DOCSLIB.ORG

Phoxinus Cumberlandensis) Abundance in the Indian Creek Drainage, Daniel Boone National Forest, Kentucky

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Phoxinus Cumberlandensis) Abundance in the Indian Creek Drainage, Daniel Boone National Forest, Kentucky An Inventory of Stream Habitat and Blackside Dace (Phoxinus cumberlandensis) Abundance in the Indian Creek Drainage, Daniel Boone National Forest, Kentucky United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service Center for Aquatic Technology Transfer Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University 1650 Ramble Road Blacksburg, VA 24060-6349 An Inventory of Stream Habitat and Blackside Dace (Phoxinus cumberlandensis) Abundance in the Indian Creek Drainage, Daniel Boone National Forest, Kentucky United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service Center for Aquatic Technology Transfer Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University 1650 Ramble Road Blacksburg, VA 24060-6349 Craig N. Roghair Fisheries Biologist J. Keith Whalen John Moran Fisheries Technicians and C. Andrew Dolloff Project Leader Coldwater Fisheries Research Unit Southern Research Station Prepared By: Craig N. Roghair and J. Keith Whalen December 2001 2 Table of Contents Table of Contents.......................................................................................................................................... 3 List of Tables ................................................................................................................................................ 4 List of Figures............................................................................................................................................... 5 Introduction................................................................................................................................................... 6 Methods ........................................................................................................................................................ 6 Study Sites................................................................................................................................................ 6 Habitat Survey.......................................................................................................................................... 6 Fish Survey............................................................................................................................................... 8 Results........................................................................................................................................................... 8 Habitat Survey.......................................................................................................................................... 8 Indian Creek......................................................................................................................................... 8 Barren Fork .......................................................................................................................................... 9 Pigeon Roost Branch............................................................................................................................ 9 Railroad Fork ..................................................................................................................................... 10 Fish Survey............................................................................................................................................. 10 Conclusions and Recommendations ........................................................................................................... 11 Literature Cited........................................................................................................................................... 12 Appendix A – Indian Creek habitat survey comments. ............................................................................ 43 Appendix B – Barren Fork habitat survey comments...............................................................................46 Appendix C – Pigeon Roost Branch habitat survey comments ................................................................50 Appendix D – Railroad Fork habitat survey comments............................................................................51 3 List of Tables Table 1. Substrate size categories used during BVET habitat surveys .....................................................13 Table 2. Summary of BVET habitat survey results for streams in the Indian Creek drainage .................14 Table 3. List of species found in the Indian Creek drainage..................................................................... 15 Table 4. Diver and electrofishing results for Phoxinus in pools in Indian Creek ................................... 16 Table 5. Diver and electrofishing results for Phoxinus in riffles in Indian Creek .................................. 17 Table 6. Diver and electrofishing results for Phoxinus in pools in Barren Fork .................................... 18 Table 7. Diver and electrofishing results for Phoxinus in riffles in Barren Fork ................................... 19 Table 8. Diver and electrofishing results for Phoxinus in pools in Pigeon Roost Branch...................... 20 Table 9. Diver and electrofishing results for Phoxinus in riffles in Pigeon Roost Branch ..................... 20 Table 10. Diver and electrofishing results for Phoxinus in pools in Railroad Fork ................................. 21 Table 11. Diver and electrofishing results for Phoxinus in riffles in Railroad Fork................................. 21 4 List of Figures Figure 1. Indian Creek drainage study sites.............................................................................................. 22 Figure 2. Percent surface area of Indian Creek in pools and riffles........................................................ 23 Figure 3. Maximum and average depths for pools and riffles in Indian Creek....................................... 23 Figure 4. LWD per kilometer in Indian Creek........................................................................................ 24 Figure 5. Distribution and abundance of LWD in Indian Creek............................................................. 24 Figure 6. Dominant and subdominant substrates for pools and riffles in Indian Creek.......................... 25 Figure 7. Percent surface area of Barren Fork in pools and riffles......................................................... 26 Figure 8. Maximum and average depths for pools and riffles in Barren Fork........................................ 26 Figure 9. LWD per kilometer in Barren Fork......................................................................................... 27 Figure 10. Distribution and abundance of LWD in Barren Fork.............................................................. 27 Figure 11. Dominant and subdominant substrates for pools and riffles in Barren Fork........................... 28 Figure 12. Percent surface area of Pigeon Roost Branch in pools and riffles...........................................29 Figure 13. Maximum and average depths for pools and riffles in Pigeon Roost Branch ......................... 29 Figure 14. LWD per kilometer in Pigeon Roost Branch........................................................................... 30 Figure 15. Distribution and abundance of LWD in Pigeon Roost Branch................................................ 30 Figure 16. Dominant and subdominant substrates in pools and riffles in Pigeon Roost Branch.............. 31 Figure 17. Percent surface area of Railroad Fork in pools and riffles ...................................................... 32 Figure 18. Maximum and average depths for all pools and riffles in Railroad Fork................................ 32 Figure 19. LWD per kilometer in Railroad Fork...................................................................................... 33 Figure 20. Distribution and abundance of LWD in Railroad Fork........................................................... 33 Figure 21. Dominant and subdominant substrates for pools and riffles in Railroad Fork........................ 34 Figure 22. Diver counts of Phoxinus species in Indian Creek.................................................................. 35 Figure 23. Occurrence of all species in Indian Creek............................................................................... 36 Figure 24. Diver counts of Phoxinus species in Barren Fork ................................................................... 37 Figure 25. Occurrence of all species in Barren Fork ................................................................................ 38 Figure 26. Diver counts of Phoxinus species in Pigeon Roost Branch..................................................... 39 Figure 27. Occurrence of all species in Pigeon Roost Branch.................................................................. 40 Figure 28. Diver counts of Phoxinus species in Railroad Fork ................................................................ 41 Figure 29. Occurrence of all species in Railroad Fork ............................................................................. 42 5 Introduction The resource managers of the Daniel Boone National Forest (DBNF) require information on the distribution and abundance of threatened, endangered, and sensitive species to meet their responsibilities under the Endangered Species Act. The federally threatened blackside dace (Phoxinus cumberlandensis), first described as a species in 1978, is endemic to the Upper Cumberland River drainage (Etnier and Starnes 1993). The full distribution of the species within the drainage is yet to be determined
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 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]
  • 2019-JMIH-Program-Book-MASTER
    W:\CNCP\People\Richardson\FY19\JMIH - Rochester NY\Program\2018 JMIH Program Book.pub 2 Organizing Societies American Elasmobranch Society 34th Annual Meeting President: Dave Ebert Treasurer: Christine Bedore Secretary: Tonya Wiley Editor and Webmaster: Chuck Bangley Immediate Past President: Dean Grubbs American Society of Ichthyologists and Herpetologists 98th Annual Meeting President: Kathleen Cole President Elect: Chris Beachy Past President: Brian Crother Prior Past President: Carole Baldwin Treasurer: Katherine Maslenikov Secretary: Prosanta Chakrabarty Editor: W. Leo Smith Herpetologists’ League 76th Annual Meeting President: Willem Roosenburg Vice-President: Susan Walls Immediate Past President: David Sever (deceased) Secretary: Renata Platenburg Treasurer: Laurie Mauger Communications Secretary: Max Lambert Herpetologica Editor: Stephen Mullin Herpetological Monographs Editor: Michael Harvey Society for the Study of Amphibians and Reptiles 61th Annual Meeting President: Marty Crump President-Elect: Kirsten Nicholson Immediate Past-President: Richard Shine Secretary: Marion R. Preest Treasurer: Ann V. Paterson Publications Secretary: Cari-Ann Hickerson 3 Thanks to our Sponsors! PARTNER SPONSOR SUPPORTER SPONSOR 4 We would like to thank the following: Local Hosts Alan Savitzky, Utah State University, LHC Co-Chair Catherine Malone, Utah State University, LHC Co-Chair Diana Marques, Local Host Logo Artist Marty Crump, Utah State University Volunteers We wish to thank the following volunteers who have helped make the Joint Meeting
    [Show full text]
  • Are Road Crossings Fragmenting Populations of Clinch Dace?
    20202020 NORTHEASTERNNortheastern Naturalist NATURALIST Vol.27(X):00–00 27, No. X R.M. Bourquin, D.J. Orth, E.M. Hallerman, and D.F. Stauffer Are Road Crossings Fragmenting Populations of Clinch Dace? Rebecca M. Bourquin1, Donald J. Orth1,*, Eric M. Hallerman1, and Dean F. Stauffer1 Abstract - Chrosomus sp. cf. saylori (Clinch Dace) is a newly recognized species of min- now with a restricted distribution in southwestern Virginia. We analyzed genetic variation and abundance at paired sites above and below road crossings. Road crossings did not have a strong effect on presence, abundance, or genetic differentiation of Clinch Dace. Of all sites where Clinch Dace were found, only 1 perched culvert presented a barrier to upstream migration; however, no genetic differentiation was found between collections above and below that or any other culvert. Distribution and abundance of Clinch Dace populations were not influenced by habitat variables measured at the site level. Low abundance in small headwaters, nest association, and high mobility appear to be characteristics of this species of Chrosomus. Introduction Habitat fragmentation in lotic systems is a serious and growing threat to fish populations worldwide (Perkin and Gido 2012). Maitland et al. (2016) showed that industrial stream crossings influenced abiotic habitat characteris- tics, restricted biotic connectivity, and impacted fish community structure at the whole-stream and within-stream scales in an industrializing region of boreal forest in Alberta. Barriers to upstream migration are associated with lower fish abundance at sites upstream relative to downstream sites (Briggs and Galarowicz 2013, Eisenhour and Floyd 2013, Nislow et al. 2011). For stream fish, species richness (alpha diversity) correlated more strongly with landscape alteration, and among-site diversity (beta diversity) was correlated with fragmentation and habitat size (Edge et al.
    [Show full text]
  • Kyfishid[1].Pdf
    Kentucky Fishes Kentucky Department of Fish and Wildlife Resources Kentucky Fish & Wildlife’s Mission To conserve, protect and enhance Kentucky’s fish and wildlife resources and provide outstanding opportunities for hunting, fishing, trapping, boating, shooting sports, wildlife viewing, and related activities. Federal Aid Project funded by your purchase of fishing equipment and motor boat fuels Kentucky Department of Fish & Wildlife Resources #1 Sportsman’s Lane, Frankfort, KY 40601 1-800-858-1549 • fw.ky.gov Kentucky Fish & Wildlife’s Mission Kentucky Fishes by Matthew R. Thomas Fisheries Program Coordinator 2011 (Third edition, 2021) Kentucky Department of Fish & Wildlife Resources Division of Fisheries Cover paintings by Rick Hill • Publication design by Adrienne Yancy Preface entucky is home to a total of 245 native fish species with an additional 24 that have been introduced either intentionally (i.e., for sport) or accidentally. Within Kthe United States, Kentucky’s native freshwater fish diversity is exceeded only by Alabama and Tennessee. This high diversity of native fishes corresponds to an abun- dance of water bodies and wide variety of aquatic habitats across the state – from swift upland streams to large sluggish rivers, oxbow lakes, and wetlands. Approximately 25 species are most frequently caught by anglers either for sport or food. Many of these species occur in streams and rivers statewide, while several are routinely stocked in public and private water bodies across the state, especially ponds and reservoirs. The largest proportion of Kentucky’s fish fauna (80%) includes darters, minnows, suckers, madtoms, smaller sunfishes, and other groups (e.g., lam- preys) that are rarely seen by most people.
    [Show full text]
  • The Blackside Dace (Chrosomus Cumberlandensis) and the Cumberland Arrow Darter (Etheostoma Sagitta) in Northeast Tennessee
    WATER QUALITY’S INFLUENCE ON THE OCCUPANCY OF TWO JEOPARDIZED FISHES: THE BLACKSIDE DACE (CHROSOMUS CUMBERLANDENSIS) AND THE CUMBERLAND ARROW DARTER (ETHEOSTOMA SAGITTA) IN NORTHEAST TENNESSEE __________________________ A Thesis Presented to the Faculty of the College of Science Morehead State University _________________________ In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Master of Science _________________________ by Brandon L. Yates July 5, 2017 ProQuest Number:10605069 All rights reserved INFORMATION TO ALL USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. ProQuest 10605069 Published by ProQuest LLC ( 2017). Copyright of the Dissertation is held by the Author. All rights reserved. This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC. ProQuest LLC. 789 East Eisenhower Parkway P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, MI 48106 - 1346 Accepted by the faculty of the College of Science, Morehead State University, in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Master of Science degree. ______________________________ David J. Eisenhour Director of Thesis Master’s Committee: ________________________________, Chair David J. Eisenhour _________________________________ Brian C. Reeder _________________________________ David P. Smith _________________________________ Michael C. Compton ________________________ Date WATER QUALITY’S INFLUENCE ON THE OCCUPANCY OF TWO JEOPARDIZED FISHES: THE BLACKSIDE DACE (CHROSOMUS CUMBERLANDENSIS) AND THE CUMBERLAND ARROW DARTER (ETHEOSTOMA SAGITTA) IN NORTHEAST TENNESSEE Brandon L. Yates Morehead State University, 2017 Director of Thesis: __________________________________________________ David J.
    [Show full text]
  • Kentucky's Threatened and Endangered Fishes
    Winter 2016 American Currents 16 KENTUCKY’S THREATENED AND ENDANGERED FISHES BLACKSIDE DACE (CHROSOMUS CUMBERLANDENSIS) Michael A. Floyd, PhD KY Ecological Services Field Office, United States Fish and Wildlife Service Kentucky supports an impressive fish fauna (264 species), and nine species occur nowhere else in the world! Unfortu- nately, habitat disturbance and pollution over the past 200 years have degraded many of our waterways, negatively im- pacting the fauna and contributing to the loss of nine spe- cies. Another 60 species (25% of Kentucky’s fauna) are now considered rare, and some are declining. Six Kentucky spe- cies are so imperiled that the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) has placed them on the Federal List of Threatened and Endangered Wildlife (Table 1). Once on the list, these species are afforded special protections under the Endan- gered Species Act (ESA) and are made the focus of conserva- tion programs that seek to remove threats and improve each Figure 1. Range of Blackside Dace. Historically, the species species’ status. was known only from blue areas in the 11 counties marked Kentucky’s most widely distributed threatened or en- with diagonal lines, but populations have since been found that extend the species’ range. dangered species is the Blackside Dace (Chrosomus cum- berlandensis), a headwater minnow endemic to the upper Cumberland River drainage in southeastern Kentucky and recognized by its descriptor, Dr. Wayne Starnes (then a northeastern Tennessee (Figure 1). It was not formally rec- graduate student at the University of Tennessee), as a species ognized as a distinct species until 1978 but was immediately in trouble.
    [Show full text]
  • Cumberland Gap National Historic Park
    National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior Natural Resource Stewardship and Science Natural Resource Condition Assessment for Cumberland Gap National Historical Park Natural Resource Report NPS/CUGA/NRR—2013/620 ON THE COVER Pinnacle Overlook Photograph by D. McPherson Natural Resource Condition Assessment for Cumberland Gap National Historical Park Natural Resource Report NPS/CUGA/NRR—2013/620 Gary Sundin, Luke Worsham, Nathan P. Nibbelink, Michael T. Mengak, Gary Grossman Warnell School of Forestry and Natural Resources University of Georgia 180 E. Green St. Athens, GA 30602 January 2013 U.S. Department of the Interior National Park Service Natural Resource Stewardship and Science Fort Collins, Colorado The National Park Service, Natural Resource Stewardship and Science office in Fort Collins, Colorado, publishes a range of reports that address natural resource topics. These reports are of interest and applicability to a broad audience in the National Park Service and others in natural resource management, including scientists, conservation and environmental constituencies, and the public. The Natural Resource Report Series is used to disseminate high-priority, current natural resource management information with managerial application. The series targets a general, diverse audience, and may contain NPS policy considerations or address sensitive issues of management applicability. All manuscripts in the series receive the appropriate level of peer review to ensure that the information is scientifically credible, technically accurate, appropriately written for the intended audience, and designed and published in a professional manner. This report received formal peer review by subject-matter experts who were not directly involved in the collection, analysis, or reporting of the data, and whose background and expertise put them on par technically and scientifically with the authors of the information.
    [Show full text]
  • Fish Fauna of the Upper Cumberland River Drainage in Tennessee
    University of Tennessee, Knoxville TRACE: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange Masters Theses Graduate School 12-1997 Fish Fauna of the Upper Cumberland River Drainage in Tennessee John T. Baxter University of Tennessee, Knoxville Follow this and additional works at: https://trace.tennessee.edu/utk_gradthes Part of the Zoology Commons Recommended Citation Baxter, John T., "Fish Fauna of the Upper Cumberland River Drainage in Tennessee. " Master's Thesis, University of Tennessee, 1997. https://trace.tennessee.edu/utk_gradthes/3620 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at TRACE: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange. It has been accepted for inclusion in Masters Theses by an authorized administrator of TRACE: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange. For more information, please contact [email protected]. To the Graduate Council: I am submitting herewith a thesis written by John T. Baxter entitled "Fish Fauna of the Upper Cumberland River Drainage in Tennessee." I have examined the final electronic copy of this thesis for form and content and recommend that it be accepted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science, with a major in Animal Science. David A. Etnier, Major Professor We have read this thesis and recommend its acceptance: Dewey Bunting, Arthur C. Echternacht Accepted for the Council: Carolyn R. Hodges Vice Provost and Dean of the Graduate School (Original signatures are on file with official studentecor r ds.) To the Graduate Council: I am submitting herewith a thesis written by John T. Baxter, Jr. entitled "Fish Fauna of the upper Cumberland River drainage in Tennessee." I have examined the final copy of this thesis fo r form andcontent and recommend it be accepted in partial fulfillment of the requirements fo r the degree of Master of Science, with a major in Zoology.
    [Show full text]
  • Wells Branch Timber Sale Environmental Assessment
    Wells Branch Timber Sale Environmental Assessment USDA Forest Service Clinch Ranger District George Washington and Jefferson National Forests Lee and Wise Counties, VA 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page Chapter One: Purpose and Need 1.1 Introduction 3 1.2 Proposed Action 3 1.3 Forest Plan Direction 4 1.4 Purpose and Need for Action 7 1.5 Project Objectives 8 1.6 Scoping/Public Involvement 9 1.7 Issues 9 Chapter Two: Alternatives 2.1 Introduction 11 2.2 Alternatives – Eliminated from Detailed Analysis 12 2.3 Alternatives – Considered in Detail 14 2.4 Mitigation Measures 16 2.5 Monitoring 16 Chapter Three: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3.1 Cumulative Activities Summary 18 3.2 Ecological Components 19 Hydrology 20 Geology 34 Soils 34 Vegetation 37 3.3 Social Components 38 3.3.1 Visuals/Scenery/Recreation 39 3.3.2 Heritage Resources 40 3.3.3 Transportation / Access 41 3.3.4 Minerals and Gas Wells 41 3.4 Economic Components 41 3.5 Climatological FactorsFindings Required by Regulations and other Laws 42 3.6 Findings Required by Regulations and other Laws 44 4.0 Chapter Four: List of Agencies, Organizations, and Individuals Consulted 45 Biological Evaluation 43 Appendix A – Documentation of T&E or Sensitive Species for Wells Branch 60 References 67 Glossary 71 2 Chapter 1: Purpose and Need for Action 1.1 Introduction 1.2 Purpose and Need for Action 1.3 Project Objectives 1.4 Proposed Action 1.5 Forest Plan Direction 1.6 Scoping and Public Involvement 1.7 Issues – Relevant Issues Identified as a Part of the Scoping/Public Involvement Process 1.1 Introduction The Forest Service proposes to treat vegetation on National Forest lands in compartments 2088, 2089, 2090, and 2094 on the Clinch Ranger District of the Jefferson National Forest.
    [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]
  • 2013 Southeastern Fishes Council State Reports
    Southeastern Fishes Council Proceedings Volume 1 Number 55 Number 55 Article 5 August 2015 2013 Southeastern Fishes Council State Reports Compiled by the Editors Follow this and additional works at: https://trace.tennessee.edu/sfcproceedings Recommended Citation Compiled by the Editors (2015) "2013 Southeastern Fishes Council State Reports," Southeastern Fishes Council Proceedings: No. 55. Available at: https://trace.tennessee.edu/sfcproceedings/vol1/iss55/5 This Regional Report is brought to you for free and open access by Volunteer, Open Access, Library Journals (VOL Journals), published in partnership with The University of Tennessee (UT) University Libraries. This article has been accepted for inclusion in Southeastern Fishes Council Proceedings by an authorized editor. For more information, please visit https://trace.tennessee.edu/sfcproceedings. 2013 Southeastern Fishes Council State Reports Abstract State reports of research, activities, and events of interest to the membership. Creative Commons License This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. This regional report is available in Southeastern Fishes Council Proceedings: https://trace.tennessee.edu/ sfcproceedings/vol1/iss55/5 2013 State Reports SFC Proceedings No. 55 2013 Southeastern Fishes Council State Reports (Including: Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Missouri, North Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and Virginia) Alabama: (Brook Fluker, [email protected] ) • Auburn University Museum Projects- Submitted by Jonathan W. Armbruster o The Auburn University Museum moved into its new home in the Biodiversity Learning Center in April/May 2013. The new facility is located near all of the other Biological Sciences Buildings and across the street from the School of Fisheries, Aquaculture, and Aquatic Sciences.
    [Show full text]
  • Tennessee Natural Heritage Program Rare Species Observations for Tennessee Counties 2009
    Tennessee Natural Heritage Program Rare Species Observations For Tennessee Counties This document provides lists of rare species known to occur within each of Tennessee's counties. If you are viewing the list in its original digital format and you have an internet connection, you may click the scientific names to search the NatureServe Explorer Encyclopedia of Life for more detailed species information. The following lists were last updated in July 2009 and are based on rare species observations stored in the Tennessee Natural Heritage Biotics Database maintained by the TDEC Natural Heritage Program. For definitions of ranks and protective status, or for instructions on obtaining a site specific project review, please visit our website: http://state.tn.us/environment/na/data.shtml If you need assistance using the lists or interpreting data, feel free to contact us: Natural Heritage Program Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation 7th Floor L&C Annex 401 Church Street Nashville, Tennessee 37243 (615) 532-0431 The lists provided are intended for use as planning tools. Because many areas of the state have not been searched for rare species, the lists should not be used to determine the absence of rare species. The lists are best used in conjunction with field visits to identify the types of rare species habitat that may be present at a given location. For projects that are located near county boundaries or are in areas of the state that have been under-surveyed (particularly in western Tennessee), we recommend that you check rare species lists for adjacent counties or watersheds as well.
    [Show full text]