DOCSLIB.ORG

Shortgrass Prairie BA and Conservation Strategy

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Shortgrass Prairie BA and Conservation Strategy PROGRAMMATIC BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT, CONFERENCE REPORT, AND CONSERVATION STRATEGY FOR IMPACTS FROM TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS ON SELECT SENSITIVE SPECIES ON COLORADO’S CENTRAL SHORTGRASS PRAIRIE Prepared for: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Colorado Field Office 755 Parfet Street, Suite 361 Lakewood, CO 80215 Prepared by: Lee Grunau, Colorado Natural Heritage Program Anne K. Ruggles, Bear Canyon Consulting Group Marie Venner, Venner Consulting Chris Pague, The Nature Conservancy Renee Rondeau, Colorado Natural Heritage Program Jerry M. Powell, Colorado Department of Transportation May 2003 Core project team Member Representing George Gerstle Colorado Department of Transportation Edrie Vinson Federal Highway Administration Marie Venner Venner Consulting Chris Pague The Nature Conservancy Lee Carlson U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Alison Michael U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Lee Grunau Colorado Natural Heritage Program Jerry M. Powell U.S. Department of Transportation Nancy Smith The Nature Conservancy Tom Blickensderfer Colorado Department of Natural Resources Francie Pusateri Colorado Division of Wildlife Renee Rondeau Colorado Natural Heritage Program Ted Toombs Rocky Mountain Bird Observatory Gary Skiba Colorado Division of Wildlife Jennie Slater Colorado Division of Wildlife 2 Acknowledgements The Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) wish to thank the experts who generously donated their time and shared their research as part of the species range and impact analysis (Grunau and Lavender 2002). Their efforts helped bring this large-scale conservation effort to fruition. For birds: Jerry Craig (CDOW), Beth Dillon (CDOW), Scott Hutchings (RMBO), Dr. Fritz Knopf (USGS-Biological Resources Division), Janet Ruth (USGS-BRD), Susan Skagen (USGS-BRD), and Tom Stanley (USGS-BRD); For fish: Tom Nesler (CDOW); For herpetofauna: Lauren Livo (independent researcher), Chuck Loeffler (CDOW), and Dr. Stephen Mackessy (University of Northern Colorado); For mammals: Dr. Carron Meaney (University of Colorado) and Dr. Jerry Choate (Hays University, Kansas); For invertebrates: Dr. Boris Kondratieff (Colorado State University), Phyllis Pineda (CSU), and Chuck Loeffler (CDOW); For plants: Kathy Carsey and Janet Coles (Colorado Natural Areas Program), Dr. Tass Kelso (Colorado College), and Susan Spackman (CNHP). CDOT and FHWA would also like to thank Julie Farrell, Matt Morehead, and Betsy Neeley (TNC); John Kindler (CDOW); Roland Wostl (CDOT); and Amy Lavender, Barry Baker, John Armstrong, and Mike Wunder (CNHP), for their scientific and technical expertise. 3 Executive Summary The purpose of this Biological Assessment (BA), Conference Report (CR), and Conservation Strategy is to determine whether the Colorado Department of Transportation’s (CDOT) routine maintenance and upgrade activities on existing transportation corridors of eastern Colorado over the next 20 years are likely to affect any of the threatened and endangered, proposed, candidate or sensitive species listed below, and to describe conservation measures that CDOT will take to mitigate those impacts. CDOT has three goals: 1) proactive conservation of declining species in the central Shortgrass Prairie Ecoregion of Colorado; 2) compensation for potential impacts to at- risk species from transportation improvements on the existing transportation corridor network and to existing bridges in eastern Colorado; and 3) improved efficiency and effectiveness of environmental assessments associated with CDOT projects over the next 20 years. To achieve these goals, CDOT is proposing a large-scale, planned conservation effort, rather than addressing possible impacts to listed and currently non-listed species on a project-by-project basis. This will make a more effective contribution to the recovery of declining species and result in improved management of high quality priority habitats. At the same time, uncertainty in planning and implementation of CDOT projects will be minimized. The concept for this programmatic agreement was developed in cooperation with USFWS, FWHA, CDOW, TNC, and CNHP. The project focuses on the Colorado portion of the Central Shortgrass Prairie ecoregion as modified by TNC (1998) from Bailey et al. (1994). For the purposes of this project, TNC’s CSP boundary was further modified to include all segments of I-25 within Colorado. The total project area includes the entire eastern prairie in Colorado (~27,520,863 acres) and has a western boundary roughly coincident with Interstate 25 (Figure 1). It is dominated by shortgrass, mixed- grass, and sandsage prairie spread across rolling plains, tablelands, canyons, badlands, and buttes (TNC 1998). The impact analysis was conducted using GIS and the best available scientific data in conjunction with expert review. The core project team consulted with experts in each taxonomic group (herpetofauna, birds, fish, mammals, invertebrates and plants) to select a list of species likely to be affected by CDOT activities in the CSP over the next 20 years (Grunau and Lavender 2002). Three lists of plant and animal species (terrestrial and aquatic species) were developed: species currently listed as threatened or endangered under the ESA (Table 3), proposed or candidate under the ESA (Table 4 and Table 5), and those ranked by a conservation entity as sensitive (at risk of rangewide or local imperilment) (Table 6). The experts also helped refine existing range and distribution data and define impact zones within existing transportation corridors for each species across the range of CDOT transportation improvements. The experts suggested that potential impacts from most routine CDOT maintenance activities would likely have only temporary effects (Grunau and Lavender 2002). However, because the experts identified 4 habitat loss as the most important potential impact, they concurred that any construction project resulting in permanent loss should be mitigated (Grunau and Lavender 2002). CNHP calculated the maximum potential impact for each species, and then eliminated overlap among species to arrive at the total amount of habitat for targeted species within the project area that could potentially be impacted by CDOT activities: 15,160 acres (Grunau and Lavender 2002). Based on input from experts, the core project team concluded that on-site mitigation using best management practices, rather than off-site mitigation, was the most appropriate conservation strategy for aquatic species, butterflies, and some plants. The Conservation Strategy section of this document describes actions that will be taken to offset impacts to targeted species from the Colorado Department of Transportation’s (CDOT) full suite of transportation improvements and routine maintenance on the eastern plains of Colorado over the next 20 years. Details on Best Management Practices (BMPs) and some sample land protection projects that could, if implemented, meet offsite mitigation requirements, are included. The off-site mitigation strategy is based upon the acquisition of property rights (especially conservation easements) over high- quality habitat blocks that: a) contribute to the integrity of populations of targeted species, and b) allow use of an appropriate suite of management tools (e.g., prescribed fire, grazing regimes) to achieve conservation objectives, and c) are located where conservation in perpetuity is most likely to be achieved (i.e., either adjacent to other permanent conservation areas, or large enough to achieve this effect in and of themselves). CDOT anticipates that these conservation measures for currently listed species, as well as target species that may be listed in the future, will be in effect in perpetuity. These conservation measures will satisfy CDOT’s and FHWA’s section 7 consultation requirements for listed species, and may satisfy future section 7 consultation requirements for target species should they become listed in the future, over the 20 years following acceptance of this Biological Assessment and Conservation Strategy, and issuance of a Biological Opinion by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 5 Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .............................................................................................. 4 PART 1: BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT AND CONFERENCE REPORT ............. 8 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................ 8 EXISTING MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES........................................................................... 14 PROPOSED ACTION ........................................................................................................ 18 ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE .......................................................................................... 27 BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT AND EVALUATION PROCESS ................................................ 35 PART 2: SPECIES ASSESSMENTS AND ANALYSIS OF EFFECTS................... 39 BALD EAGLE (HALIAEETUS LEUCOCEPHALUS) ................................................................ 39 PIPING PLOVER (CHARADRIUS MELODUS)....................................................................... 42 INTERIOR LEAST TERN (STERNA ANTILLARUM)............................................................... 46 COLORADO BUTTERFLY PLANT (GAURA NEOMEXICANA SSP. COLORADENSIS)................. 48 MOUNTAIN PLOVER (CHARADRIUS MONTANUS) ............................................................. 50 AKANSAS DARTER (ETHEOSTOMA CRAGINI)..................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • RFP No. 212F for Endangered Species Research Projects for the Prairie Chub
    1 RFP No. 212f for Endangered Species Research Projects for the Prairie Chub Final Report Contributing authors: David S. Ruppel, V. Alex Sotola, Ozlem Ablak Gurbuz, Noland H. Martin, and Timothy H. Bonner Addresses: Department of Biology, Texas State University, San Marcos, Texas 78666 (DSR, VAS, NHM, THB) Kirkkonaklar Anatolian High School, Turkish Ministry of Education, Ankara, Turkey (OAG) Principal investigators: Timothy H. Bonner and Noland H. Martin Email: [email protected], [email protected] Date: July 31, 2017 Style: American Fisheries Society Funding sources: Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts, Turkish Ministry of Education- Visiting Scholar Program (OAG) Summary Four hundred mesohabitats were sampled from 36 sites and 20 reaches within the upper Red River drainage from September 2015 through September 2016. Fishes (N = 36,211) taken from the mesohabitats represented 14 families and 49 species with the most abundant species consisting of Red Shiner Cyprinella lutrensis, Red River Shiner Notropis bairdi, Plains Minnow Hybognathus placitus, and Western Mosquitofish Gambusia affinis. Red River Pupfish Cyprinodon rubrofluviatilis (a species of greatest conservation need, SGCN) and Plains Killifish Fundulus zebrinus were more abundant within prairie streams (e.g., swift and shallow runs with sand and silt substrates) with high specific conductance. Red River Shiner (SGCN), Prairie Chub Macrhybopsis australis (SGCN), and Plains Minnow were more abundant within prairie 2 streams with lower specific conductance. The remaining 44 species of fishes were more abundant in non-prairie stream habitats with shallow to deep waters, which were more common in eastern tributaries of the upper Red River drainage and Red River mainstem. Prairie Chubs comprised 1.3% of the overall fish community and were most abundant in Pease River and Wichita River.
    [Show full text]
  • Central Mixedgrass Prairie Ecological System (Central Shortgrass Prairie Ecoregion Version)
    CENTRAL MIXEDGRASS PRAIRIE ECOLOGICAL SYSTEM (CENTRAL SHORTGRASS PRAIRIE ECOREGION VERSION) ECOLOGICAL INTEGRITY ASSESSMENT Draft of June 29, 2007 Prepared by: Karin Decker Colorado Natural Heritage Program Colorado State University 254 General Services Building Fort Collins, CO 80523 Table of Contents A. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................ 3 A.1 Classification Summary ........................................................................................... 3 A.2 Ecological System Description ................................................................................ 5 A.2.1 Environment....................................................................................................... 5 A.2.2 Vegetation & Ecosystem.................................................................................... 6 A.2.3 Dynamics ........................................................................................................... 8 A.2.4 Landscape......................................................................................................... 10 A.2.5 Size................................................................................................................... 11 A.3 Ecological Integrity................................................................................................ 12 A.3.1 Threats.............................................................................................................. 12 A.3.2 Justification of Metrics....................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Fish of Greatest Conservation Need
    APPENDIX G. FISH OF GREATEST CONSERVATION NEED Taxa Common Name Scientific Name Tier Opportunity Ranking Fish Alewife Alosa pseudoharengus IV a Fish Allegheny pearl dace Margariscus margarita IV b Fish American brook lamprey Lampetra appendix IV c Fish American eel Anguilla rostrata III a Fish American shad Alosa sapidissima IV a Fish Appalachia darter Percina gymnocephala IV c Fish Ashy darter Etheostoma cinereum I b Fish Atlantic sturgeon Acipenser oxyrinchus I b Fish Banded sunfish Enneacanthus obesus IV c Fish Bigeye jumprock Moxostoma ariommum III c Fish Black sculpin Cottus baileyi IV c Fish Blackbanded sunfish Enneacanthus chaetodon I a Fish Blackside darter Percina maculata IV c Fish Blotched chub Erimystax insignis IV c Fish Blotchside logperch Percina burtoni II a Fish Blueback Herring Alosa aestivalis IV a Fish Bluebreast darter Etheostoma camurum IV c Fish Blueside darter Etheostoma jessiae IV c Fish Bluestone sculpin Cottus sp. 1 III c Fish Brassy Jumprock Moxostoma sp. IV c Fish Bridle shiner Notropis bifrenatus I a Fish Brook silverside Labidesthes sicculus IV c Fish Brook Trout Salvelinus fontinalis IV a Fish Bullhead minnow Pimephales vigilax IV c Fish Candy darter Etheostoma osburni I b Fish Carolina darter Etheostoma collis II c Virginia Wildlife Action Plan 2015 APPENDIX G. FISH OF GREATEST CONSERVATION NEED Fish Carolina fantail darter Etheostoma brevispinum IV c Fish Channel darter Percina copelandi III c Fish Clinch dace Chrosomus sp. cf. saylori I a Fish Clinch sculpin Cottus sp. 4 III c Fish Dusky darter Percina sciera IV c Fish Duskytail darter Etheostoma percnurum I a Fish Emerald shiner Notropis atherinoides IV c Fish Fatlips minnow Phenacobius crassilabrum II c Fish Freshwater drum Aplodinotus grunniens III c Fish Golden Darter Etheostoma denoncourti II b Fish Greenfin darter Etheostoma chlorobranchium I b Fish Highback chub Hybopsis hypsinotus IV c Fish Highfin Shiner Notropis altipinnis IV c Fish Holston sculpin Cottus sp.
    [Show full text]
  • Assessing Biological Integrity in Running Waters a Method and Its Rationale
    Assessing Biological Integrity in Running Waters A Method and Its Rationale James R. Karr Kurt D. Fausch Paul L. Angermeier Philip R. Yant Isaac J. Schlosser Jordan Creek ---------------- ] Excellent !:: ~~~~~~~~~;~~;~~ ~ :: ,. JPoor --------------- 111 1C tE 2A 28 20 3A SO 3E 4A 48 4C 40 4E Station Illinois Natural History Survey Special Publication 5 September 1986 Printed by authority of the State of Illinois Illinois Natural History Survey 172 Natural Resources Building 607 East Peabody Drive Champaign, Illinois 61820 The Illinois Natural History Survey is pleased to publish this report and make it available to a wide variety of potential users. The Survey endorses the concepts from which the Index of Biotic Integrity was developed but cautions, as the authors are careful to indicate, that details must be tailored to lit the geographic region in which the Index is to be used. Glen C. Sanderson, Chair, Publications Committee, Illinois Natural History Survey R. Weldon Larimore of the Illinois Natural History Survey took the cover photos, which show two reaches ofJordan Creek in east-central Illinois-an undisturbed site and a site that shows the effects of grazing and agricultural activity. Current affiliations of the authors are listed below: James R. Karr, Deputy Director, Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute, Balboa, Panama Kurt D. Fausch, Department of Fishery and Wildlife Biology, Colorado State University, Fort Collins Paul L. Angermeier, Department of Fisheries and Wildlife Sciences, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg Philip R. Yant, Museum of Zoology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor Isaac J. Schlosser, Department of Biology, University of North Dakota, Grand Forks VDP-1-3M-9-86 ISSN 0888-9546 Assessing Biological Integrity in Running Waters A Method and Its Rationale James R.
    [Show full text]
  • Aberrant Plant Diversity in the Purgatory Watershed of Southeastern Colorado and Northeastern New Mexico
    Western North American Naturalist Volume 77 Number 3 Article 6 10-3-2017 Aberrant plant diversity in the Purgatory Watershed of southeastern Colorado and northeastern New Mexico Joseph A. Kleinkopf University of Colorado, Boulder, CO, [email protected] Dina A. Clark University of Colorado, Boulder, CO, [email protected] Erin A. Tripp University of Colorado, Boulder, CO, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/wnan Recommended Citation Kleinkopf, Joseph A.; Clark, Dina A.; and Tripp, Erin A. (2017) "Aberrant plant diversity in the Purgatory Watershed of southeastern Colorado and northeastern New Mexico," Western North American Naturalist: Vol. 77 : No. 3 , Article 6. Available at: https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/wnan/vol77/iss3/6 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Western North American Naturalist Publications at BYU ScholarsArchive. It has been accepted for inclusion in Western North American Naturalist by an authorized editor of BYU ScholarsArchive. For more information, please contact [email protected], [email protected]. Western North American Naturalist 77(3), © 2017, pp. 343–354 ABERRANT PLANT DIVERSITY IN THE PURGATORY WATERSHED OF SOUTHEASTERN COLORADO AND NORTHEASTERN NEW MEXICO Joseph A. Kleinkopf1,2,3, Dina A. Clark2, and Erin A. Tripp1,2,4 ABSTRACT.—Despite a dearth of biological study in the area, the Purgatory Watershed concentrated in southeastern Colorado and northeastern New Mexico is home to a number of unique land formations and endemic organisms. At onetime nonarable land where Dust Bowl storms of the 1930s originated, the Purgatory Watershed is presently home to the Comanche National Grasslands, the Picketwire Canyonlands, and the expansive Piñon Canyon Maneuver Site.
    [Show full text]
  • Prairie Dog Empire: a Saga of the Shortgrass Prairie
    University of Nebraska - Lincoln DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln University of Nebraska Press -- Sample Books and Chapters University of Nebraska Press 2005 Prairie Dog Empire: A Saga of the Shortgrass Prairie Paul A. Johnsgard University of Nebraska - Lincoln, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/unpresssamples Part of the Arts and Humanities Commons Johnsgard, Paul A., "Prairie Dog Empire: A Saga of the Shortgrass Prairie" (2005). University of Nebraska Press -- Sample Books and Chapters. 6. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/unpresssamples/6 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the University of Nebraska Press at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. It has been accepted for inclusion in University of Nebraska Press -- Sample Books and Chapters by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Prairie Dog Empire 11 [First Page] 12 13 [-1], (1) 14 15 Lines: 0 to 22 16 17 ——— 18 * 388.16002pt PgVar ——— 19 Normal Page 20 * PgEnds: PageBreak 21 22 23 [-1], (1) 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 Kim—UofNPress/Pagei//Prairie Dog Empire: A Saga of the Shortgrass Prairie / Paul A. Johnsgard 1 Other Titles by Paul A. Johnsgard 2 Published by the University of Nebraska Press 3 4 Lewis and Clark on the Great Plains: A Natural History 5 The Nature of Nebraska: Ecology and Biodiversity 6 This Fragile Land: A Natural History of the Nebraska Sandhills 7 Crane Music: A Natural History
    [Show full text]
  • Species at Risk on Department of Defense Installations
    Species at Risk on Department of Defense Installations Revised Report and Documentation Prepared for: Department of Defense U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Submitted by: January 2004 Species at Risk on Department of Defense Installations: Revised Report and Documentation CONTENTS 1.0 Executive Summary..........................................................................................iii 2.0 Introduction – Project Description................................................................. 1 3.0 Methods ................................................................................................................ 3 3.1 NatureServe Data................................................................................................ 3 3.2 DOD Installations............................................................................................... 5 3.3 Species at Risk .................................................................................................... 6 4.0 Results................................................................................................................... 8 4.1 Nationwide Assessment of Species at Risk on DOD Installations..................... 8 4.2 Assessment of Species at Risk by Military Service.......................................... 13 4.3 Assessment of Species at Risk on Installations ................................................ 15 5.0 Conclusion and Management Recommendations.................................... 22 6.0 Future Directions.............................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Literature Cited
    Literature Cited Robert W. Kiger, Editor This is a consolidated list of all works cited in volumes 19, 20, and 21, whether as selected references, in text, or in nomenclatural contexts. In citations of articles, both here and in the taxonomic treatments, and also in nomenclatural citations, the titles of serials are rendered in the forms recommended in G. D. R. Bridson and E. R. Smith (1991). When those forms are abbre- viated, as most are, cross references to the corresponding full serial titles are interpolated here alphabetically by abbreviated form. In nomenclatural citations (only), book titles are rendered in the abbreviated forms recommended in F. A. Stafleu and R. S. Cowan (1976–1988) and F. A. Stafleu and E. A. Mennega (1992+). Here, those abbreviated forms are indicated parenthetically following the full citations of the corresponding works, and cross references to the full citations are interpolated in the list alphabetically by abbreviated form. Two or more works published in the same year by the same author or group of coauthors will be distinguished uniquely and consistently throughout all volumes of Flora of North America by lower-case letters (b, c, d, ...) suffixed to the date for the second and subsequent works in the set. The suffixes are assigned in order of editorial encounter and do not reflect chronological sequence of publication. The first work by any particular author or group from any given year carries the implicit date suffix “a”; thus, the sequence of explicit suffixes begins with “b”. Works missing from any suffixed sequence here are ones cited elsewhere in the Flora that are not pertinent in these volumes.
    [Show full text]
  • Biological Survey of a Prairie Landscape in Montana's Glaciated
    Biological Survey of a Prairie Landscape in Montanas Glaciated Plains Final Report Prepared for: Bureau of Land Management Prepared by: Stephen V. Cooper, Catherine Jean and Paul Hendricks December, 2001 Biological Survey of a Prairie Landscape in Montanas Glaciated Plains Final Report 2001 Montana Natural Heritage Program Montana State Library P.O. Box 201800 Helena, Montana 59620-1800 (406) 444-3009 BLM Agreement number 1422E930A960015 Task Order # 25 This document should be cited as: Cooper, S. V., C. Jean and P. Hendricks. 2001. Biological Survey of a Prairie Landscape in Montanas Glaciated Plains. Report to the Bureau of Land Management. Montana Natural Heritage Pro- gram, Helena. 24 pp. plus appendices. Executive Summary Throughout much of the Great Plains, grasslands limited number of Black-tailed Prairie Dog have been converted to agricultural production colonies that provide breeding sites for Burrow- and as a result, tall-grass prairie has been ing Owls. Swift Fox now reoccupies some reduced to mere fragments. While more intact, portions of the landscape following releases the loss of mid - and short- grass prairie has lead during the last decade in Canada. Great Plains to a significant reduction of prairie habitat Toad and Northern Leopard Frog, in decline important for grassland obligate species. During elsewhere, still occupy some wetlands and the last few decades, grassland nesting birds permanent streams. Additional surveys will have shown consistently steeper population likely reveal the presence of other vertebrate declines over a wider geographic area than any species, especially amphibians, reptiles, and other group of North American bird species small mammals, of conservation concern in (Knopf 1994), and this alarming trend has been Montana.
    [Show full text]
  • 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
    [Show full text]
  • * This Is an Excerpt from Protected Animals of Georgia Published By
    Common Name: STARGAZING MINNOW Scientific Name: Phenacobius uranops Cope Other Commonly Used Names: none Previously Used Scientific Names: none Family: Cyprinidae Rarity Ranks: G4/S1 State Legal Status: Threatened Federal Legal Status: none Description: The stargazing minnow is a very long, slender, silvery fish with small scales and a prominent snout overhanging a sucker-like mouth. It attains a maximum total length of about 120 mm (4.7 in). There are five species in this distinctive genus, which also includes the fatlips minnow (P. crassilabrum) and the riffle minnow (P. catostomus) in Georgia. The stargazing minnow is olive dorsally with a brassy mid-dorsal stripe. The prominent mid-lateral stripe is variously flecked with silver to metallic blue and is narrower than that of the fatlips minnow. The lower portion of the body is white, and the pelvic and anal fins are yellowish-olive to white. The dorsal, caudal, and pectoral fins are light olive. The stargazing minnow exhibits no sexually dimorphic coloration. The name "stargazing" refers to the upward tilt of the eyes. Similar Species: This species is very similar to other members of Phenacobius, but none of these co-occur with the stargazing minnow in Georgia. The bigeye chub (Hybopsis amblops) may appear similar and is often co-occurring. In contrast to the stargazing minnow, the bigeye chub has a less-elongated body and does not have fleshy, sucker-like lips. The stargazing minnow can be separated from members of the sucker family (Catostomidae) by having an anal fin that is located closer to the pelvic fins than the caudal fin (vs.
    [Show full text]
  • Sharing Your Land with Prairie Wildlife
    Sharing Your Land with Prairie Wildlife Scott W. Gillihan, David J. Hanni, Scott W. Hutchings, Tony Leukering, Ted Toombs, and Tammy VerCauteren Rocky Mountain Bird Observatory Rocky Mountain Bird Observatory Rocky Mountain Bird Observatory Sharing Your Land with Prairie Wildlife Scott W. Gillihan, David J. Hanni, Scott W. Hutchings, Tony Leukering, Ted Toombs, and Tammy VerCauteren 14500 Lark Bunting Rocky Mountain Bird Observatory Lane Brighton, CO 80603 (303) 659-4348 www.rmbo.org AboutIntroduction the Rocky Mountain Bird Observatory (RMBO): Our mission is to conserve Rocky Mountain, Great Plains, and Intermountain West birds and their habitats through research, monitoring, education, and outreach. We conduct on-the-ground conservation in cooperation with other private organizations and government agencies responsible for managing areas and programs important for birds. We also work with private landowners and managers to encourage practices that foster good land stewardship. Much of our work is designed to increase understanding of birds and their habitats by educating children, teachers, natural resource managers, and the general public. Because birds do not recognize political boundaries, and may even spend most of their lives outside of the United States, RMBO works to bring a unified approach to conservation among states and countries, and many of our projects focus on issues associated with winter grounds, especially those in Mexico. At the core of our conservation work is bird population monitoring. Only through long-term monitoring can we identify which species are in need of help, and evaluate our success at protecting or recovering them. About this manual: This third edition of this manual (formerly entitled Sharing Your Land With Shortgrass Prairie Birds) is about how to help birds and other wildlife make a living from the land while you do the same.
    [Show full text]