6: Relationship between natural log-depth and detection probability……….….118 Figure 7: Relationship between natural log-seconds and detection probability …….....119 Figure 8: Relationship between rock score and occurrence probability ……………….120 Figure 9: Comparison of mean percent hydro soil group B for good and poor Tallapoosa Bass sites and for sites with and without Tallapoosa Bass sites……………...………...121 Figure 10: Comparison of rock score for good and poor Tallapoosa Bass sites………..122 Figure 11: Comparison of watershed area for good and poor Tallapoosa Bass sites…..123 Figure 12: Comparison of DI in the watershed for good and poor Tallapoosa Bass sites……………………………………………………………………………………..124 Figure 13: Comparison of gradient for good and poor Tallapoosa Bass sites ………....125 Figure 14: Comparison of percent pool for good
Load more

Recommended publications
  • STURGEON HABITAT QUANTIFIED by SIDE-SCAN SONAR IMAGERY By
    STURGEON HABITAT QUANTIFIED BY SIDE-SCAN SONAR IMAGERY by JOHN DAVID HOOK (Under the Direction of Nathan P. Nibbelink and Douglas L. Peterson) ABSTRACT The assessment and monitoring of freshwater habitats is essential to the successful management of imperiled fishes. Recent introduction of recreational multi-beam and side-scan sonar equipment allows rapid, low cost acquisition of bathymetric data and substrate imagery in navigable waters. However, utilization of this data is hindered by a lack of established protocols for processing and classification. I surveyed 298 km of the Ogeechee River, Georgia using low-cost recreational-grade side-scan and bathymetric sonar. I assessed classification accuracy of three approaches to working with recreational- grade sonar and quantified potential spawning grounds for Atlantic sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrinchus oxyrinchus). I demonstrate that ecologically relevant habitat variables can be derived from low-cost sonar imagery at low levels of processing effort. INDEX WORDS: Side-scan sonar, Atlantic sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrinchus oxyrinchus), habitat, classification accuracy STURGEON HABITAT QUANTIFIED BY SIDE-SCAN SONAR IMAGERY by JOHN DAVID HOOK B.S., Cleveland State University, 2008 A Thesis Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of The University of Georgia in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree MASTER OF SCIENCE ATHENS, GEORGIA 2011 © 2011 John David Hook All Rights Reserved STURGEON HABITAT QUANTIFIED BY SIDE-SCAN SONAR IMAGERY By JOHN DAVID HOOK Major Professors: Nathan Nibbelink Douglas Peterson Committee: Jeffrey Hepinstall-Cymerman Thomas Jordan Electronic Version Approved: Maureen Grasso Dean of the Graduate School The University of Georgia December 201 iv DEDICATION I would like to dedicate this to my parents, John and Joyce, whose continued support, encouragement, and enthusiasm have made all my endeavors possible, and to Emily, whose love and patience seem to know no bounds.
    [Show full text]
  • Guidelines for Eating Fish from Georgia Waters 2017
    Guidelines For Eating Fish From Georgia Waters 2017 Georgia Department of Natural Resources 2 Martin Luther King, Jr. Drive, S.E., Suite 1252 Atlanta, Georgia 30334-9000 i ii For more information on fish consumption in Georgia, contact the Georgia Department of Natural Resources. Environmental Protection Division Watershed Protection Branch 2 Martin Luther King, Jr. Drive, S.E., Suite 1152 Atlanta, GA 30334-9000 (404) 463-1511 Wildlife Resources Division 2070 U.S. Hwy. 278, S.E. Social Circle, GA 30025 (770) 918-6406 Coastal Resources Division One Conservation Way Brunswick, Ga. 31520 (912) 264-7218 Check the DNR Web Site at: http://www.gadnr.org For this booklet: Go to Environmental Protection Division at www.gaepd.org, choose publications, then fish consumption guidelines. For the current Georgia 2015 Freshwater Sport Fishing Regulations, Click on Wild- life Resources Division. Click on Fishing. Choose Fishing Regulations. Or, go to http://www.gofishgeorgia.com For more information on Coastal Fisheries and 2015 Regulations, Click on Coastal Resources Division, or go to http://CoastalGaDNR.org For information on Household Hazardous Waste (HHW) source reduction, reuse options, proper disposal or recycling, go to Georgia Department of Community Affairs at http://www.dca.state.ga.us. Call the DNR Toll Free Tip Line at 1-800-241-4113 to report fish kills, spills, sewer over- flows, dumping or poaching (24 hours a day, seven days a week). Also, report Poaching, via e-mail using [email protected] Check USEPA and USFDA for Federal Guidance on Fish Consumption USEPA: http://www.epa.gov/ost/fishadvice USFDA: http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/seafood.1html Image Credits:Covers: Duane Raver Art Collection, courtesy of the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Stream-Temperature Charcteristics in Georgia
    STREAM-TEMPERATURE CHARACTERISTICS IN GEORGIA U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Prepared in cooperation with the GEORGIA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION DIVISION Water-Resources Investigations Report 96-4203 STREAM-TEMPERATURE CHARACTERISTICS IN GEORGIA By T.R. Dyar and S.J. Alhadeff ______________________________________________________________________________ U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Water-Resources Investigations Report 96-4203 Prepared in cooperation with GEORGIA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION DIVISION Atlanta, Georgia 1997 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR BRUCE BABBITT, Secretary U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Charles G. Groat, Director For additional information write to: Copies of this report can be purchased from: District Chief U.S. Geological Survey U.S. Geological Survey Branch of Information Services 3039 Amwiler Road, Suite 130 Denver Federal Center Peachtree Business Center Box 25286 Atlanta, GA 30360-2824 Denver, CO 80225-0286 CONTENTS Page Abstract . 1 Introduction . 1 Purpose and scope . 2 Previous investigations. 2 Station-identification system . 3 Stream-temperature data . 3 Long-term stream-temperature characteristics. 6 Natural stream-temperature characteristics . 7 Regression analysis . 7 Harmonic mean coefficient . 7 Amplitude coefficient. 10 Phase coefficient . 13 Statewide harmonic equation . 13 Examples of estimating natural stream-temperature characteristics . 15 Panther Creek . 15 West Armuchee Creek . 15 Alcovy River . 18 Altamaha River . 18 Summary of stream-temperature characteristics by river basin . 19 Savannah River basin . 19 Ogeechee River basin. 25 Altamaha River basin. 25 Satilla-St Marys River basins. 26 Suwannee-Ochlockonee River basins . 27 Chattahoochee River basin. 27 Flint River basin. 28 Coosa River basin. 29 Tennessee River basin . 31 Selected references. 31 Tabular data . 33 Graphs showing harmonic stream-temperature curves of observed data and statewide harmonic equation for selected stations, figures 14-211 .
    [Show full text]
  • 2020 Integrated 305(B)/303(D) List
    2020 Integrated 305(b)/303(d) List - Streams Reach Name/ID Reach Location/County River Basin/ Assessment/ Cause/ Size/Unit Category/ Notes Use Data Provider Source Priority Alex Creek Mason Cowpen Branch to Altamaha Not Supporting DO 3 4a TMDL completed DO 2002. Altamaha River GAR030701060503 Wayne Fishing 1,55,10 NP Miles Altamaha River Confluence of Oconee and Altamaha Supporting 72 1 TMDL completed Fish Tissue (Mercury) 2002. Ocmulgee Rivers to ITT Rayonier GAR030701060401 Appling, Wayne, Jeff Davis Fishing 1,55 Miles Altamaha River ITT Rayonier to Altamaha Assessment 20 3 TMDL completed Fish Tissue (Mercury) 2002. More Penholoway Creek Pending data need to be collected and evaluated before it GAR030701060402 Wayne Fishing 10,55 Miles can be determined whether the designated use of Fishing is being met. Altamaha River Penholoway Creek to Altamaha Supporting 27 1 Butler River GAR030701060501 Wayne, Glynn, McIntosh Fishing 1,55 Miles Beards Creek Chapel Creek to Spring Altamaha Not Supporting Bio F 7 4a TMDL completed Bio F 2017. Branch GAR030701060308 Tattnall, Long Fishing 4 NP Miles Beards Creek Spring Branch to Altamaha Not Supporting Bio F 11 4a TMDL completed Bio F in 2012. Altamaha River GAR030701060301 Tattnall Fishing 1,55,10,4 NP, UR Miles Big Cedar Creek Griffith Branch to Little Altamaha Assessment 5 3 This site has a narrative rank of fair for Cedar Creek Pending macroinvertebrates. Waters with a narrative rank GAR030701070108 Washington Fishing 59 Miles of fair will remain in Category 3 until EPD completes the reevaluation of the metrics used to assess macroinvertebrate data. Big Cedar Creek Little Cedar Creek (at Altamaha Not Supporting FC 6 5 EPD needs to determine the "natural DO" for the Donovan Hwy) to Little area before a use assessment is made.
    [Show full text]
  • Technical Appendix
    Technical Appendix Question 64.a – Water– Water Quality Quality and and Quantity Quantity Protection Protection - Location- Location A. The project is located in a Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) 12 watershed identified by the Georgia Environmental Protection Division (GAEPD) as a priority watershed for water quality purposes. Resource: Map and list of priority watersheds (Attachment 1). If the project falls into a purple area on the map, then it meets this category. Additional Information: Current Approved Georgia Nonpoint Source Management Plan. https://epd.georgia.gov/nonpoint-source-program Contact Person: Joy Hinkle, EPD Watershed Protection Branch Grants Unit Manager, (404) 651-8532 or [email protected]. B. The project is located in a HUC-12 or equivalent size area identified as impacted by or sensitive to hydrologic alteration. Resource: The Capacity Use Areas and Restricted Use Areas identified by GAEPD in the 2006 Flint River Basin Plan (https://epd.georgia.gov/georgia-flint-river-basin-plan), or a similar document. Please refer to pages 23-29 of the Flint River Basin Plan. If the project is located in one of the yellow or pink areas in Figures 0.2 – 0.5, then it meets this category. See Attachment 2 for excerpted Figures from this Plan. Contact Person: Jennifer Welte, EPD Watershed Protection Branch, (404) 463-1694 or [email protected]. C. The project is located in a HUC-12watershed identified by GAEPD as a healthy watershed. Resource: The most recent approved Georgia 305(b)/303(d) list, as provided on this page: https://epd.georgia.gov/water-quality-georgia.
    [Show full text]
  • 2014 Chapters 3 to 5
    CHAPTER 3 establish water use classifications and water quality standards for the waters of the State. Water Quality For each water use classification, water quality Monitoring standards or criteria have been developed, which establish the framework used by the And Assessment Environmental Protection Division to make water use regulatory decisions. All of Georgia’s Background waters are currently classified as fishing, recreation, drinking water, wild river, scenic Water Resources Atlas The river miles and river, or coastal fishing. Table 3-2 provides a lake acreage estimates are based on the U.S. summary of water use classifications and Geological Survey (USGS) 1:100,000 Digital criteria for each use. Georgia’s rules and Line Graph (DLG), which provides a national regulations protect all waters for the use of database of hydrologic traces. The DLG in primary contact recreation by having a fecal coordination with the USEPA River Reach File coliform bacteria standard of a geometric provides a consistent computerized mean of 200 per 100 ml for all waters with the methodology for summing river miles and lake use designations of fishing or drinking water to acreage. The 1:100,000 scale map series is apply during the months of May - October (the the most detailed scale available nationally in recreational season). digital form and includes 75 to 90 percent of the hydrologic features on the USGS 1:24,000 TABLE 3-1. WATER RESOURCES ATLAS scale topographic map series. Included in river State Population (2006 Estimate) 9,383,941 mile estimates are perennial streams State Surface Area 57,906 sq.mi.
    [Show full text]
  • Variation of Fish Assemblages and Species Abundances in The
    VARIATION OF FISH ASSEMBLAGES AND SPECIES ABUNDANCES IN THE UPPER FLINT RIVER SHOALS, GEORGIA by PAULA A. MARCINEK (Under the Direction of Mary C. Freeman) ABSTRACT The Flint River, a major tributary of the Apalachicola drainage, is one of four rivers originating in the Piedmont of central Georgia. This study investigated relations between fish assemblages and habitat characteristics in shoals, one of the primary features of the upper mainstem. The study compared variation in fish assemblages and species abundances among shoals at two scales, the microhabitat and the reach. Shoals differed in terms of species assemblages, habitat composition, and species abundances. Habitat use by fishes was predicted by different variables at the microhabitat and reach scales. The predictive variables were depth, velocity, Podostemum coverage, bed sediment variables, and gradient. These findings should be useful for management decisions and in evaluating consequences of municipal water policy in the Flint headwaters. INDEX WORDS: fish assemblages, Flint River, shoals, Cyprinella callitaenia, Micropterus cataractae, Percina sp. VARIATION OF FISH ASSEMBLAGES AND SPECIES ABUNDANCES IN THE UPPER FLINT RIVER SHOALS, GEORGIA by PAULA A. MARCINEK B.S. The University of Georgia, 1999 A Thesis Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of The University of Georgia in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree MASTER OF SCIENCE ATHENS, GEORGIA 2003 © 2003 Paula A. Marcinek All Rights Reserved VARIATION OF FISH ASSEMBLAGES AND SPECIES ABUNDANCES IN THE UPPER FLINT RIVER SHOALS, GEORGIA by PAULA A. MARCINEK Major Professor: Mary C. Freeman Committee: Ronald Carroll Byron J. Freeman Electronic Version Approved: Maureen Grasso Dean of the Graduate School The University of Georgia August 2003 iv ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Thank you to the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • WATER QUALITY in GEORGIA 2016-2017 (2018 Integrated 305B/303D Report)
    WATER QUALITY IN GEORGIA 2016-2017 (2018 Integrated 305b/303d Report) WATER QUALITY IN GEORGIA Georgia Department of Natural Resources Environmental Protection Division WATER QUALITY IN GEORGIA 2016-2017 (2018 Integrated 305b/303d Report) Preface This report was prepared by the Georgia Environmental Protection Division (EPD), Department of Natural Resources, as required by Section 305(b) of Public Law 92-500 (the Clean Water Act) and as a public information document. It represents a synoptic extraction of the EPD files and, in certain cases, information has been presented in summary form from those files. The reader is therefore advised to use this condensed information with the knowledge that it is a summary document and more detailed information may be available in EPD files. This report covers a two-year period, January 1, 2016 through December 31, 2017. Comments or questions related to the content of this report are invited and should be addressed to: Environmental Protection Division Georgia Department of Natural Resources Watershed Protection Branch 2 Martin Luther King, Jr. Drive, SE Suite 1162 East Tower Atlanta, Georgia 30334 WATER QUALITY IN GEORGIA This page is intentionally blank. WATER QUALITY IN GEORGIA CHAPTER 1 Watershed Protection in Georgia The GAEPD is a comprehensive environmental agency Executive Summary responsible for environmental protection, management, regulation, permitting, and Purpose This report, Water Quality in Georgia, enforcement in Georgia. The GAEPD has for 2016-20172016-2017, was prepared by the many years aggressively sought most available Georgia Environmental Protection Division program delegations from the USEPA in order to (EPD) of the Department of Natural Resources achieve and maintain a coordinated, integrated (DNR).
    [Show full text]
  • Alligator Snapping Turtle) in the Flint River, GA, 22 Years After the Close of Commercial Harvest
    20162016 SOUTHEASTERNSoutheastern NaturalistNATURALIST 15(4):575–585Vol. 15, No. 4 R.L. King, B.P. Hepler, L.L. Smith, and J.B. Jensen The Status of Macrochelys temminckii (Alligator Snapping Turtle) in the Flint River, GA, 22 Years after the Close of Commercial Harvest Rachel L. King1,2, Benjamin P. Hepler1, Lora L. Smith1,*, and John B. Jensen3 Abstract - Macrochelys temminckii (Alligator Snapping Turtle) was petitioned for federal listing as threatened under the Endangered Species Act in 2012 as a result of population declines attributable in part to harvest for human consumption. The species was listed as threatened in 1992 in Georgia, where all harvest of the species was closed. Because little is known about how Alligator Snapping Turtle populations respond to protection, we sur- veyed Georgia’s Flint River, which had originally been surveyed in 1989, to assess whether abundance of Alligator Snapping Turtles increased following close of commercial harvest. Our survey, conducted in 2014 and 2015 yielded captures of 52 Alligator Snapping Turtles with an overall catch per unit effort (CPUE) of 0.09 turtles/trap-night, as compared to 62 captures and a CPUE of 0.08 turtles/trap-night in the 1989 survey. Although CPUE was similar between the two studies, we observed differences among the lower, middle, and up- per reaches of the river; CPUE increased in the lower reach, decreased slightly in the middle reach, and remained the same in the upper reach of the Flint River. Mean size (carapace length) of Alligator Snapping Turtles did not differ between the 2 surveys, but in 2014–2015 we caught nearly twice as many immature (<40 cm carapace length) turtles as adult males and females, and the highest proportion of immature turtles was captured in the upper reach.
    [Show full text]
  • G E O R G I a Now!
    WWW.GOFISHGEORGIA.COM GEORGIA SPORT FISHING 2014 REGULATIONS › Celebrate Georgia’s Free Fishing Days – Page 6 › Happy Birthday Boater Bonus – Page 17 BUY YOUR LICENSE NOW! Quality Homes Built on Your Land!!! Homes for Every Budget Call Now for a New Home Plan Guide From $65,000 to $375,000 The Prices are Unbelievable and So Is the Quality! WWW.TRINITYCUSTOM.COM Modify any plan to meet YOUR needs! SUNRISE $103,100 MOUNTAINSIDE $113,900 JASPER SPLIT $132,200 FRONTIER $90,100 LAKE BLUE RIDGE $123,500 3 Bedrooms, 2 Baths 3 Bedrooms, 2½ Baths 3 Bedrooms, 2 Baths 3 Bedrooms, 2 Baths 3 Bedrooms, 2½ Baths VICTORIAN $207,700 TIMBERLINE $200,100 CHEROKEE FARMHOUSE $143,100 COLUMBUS $149,700 CHARLESTON MANOR $292,200 4 Bedrooms, 2½ Baths 3 Bedrooms, 2 Baths Bedrooms, 2½ Baths 3 Bedrooms, 2 Baths 5 Bedrooms, 3½ Baths NEW FULL BRICK HOMES NOBODY OFFERS MORE VALUE IN YOUR FAMILY’S NEW HOME! • 2x6 Exterior Walls • House Wrap • R19 Insulated Walls & Floors OVER • 5/8’ Roof Decking • R38 Insulated Ceilings • Architectural Shingles • Custom Wood Cabinets 110 • Central Heat & Air • Gutters Front & Back STOCK • Kenmore Appliances NASHVILLE $144,300 SUMMERVILLE $116,900 PLANTATIONVILLE $156,300 PLANS • Cultured Marble Vanities • Granite Kitchen Counter Tops 3 Bedrooms, 2 Baths 3 Bedrooms, 2 Baths 4 Bedrooms, 2½ Baths • 9’ First Floor Ceilings • Knockdown Ceiling Finish Office Locations: 8’ Ceilings on Brick Homes GUARANTEED Hours of Operation: BUILDOUT Ellijay 1-888-818-0278 • Dublin 1-866-419-9919 Monday - Friday 9am to 6pm Saturday 10am to 4pm Lavonia 1-866-476-8615 • Cullman, AL 256-737-5055 Visit one of our Models or Showrooms Today TIMES Montgomery, AL 334-290-4397 • Augusta 1-866-784-0066 Don’t Be Overcharged For Your New Home! Price does not include land improvements.
    [Show full text]
  • Additional Peer Review Requested Information
    May 7, 2018 During the peer review panel meeting on April 18, 2018, members of the panel expressed a need for additional information that is required for them to complete their review of the model. Specific areas of concern were: 1. Comparison of modeled Upper Floridan aquifer (UFA) transmissivity to available aquifer performance tests (APT’s) within the model domain, and; 2. Provide a comparison of observed and modeled baseflows along available drainage conveyances, with the intent of evaluating cumulative baseflows with progression in a downstream direction. Toward the above stated concerns, we offer the following additional information/clarification. 1. Aquifer Performance Test/Modeled Comparison – UFA Transmissivity Panel members requested additional analysis of APT’s within the model domain, including comparison of the APT database used by the modeling team as well as that used as the basis for an Upper Floridan Aquifer transmissivity map prepared by the USGS. The USGS map is titled, “Transmissivity of the Upper Floridan Aquifer in Florida and Parts of Georgia, South Carolina, and Alabama” and designated by the USGS as Scientific Investigations Map 3204. This map and companion APT database map be found here: https://pubs.usgs.gov/sim/3204/pdf/USGS_SIM- 3204_Kuniansky_Web.pdf, https://pubs.usgs.gov/sim/3204/TransmissivityMap_data.zip. The noted map, with the NFSEG boundary superimposed on it, is provided as Figure 1. It is important to note that USGS SIM 3204 was derived from surface interpolation of the APT data points only. Because of this, although the map shows the spatial distribution of transmissivity within a very large area, the accuracy of the transmissivity values shown on the map should be considered very low in the areas where APT data is not available or sparse.
    [Show full text]
  • GDOT Bridge Projects
    GDOT Bridge Projects PROJECT ID DESCRIPTION COUNTIES CONSTRUCTION CONSTRUCTION PRELIMINARY PRELIMINARY RIGHT OF RIGHT OF WAY FUNDING ENGINEERING ENGINEERING WAY SOURCE YEAR AMOUNT YEAR AMOUNT YEAR AMOUNT 532290- CR 536/ZOAR ROAD @ BIG SATILIA CREEK TRIBUTARY Appling TBD TBD TBD TBD LOCL $14,850.00 0013818 SR 64 @ SATILLA RIVER 6 MI E OF PEARSON Atkinson 2020 $3,300,000.00 2016 $500,000.00 2019 $250,000.00 Federal 0015581 Bridge Replacement of CR 180 (Liberty Church Road) over Little Hurricane Creek. This Bacon N/A N/A 2019 $250,000.00 N/A N/A Federal bridge is structurally deficient and requires posting as cross bracing has been added at each intermediate bent, some have been replaced and concrete is spalling under deck and exposing rebar. 570720- CR 159 @ LITTLE HURRICANE CREEK NW OF ALMA Bacon TBD TBD TBD TBD LOCL $29,700.00 0007154 The proposed project would consist of replacing the bridge on SR 216 at Baker 2017 $6,454,060.87 2007 $667,568.36 2016 $290,000.00 Federal Ichawaynochaway Creek by closing the existing roadway & maintaining traffic on an off- site detour of approximately 40 miles. this project is located 12.7 miles northwest of Newton, Georgia and is 0.16 miles in length. Bridge ID: 007-0007-0 0007153 This project is the replacement of the existing bridge on SR 200@ Ichawaynochaway Baker 2018 $4,068,564.69 2012 $766,848.95 2017 $70,000.00 State Creek. The current bridge sufficency rating is 55.63 and will be replaced with a wider bridge that meets current GDOT guidelines.
    [Show full text]