DOCSLIB.ORG

Normandy Reservoir Land Management Plan

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Normandy Reservoir Land Management Plan NORMANDY RESERVOIR FINAL RESERVOIR LAND MANAGEMENT PLAN Volume VII MULTIPLE RESERVOIR LAND MANAGEMENT PLANS FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT August 2017 This page intentionally left blank Document Type: EIS Administrative Record Index Field: Final EIS Project Name: Multiple RLMPs & CVLP EIS Project Number: 2016-2 NORMANDY RESERVOIR Final Reservoir Land Management Plan VOLUME VII MULTIPLE RESERVOIR LAND MANAGEMENT PLANS FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Prepared by: Tennessee Valley Authority August 2017 This page intentionally left blank Contents TABLE OF CONTENTS ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ................................................................................................... VII-V CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................VII-1 1.1 Tennessee Valley Authority History .......................................................................... VII-2 1.2 Overview of TVA’s Mission and Environmental Policy ............................................. VII-2 1.2.1 TVA’s Mission .................................................................................................... VII-2 1.2.2 Environmental Policy ......................................................................................... VII-3 1.2.3 Land Policy ........................................................................................................ VII-3 1.2.4 Shoreline Management Policy ........................................................................... VII-4 1.3 The Natural Resource Plan ...................................................................................... VII-6 1.4 Purpose of Reservoir Land Planning ........................................................................ VII-6 CHAPTER 2. REGIONAL OVERVIEW ................................................................................................VII-9 2.1 History of Normandy Dam ........................................................................................ VII-9 2.2 Normandy Reservoir and Present Shoreline .......................................................... VII-11 2.2.1 Land Use and Prime Farmland ....................................................................... VII-11 2.2.2 Recreation ....................................................................................................... VII-13 2.2.3 Terrestrial Ecology .......................................................................................... VII-15 2.2.4 Aquatic Ecology ............................................................................................... VII-20 2.2.5 Threatened and Endangered Species ............................................................. VII-24 2.2.6 Water Quality ................................................................................................... VII-35 2.2.7 Wetlands ......................................................................................................... VII-36 2.2.8 Floodplains ...................................................................................................... VII-38 2.2.9 Air Quality ........................................................................................................ VII-38 2.2.10 Cultural and Historic Resources ...................................................................... VII-39 2.2.11 Natural Areas and Ecologically Significant Sites ............................................. VII-41 2.2.12 Aesthetics and Visual Resources .................................................................... VII-42 2.2.13 Noise ............................................................................................................... VII-42 2.2.14 Socioeconomics and Environmental Justice ................................................... VII-44 2.3 Major Features of Normandy Reservoir ................................................................. VII-46 2.3.1 Natural Resource Management ...................................................................... VII-46 2.3.2 Normandy Fish Hatchery ................................................................................. VII-47 2.3.3 Short Springs Natural Area ............................................................................. VII-47 2.4 The Future Management of Reservoir Lands ......................................................... VII-47 CHAPTER 3. LAND PLANNING PROCESS .................................................................................... VII-49 3.1 Process for Planning Land ..................................................................................... VII-49 3.2 Normandy Reservoir Goals and Objectives ........................................................... VII-54 VII-i Normandy Reservoir Land Management Plan 3.3 Parcel Allocations ................................................................................................... VII-55 3.4 Property Administration .......................................................................................... VII-61 CHAPTER 4. PARCEL DESCRIPTIONS ......................................................................................... VII-63 CHAPTER 5. PLANNING TEAM ...................................................................................................... VII-87 CHAPTER 6. LITERATURE CITED .................................................................................................. VII-89 GLOSSARY .......................................................................................................................................... VII-93 INDEX ................................................................................................................................................... VII-97 Appendices Appendix A – Final Land Management Plan Maps – Panels 1 and 2 .................................................. VII-99 Appendix B – Comparison of Parcel Allocations by Alternative .......................................................... VII-103 List of Tables Table 2-1. Prime Farmland in Normandy Reservoir ....................................................................... VII-12 Table 2-2. Developed Public Recreation Areas on TVA Lands on the Normandy Reservoir ........ VII-14 Table 2-3 Developed Commercial, Private and Semi-Private (Camps) Recreation Areas on TVA Lands on the Normandy Reservoir ....................................................................... VII-15 Table 2-4. Land Cover on TVA Owned Parcels and within the Vicinity of Normandy Reservoir ... VII-16 Table 2-5. Invasive Non-native Plant Species that Pose a Severe Threat Known to Occur in Tennessee .................................................................................................................... VII-19 Table 2-6. RFAI and Benthic Community Scores for Normandy Reservoir (2008-2013) ............. VII-22 Table 2-7. Fish Species in Normandy Reservoir ............................................................................ VII-23 Table 2-8. Federally and State-Listed Species in the Normandy Reservoir Counties ................... VII-25 Table 2-9. Habitat Requirements for Plant Species of Conservation Concern within 5 Miles of Normandy Reservoir ..................................................................................................... VII-30 Table 2-10. Habitat Requirements for Terrestrial Wildlife Species of Conservation Concern within 3 Miles of Normandy Reservoir ..................................................................................... VII-32 Table 2-11. Habitat Requirements for Aquatic Species of Conservation Concern within 10 Miles of Normandy Reservoir ..................................................................................................... VII-34 Table 2-12. Wetland Types within the Normandy Reservoir ............................................................ VII-37 Table 2-13. Population and Percent Growth – Normandy Reservoir ............................................... VII-44 Table 2-14. Employment and Income, 2010-2014 – Normandy Reservoir ...................................... VII-45 Table 2-15. Minority Population and Poverty, 2010-2014 – Normandy Reservoir ........................... VII-46 Table 3-1. Land Use Zone Definitions ............................................................................................ VII-50 Table 3-2. Summary of Land Use Allocations for the Final Normandy Reservoir Land Management Plan ................................................................................................ VII-56 Table 3-3. Final Normandy Reservoir Land Management Plan and 2011 Comprehensive Valleywide Land Plan Comparison ............................................................................... VII-60 Table A-1. Normandy Reservoir Parcels by Map Panel ............................................................... VII-101 VII-ii Contents List of Figures Figure 1-1. TVA Managed Reservoir Land ........................................................................................ VII-5 Figure 2-1. Normandy Reservoir ..................................................................................................... VII-10 Figure 3-1. Percent of Normandy Reservoir Acreage Allocated by Zone ....................................... VII-57 Figure 3-2. TVA Allocated Land Normandy Reservoir .................................................................... VII-58 VII-iii This page intentionally left blank Acronyms and Abbreviations ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Species Status Assessment Report for the Barrens Darter (Etheostoma Forbesi)
    Species Status Assessment Report for the Barrens Darter (Etheostoma forbesi) Version 2.0 Acknowledgements: This Species Status Assessment would not have been possible without the research and assistance of Dr. Richard Harrington, Yale University Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, Dr. Hayden Mattingly and his students, Tennessee Tech University School of Environmental Studies, Dr. John Johansen, Austin Peay State University Department of Biology, and Mark Thurman, Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency. 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter 1: Introduction ............................................................................................................... 3 Chapter 2: Biology and Life History ........................................................................................... 4 Taxonomy ................................................................................................................................ 4 Genetic Diversity ..................................................................................................................... 5 Morphological Description ...................................................................................................... 5 Habitat ..................................................................................................................................... 6 Lifecycle .................................................................................................................................. 7 Population Needs ....................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • TDEC’S Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) for  the Stream’S Status Changes
    Draft Version YEAR 2016 303(d) LIST July, 2016 TENNESSEE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND CONSERVATION Planning and Standards Unit Division of Water Resources William R. Snodgrass Tennessee Tower 312 Rosa L. Parks Ave Nashville, TN 37243 Table of Contents Page Guidance for Understanding and Interpreting the Draft 303(d) List ……………………………………………………………………....... 1 2016 Public Meeting Schedule ……………………………………………………………. 8 Key to the 303(d) List ………………………………………………………………………. 9 TMDL Priorities ……………………………………………………………………………... 10 Draft 2016 303(d) List ……………………………………………………………………… 11 Barren River Watershed (TN05110002)…………………………………………. 11 Upper Cumberland Basin (TN05130101 & TN05130104)…………………….. 12 Obey River Watershed (TN05130105)…………………………………………... 14 Cordell Hull Watershed (TN05130106)………………………………………….. 16 Collins River Watershed (TN05130107)…………………………………………. 16 Caney Fork River Watershed (TN05130108)…………………………………… 18 Old Hickory Watershed (TN05130201)………………………………………….. 22 Cheatham Reservoir Watershed (TN05130202)……………………………….. 24 Stones River Watershed (TN05130203)………………………………………… 30 Harpeth River Watershed (TN05130204)……………………………………….. 35 Barkley Reservoir Watershed (TN05130205)…………………………………… 41 Red River Watershed (TN05130206)……………………………………………. 42 North Fork Holston River Watershed (TN06010101)…………………………... 45 South Fork Holston River Watershed (TN06010102)………………………….. 45 Watauga River Watershed (TN06010103)………………………………………. 53 Holston River Basin (TN06010104)………………………………………………. 56 Upper French Broad River Basin (TN06010105 & TN06010106)…………….
    [Show full text]
  • Endangered Species
    FEATURE: ENDANGERED SPECIES Conservation Status of Imperiled North American Freshwater and Diadromous Fishes ABSTRACT: This is the third compilation of imperiled (i.e., endangered, threatened, vulnerable) plus extinct freshwater and diadromous fishes of North America prepared by the American Fisheries Society’s Endangered Species Committee. Since the last revision in 1989, imperilment of inland fishes has increased substantially. This list includes 700 extant taxa representing 133 genera and 36 families, a 92% increase over the 364 listed in 1989. The increase reflects the addition of distinct populations, previously non-imperiled fishes, and recently described or discovered taxa. Approximately 39% of described fish species of the continent are imperiled. There are 230 vulnerable, 190 threatened, and 280 endangered extant taxa, and 61 taxa presumed extinct or extirpated from nature. Of those that were imperiled in 1989, most (89%) are the same or worse in conservation status; only 6% have improved in status, and 5% were delisted for various reasons. Habitat degradation and nonindigenous species are the main threats to at-risk fishes, many of which are restricted to small ranges. Documenting the diversity and status of rare fishes is a critical step in identifying and implementing appropriate actions necessary for their protection and management. Howard L. Jelks, Frank McCormick, Stephen J. Walsh, Joseph S. Nelson, Noel M. Burkhead, Steven P. Platania, Salvador Contreras-Balderas, Brady A. Porter, Edmundo Díaz-Pardo, Claude B. Renaud, Dean A. Hendrickson, Juan Jacobo Schmitter-Soto, John Lyons, Eric B. Taylor, and Nicholas E. Mandrak, Melvin L. Warren, Jr. Jelks, Walsh, and Burkhead are research McCormick is a biologist with the biologists with the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Threatened and Endangered Species List
    Effective April 15, 2009 - List is subject to revision For a complete list of Tennessee's Rare and Endangered Species, visit the Natural Areas website at http://tennessee.gov/environment/na/ Aquatic and Semi-aquatic Plants and Aquatic Animals with Protected Status State Federal Type Class Order Scientific Name Common Name Status Status Habit Amphibian Amphibia Anura Gyrinophilus gulolineatus Berry Cave Salamander T Amphibian Amphibia Anura Gyrinophilus palleucus Tennessee Cave Salamander T Crustacean Malacostraca Decapoda Cambarus bouchardi Big South Fork Crayfish E Crustacean Malacostraca Decapoda Cambarus cymatilis A Crayfish E Crustacean Malacostraca Decapoda Cambarus deweesae Valley Flame Crayfish E Crustacean Malacostraca Decapoda Cambarus extraneus Chickamauga Crayfish T Crustacean Malacostraca Decapoda Cambarus obeyensis Obey Crayfish T Crustacean Malacostraca Decapoda Cambarus pristinus A Crayfish E Crustacean Malacostraca Decapoda Cambarus williami "Brawley's Fork Crayfish" E Crustacean Malacostraca Decapoda Fallicambarus hortoni Hatchie Burrowing Crayfish E Crustacean Malocostraca Decapoda Orconectes incomptus Tennessee Cave Crayfish E Crustacean Malocostraca Decapoda Orconectes shoupi Nashville Crayfish E LE Crustacean Malocostraca Decapoda Orconectes wrighti A Crayfish E Fern and Fern Ally Filicopsida Polypodiales Dryopteris carthusiana Spinulose Shield Fern T Bogs Fern and Fern Ally Filicopsida Polypodiales Dryopteris cristata Crested Shield-Fern T FACW, OBL, Bogs Fern and Fern Ally Filicopsida Polypodiales Trichomanes boschianum
    [Show full text]
  • At-Risk Species Assessment on Southern National Forests, Refuges, and Other Protected Areas
    David Moynahan | St. Marks NWR At-Risk Species Assessment on Southern National Forests, Refuges, and Other Protected Areas National Wildlife Refuge Association Mark Sowers, Editor October 2017 1001 Connecticut Avenue NW, Suite 905, Washington, DC 20036 • 202-417-3803 • www.refugeassociation.org At-Risk Species Assessment on Southern National Forests, Refuges, and Other Protected Areas Table of Contents Introduction and Methods ................................................................................................3 Results and Discussion ......................................................................................................9 Suites of Species: Occurrences and Habitat Management ...........................................12 Progress and Next Steps .................................................................................................13 Appendix I: Suites of Species ..........................................................................................17 Florida Panhandle ............................................................................................................................18 Peninsular Florida .............................................................................................................................28 Southern Blue Ridge and Southern Ridge and Valley ...............................................................................................................................39 Interior Low Plateau and Cumberland Plateau, Central Ridge and Valley ...............................................................................................46
    [Show full text]
  • Response of Fish Communities to Cropland Density and Natural
    Response of Fish Communities to Cropland Density and Natural Environmental Setting in the Eastern Highland Rim Ecoregion of the Lower Tennessee River Basin, Alabama and Tennessee, 1999 Water-Resources Investigations Report 02-4268 National Water-Quality Assessment Program U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey Cover photographs: Background photograph is the Duck River at Osteen Bend (river mile 173.1), Marshall County, Tennessee (Photograph by Rodney Knight, USGS). Left photo is the Northern studfish— Fundulus catenatus (Photograph by Rodney Knight, USGS). Right photo is the Slackwater Darter— Etheostoma boschungi (Photograph by J.R. Shute, Conservation Fisheries, Inc. Used with permission.) Response of Fish Communities to Cropland Density and Natural Environmental Setting in the Eastern Highland Rim Ecoregion of the Lower Tennessee River Basin, Alabama and Tennessee, 1999 By Jeffrey R. Powell U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Water-Resources Investigations Report 02-4268 Nashville, Tennessee 2003 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Gale Norton, Secretary U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Charles G. Groat, Director Any use of trade, product, or firm name in this report is for identification purposes only and does not constitute endorsement by the U.S. Geological Survey. For additional information write to: Copies of this report may be purchased from: District Chief U.S. Geological Survey U.S. Geological Survey Branch of Information Services 640 Grassmere Park, Suite 100 Box 25286 Nashville, Tennessee 37211 Denver, Colorado 80225-0286 More information about the National Water-Quality Assessment (NAWQA) Program is available via the World Wide Web at: http://water.usgs.gov/nawqa/naqwa_home.html FOREWORD The U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Laboratory Operations Manual Version 2.0 May 2014
    United States Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water Washington, DC EPA 841‐B‐12‐010 National Rivers and Streams Assessment 2013‐2014 Laboratory Operations Manual Version 2.0 May 2014 2013‐2014 National Rivers & Streams Assessment Laboratory Operations Manual Version 1.3, May 2014 Page ii of 224 NOTICE The intention of the National Rivers and Streams Assessment 2013‐2014 is to provide a comprehensive “State of Flowing Waters” assessment for rivers and streams across the United States. The complete documentation of overall project management, design, methods, quality assurance, and standards is contained in five companion documents: National Rivers and Streams Assessment 2013‐14: Quality Assurance Project Plan EPA‐841‐B‐12‐007 National Rivers and Streams Assessment 2013‐14: Site Evaluation Guidelines EPA‐841‐B‐12‐008 National Rivers and Streams Assessment 2013‐14: Non‐Wadeable Field Operations Manual EPA‐841‐B‐ 12‐009a National Rivers and Streams Assessment 2013‐14: Wadeable Field Operations Manual EPA‐841‐B‐12‐ 009b National Rivers and Streams Assessment 2013‐14: Laboratory Operations Manual EPA 841‐B‐12‐010 Addendum to the National Rivers and Streams Assessment 2013‐14: Wadeable & Non‐Wadeable Field Operations Manuals This document (Laboratory Operations Manual) contains information on the methods for analyses of the samples to be collected during the project, quality assurance objectives, sample handling, and data reporting. These methods are based on the guidelines developed and followed in the Western Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program (Peck et al. 2003). Methods described in this document are to be used specifically in work relating to the NRSA 2013‐2014.
    [Show full text]
  • YEAR 2008 303(D) LIST
    Proposed Final YEAR 2008 303(d) LIST May, 2008 TENNESSEE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND CONSERVATION Division of Water Pollution Control Planning and Standards Section 6th Floor, L & C Annex 401 Church Street Nashville, Tennessee 37243-1534 Table of Contents Page Guidance for Understanding and Interpreting the Proposed Final 303(d) List 1 2008 Public Meeting Schedule 8 Key to the 303(d) List 9 TMDL Priorities 10 Proposed Final 2008 303(d) List 11 Barren River Watershed 11 Upper Cumberland Basin 12 Obey River Watershed 14 Cordell Hull Watershed 16 Collins River Watershed 16 Caney Fork River Watershed 17 Old Hickory Watershed 22 Cheatham Reservoir Watershed 24 Stones River Watershed 29 Harpeth River Watershed 34 Barkley Reservoir Watershed 40 Red River Watershed 42 North Fork Holston River Watershed 45 South Fork Holston River Watershed 45 Watauga River Watershed 50 Holston River Basin 52 Upper French Broad River Basin 55 Lower French Broad River Basin 58 Nolichucky River Watershed 62 Upper Tennessee River Basin 71 Little Tennessee River Basin 79 Upper Clinch River Watershed 80 Powell River Watershed 81 Lower Clinch River Watershed 83 Emory River Watershed 87 Lower Tennessee Basin 89 Hiwassee River Watershed 94 Conasauga River Watershed 97 Ocoee River Watershed 98 Sequatchie River Watershed 100 Guntersville Reservoir 101 Wheeler Lake Watershed 103 Elk River Basin 104 Pickwick – Shoal Creek Basin 108 Upper Kentucky Reservoir 108 Table of Contents (cont.) Duck River Basin 110 Buffalo River 117 Lower Kentucky Reservoir 118 East Fork Clarks River 120 Mississippi River Basin 121 Obion River Basin 122 South Fork Obion River 127 North Fork Forked Deer River 129 South Fork Forked Deer River 134 Hatchie River Basin 137 Loosahatchie River Basin 141 Wolf River Basin 144 Nonconnah Creek 148 APPENDICES Appendix A.
    [Show full text]
  • Bacteriological & Fishing Advisories in Tennessee (Rev. 08/24/2020)
    Posted Streams, Rivers, and Reservoirs in Tennessee Tennessee Division of Water Resources For more information about streams, rivers, and reservoirs posted for bacteriological or fish tissue contamination, please contact 1-888-891-TDEC (8332). When streams or lakes are found to The Commissioner shall have have significantly elevated bacteria the power, duty, and levels or when fish tissue contaminant responsibility to…post or levels exceed risk-based criteria, it is cause to be posted such signs the responsibility of the Department of as required to give notice to Environment and Conservation to post the public of the potential or warning signs so that the public will be actual dangers of specific aware of the threat to public health. uses of such waters. Tennessee Water Quality Control Consistent with EPA guidance, any Act stream or reservoir in Tennessee with an advisory is assessed as not meeting the recreational designated use. Clearly, if fishermen cannot safely eat the fish they catch, the waterbody is not supporting its goal to be fishable. Likewise, streams and lakes with high levels of bacteria are not suitable for recreational activities such as swimming or wading. Bacteriological Contamination The presence of pathogens, disease-causing organisms, affects the public’s ability to safely swim, wade, and fish in streams and reservoirs. Pathogen sources include failing septic tanks, collection system failure, failing animal waste systems, or urban runoff. About 122 river miles are posted due to bacterial contamination. Division of Water Resources – Posted Streams Rivers & Reservoirs (Page 1 of 24) Rev 08/2020 Bacteriological Advisories in Tennessee (August 2020.
    [Show full text]
  • Conservation Status of Imperiled North American Freshwater And
    FEATURE: ENDANGERED SPECIES Conservation Status of Imperiled North American Freshwater and Diadromous Fishes ABSTRACT: This is the third compilation of imperiled (i.e., endangered, threatened, vulnerable) plus extinct freshwater and diadromous fishes of North America prepared by the American Fisheries Society’s Endangered Species Committee. Since the last revision in 1989, imperilment of inland fishes has increased substantially. This list includes 700 extant taxa representing 133 genera and 36 families, a 92% increase over the 364 listed in 1989. The increase reflects the addition of distinct populations, previously non-imperiled fishes, and recently described or discovered taxa. Approximately 39% of described fish species of the continent are imperiled. There are 230 vulnerable, 190 threatened, and 280 endangered extant taxa, and 61 taxa presumed extinct or extirpated from nature. Of those that were imperiled in 1989, most (89%) are the same or worse in conservation status; only 6% have improved in status, and 5% were delisted for various reasons. Habitat degradation and nonindigenous species are the main threats to at-risk fishes, many of which are restricted to small ranges. Documenting the diversity and status of rare fishes is a critical step in identifying and implementing appropriate actions necessary for their protection and management. Howard L. Jelks, Frank McCormick, Stephen J. Walsh, Joseph S. Nelson, Noel M. Burkhead, Steven P. Platania, Salvador Contreras-Balderas, Brady A. Porter, Edmundo Díaz-Pardo, Claude B. Renaud, Dean A. Hendrickson, Juan Jacobo Schmitter-Soto, John Lyons, Eric B. Taylor, and Nicholas E. Mandrak, Melvin L. Warren, Jr. Jelks, Walsh, and Burkhead are research McCormick is a biologist with the biologists with the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Duck River Watershed Plan FINAL WATERSHED ASSESSMENT
    Duck River Watershed Plan FINAL WATERSHED ASSESSMENT U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Nashville District May 2018 Executive Summary This Watershed Plan is a Final Watershed Assessment (FWA) of the Duck River watershed, located in south-central Tennessee. This assessment was prepared under the authority of Section 729 of the Water Resource Development Act of 1986, as amended, which authorizes the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to undertake watershed planning. This Watershed Plan identifies existing conditions within the watershed, details the major water resources problems and opportunities in the watershed, and provides specific recommendations for implementation. This study was undertaken with collaboration and input from four non-federal sponsors: The Duck River Development Agency (DRWA), The Nature Conservancy (TNC), Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation (TDEC), and the Buffalo/Duck Resource Conservation and Development Council. The Duck River is considered one of the most biologically diverse rivers in North America and is an outstanding national resource. It has an almost unsurpassed variety of freshwater animal life and is one of three most diverse streams for fish and mussel diversity in the world. The Duck River basin provides habitat for 35 species listed as federally endangered, threatened, candidate or species of concern. The developed landscape ranges from small cities and towns to sparsely populated rural areas with the upper part of the watershed experiencing rapid urbanization and population growth. More than 250,000 middle Tennessee residents rely on the Duck River as their sole source of water. The watershed’s ecosystem is under stress from rapid urban development, land use changes, incompatible agricultural practices, wastewater management and water supply practices, and resource extraction activities.
    [Show full text]
  • 2011 Annual Meeting
    Southeastern Fishes Council Annual Meeting Abstracts November 10 & 11, 2011 Chattanooga, Tennessee Abstracts are listed alphabetically by presenter in two different sections: Contributed Oral Presentations and Posters. RECOVERY OF A LOWLAND FISH ASSEMBLAGE FOLLOWING LARGE-SCALE ROTENONE APPLICATION IN EASTERN ARKANSAS Ginny Adams, Clint Johnson and S. Reid Adams University of Central Arkansas, Department of Biology In Spring 2009, Arkansas Game and Fish Commission and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service attempted to eradicate northern snakehead, Channa argus, from the Big Piney watershed in eastern Arkansas by applying rotenone to approximately 640 km of streams. To examine long- term fish community recovery, we sampled at 17 sites in Spring 2009, Summer 2009, Spring 2010, and Summer 2010. Although species richness was unchanged (1-way ANOVA, F3,64=2.61, P=0.059) over time, many other community characteristics varied. Fish densities increased significantly after the eradication (1-way ANOVA, F3,64=16, P<0.0001) due to high abundances of YOY. Life history guild was found to significantly affect density (periodic species 1-way ANOVA, F3,64=7.20, P=0.0003; opportunistic 1-way ANOVA, F3,64=9.69, P<0.0001; Tukey HSD) with early recolonizing species possessing traits including mobile adults, high fecundity, and/or early ² reproduction. Trophic structure also changed significantly over time (χ 0.05, 4= 26032.76, P<<0.0001) with variability in proportions of omnivores and invertivores, though piscivores showed relatively little change. Piscivore composition, however, did vary significantly by sample ² (χ 0.05, 4= 1621.47, P<<0.0001) with an increase in small piscivores and a decrease in large- bodied piscivores.
    [Show full text]