DOCSLIB.ORG

Listing the Cumberland Darter, Rush

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Listing the Cumberland Darter, Rush Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 121 / Thursday, June 24, 2010 / Proposed Rules 36035 Dated: June 18, 2010. We will not accept e-mail or faxes. We size of these species, including the Gina McCarthy, will post all comments on http:// locations of any additional populations Assistant Administrator, Office of Air and www.regulations.gov. This generally of the species; Radiation. means that we will post any personal (3) Any additional information on the [FR Doc. 2010–15340 Filed 6–23–10; 8:45 am] information you provide us (see the biological or ecological requirements of BILLING CODE 6560–50–P Request for Public Comments section the species; below for more information). (4) Current or planned activities in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For areas occupied by the species and possible impacts of these activities on DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR information regarding the Cumberland darter, contact Lee Andrews, Field the species and their habitat; (5) Potential effects of climate change Fish and Wildlife Service Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife on the species and their habitats; Service, Kentucky Ecological Services (6) The reasons why areas should or 50 CFR Part 17 Field Office, J.C. Watts Federal should not be designated as critical Building, 330 W. Broadway Rm. 265, habitat as provided by section 4 of the [Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2010-0027] Frankfort, KY 40601; telephone 502- [MO 92210-0-0008-B2] Act (16 U.S.C. 1531, et seq.), including 695-0468; facsimile 502-695-1024. For whether the benefits of designation RIN 1018-AV85 information regarding the rush darter, would outweigh threats to the species contact Stephen Ricks, Field Supervisor, that designation could cause (e.g., Endangered and Threatened Wildlife U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, exacerbation of existing threats, such as and Plants; Listing the Cumberland Mississippi Ecological Services Field overcollection), such that the Darter, Rush Darter, Yellowcheek Office, 6578 Dogwood View Parkway, designation of critical habitat is Darter, Chucky Madtom, and Laurel Suite A, Jackson, MI 39213; telephone prudent; and . Dace as Endangered Throughout Their 601-965-4900; facsimile 601-965-4340 or (7) Specific information on: Ranges Bill Pearson, Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish • What areas contain physical and and Wildlife Service, Alabama biological features essential for the AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Ecological Services Field Office, 1208-B Interior. conservation of the species; Main Street, Daphne AL 36526; • What areas are essential to the ACTION: Proposed rule; request for telephone 251-441-5181; fax 251-441- conservation of the species; and public comments. 6222. For information regarding the • Special management considerations or yellowcheek darter, contact Mark protection that proposed critical SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Sattelberg, Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish habitat may require. Wildlife Service (Service), propose to and Wildlife Service, Arkansas list the Cumberland darter (Etheostoma Please note that submissions merely Ecological Services Field Office, 110 stating support for or opposition to the susanae), rush darter (Etheostoma South Amity Road, Suite 300, Conway, phytophilum), yellowcheek darter action under consideration without AR 72032; telephone 501-513-4470; providing supporting information, (Etheostoma moorei), chucky madtom facsimile 501-513-4480. For information (Noturus crypticus), and laurel dace although noted, will not be considered regarding the chucky madtom or laurel in making a determination, as section (Phoxinus saylori) as endangered under dace, contact Mary Jennings, Field the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act directs that Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife determinations as to whether any amended (Act). If we finalize this rule Service, Tennessee Ecological Services as proposed, it would extend the Act’s species is a threatened or endangered Field Office, 446 Neal Street, species mush be made ‘‘solely on the protections to these species throughout Cookeville, TN 38501; telephone 931- their ranges, including, Cumberland basis of the best scientific and 528-6481; facsimile 931-528-7075. If you ’’ darter in Kentucky and Tennessee, rush commercial data available. use a telecommunications device for the You may submit your comments and darter in Alabama, yellowcheek darter deaf (TDD), call the Federal Information materials concerning this proposed rule in Arkansas, and chucky madtom and Relay Service (FIRS) at 800-877-8339. by one of the methods listed in the laurel dace in Tennessee. We have SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: ADDRESSES section. We will not accept determined that critical habitat for these comments sent by e-mail or fax or to an species is prudent, but not determinable Request for Public Comments address not listed in the ADDRESSES at this time. We intend that any final action section. DATES: We will consider comments we resulting from this proposed rule will be We will post your entire comment, receive on or before August 23, 2010. based on the best scientific and including your personal identifying We must receive requests for public commercial data available and as information, on http:// hearings, in writing, at the address accurate and effective as possible. www.regulations.gov. If you provide shown in the ADDRESSES section by Therefore, we request comments or personal identifying information in your August 9, 2010. information from the public, other hard copy comments, such as your ADDRESSES: You may submit comments concerned governmental agencies, the street address, phone number, or e-mail by one of the following methods: scientific community, industry, or any address, you may request at the top of Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// other interested party concerning this your document that we withhold this www.regulations.gov. Follow the proposed rule. We particularly seek information from public review. instructions for submitting comments. comments concerning: However, we cannot guarantee that we U.S. mail or hand-delivery: Public (1) Biological, commercial trade, or will be able to do so. We will post all Comments Processing, Attn: [Docket No. other relevant data concerning any hardcopy submissions on http:// FWS-R4-ES-2010-0027]; Division of threats (or lack thereof) to these species www.regulations.gov. Please include Policy and Directives Management, U.S. and regulations that may be addressing sufficient information with your Fish and Wildlife Service, 4401 N. those threats; comments to allow us to verify any Fairfax Drive, Suite 222, Arlington, VA (2) Additional information concerning scientific or commercial information 22203. the ranges, distribution, and population you include. VerDate Mar<15>2010 14:58 Jun 23, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\24JNP1.SGM 24JNP1 cprice-sewell on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with PROPOSALS-1 36036 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 121 / Thursday, June 24, 2010 / Proposed Rules Comments and materials we receive, Thomas (2007, p. 4) did not encounter (Strange 1998, p. 101). Thomas (2007, p. as well as supporting documentation we the species in high-gradient sections of 3) provided the most recent information used in preparing this proposed rule, streams or areas dominated by cobble or on status and distribution of the species will be available for public inspection boulder substrates. Thomas (2007, p. 4) through completion of a range-wide on http://www.regulations.gov, or by reported that streams inhabited by status assessment in the upper appointment, during normal business Cumberland darters were second to Cumberland River drainage in hours, at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife fourth order, with widths ranging from Kentucky. Between June 2005 and April Service, Tennessee Ecological Services 4 to 9 meters (m) (11 to 30 feet (ft)) and 2007, a total of 47 sites were sampled Field Office (see FOR FURTHER depths ranging from 20 to 76 cm (8 to qualitatively in the upper Cumberland INFORMATION CONTACT section). 30 in). River drainage. All Kentucky sites with Little is known regarding the historic records were surveyed (20 Background reproductive habits of the Cumberland sites), as well as 27 others having Species Information darter. Thomas (2007, p. 4) reported the potentially suitable habitat. Surveys by collection of males in breeding Thomas (2007, p. 3) produced a total of Cumberland darter condition in April and May, with water 51 specimens from 13 localities (12 The Cumberland darter, Etheostoma temperatures ranging from 15 to 18o streams). Only one of the localities susanae (Jordan and Swain), is a Celsius (C) (59 to 64o Fahrenheit (F)). represented a new occurrence record for medium-sized member of the fish tribe Extensive searches by Thomas (2007, p. the species. Etheostomatini (Family Percidae) that 4) produced no evidence of nests or eggs Currently, the Cumberland darter is reaches over 5.5 centimeters (cm) (2 at these sites. Species commonly known from 14 localities in a total of 12 inches (in)) standard length (SL) (SL, associated with the Cumberland darter streams in Kentucky (McCreary and length from tip of snout to start of the during surveys by Thomas (2007, pp. 4– Whitley Counties) and Tennessee caudal peduncle (slender region 5) were creek chub (Semotilus (Campbell and Scott Counties). All 14 extending from behind the anal fin to atromaculatus), northern hogsucker extant occurrences of the Cumberland the base of the caudal fin)) (Etnier and (Hypentelium nigricans), stripetail darter are restricted to short stream Starnes 1993, pp. 512). The species has darter (Etheostoma kennicotti), and reaches, with the majority believed to be a straw-yellow background body color Cumberland arrow darter (Etheostoma restricted to less than 1.6 kilometers with brown markings that form six sagitta sagitta). Thomas (2007, p. 5) (km) (1 mile (mi)) of stream (O’Bara evenly spaced dorsal (back) saddles and collected individuals of the Federally 1991, pp. 9–10; Thomas 2007, p. 3). a series of X-, C-, or W-shaped markings threatened blackside dace, Phoxinus These occurrences are thought to form on its sides (Etnier and Starnes 1993, p.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Research Funding (Total $2,552,481) $15,000 2019
    CURRICULUM VITAE TENNESSEE AQUARIUM CONSERVATION INSTITUTE 175 BAYLOR SCHOOL RD CHATTANOOGA, TN 37405 RESEARCH FUNDING (TOTAL $2,552,481) $15,000 2019. Global Wildlife Conservation. Rediscovering the critically endangered Syr-Darya Shovelnose Sturgeon. $10,000 2019. Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency. Propagation of the Common Logperch as a host for endangered mussel larvae. $8,420 2019. Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency. Monitoring for the Laurel Dace. $4,417 2019. Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency. Examining interactions between Laurel Dace (Chrosomus saylori) and sunfish $12,670 2019. Trout Unlimited. Southern Appalachian Brook Trout propagation for reintroduction to Shell Creek. $106,851 2019. Private Donation. Microplastic accumulation in fishes of the southeast. $1,471. 2019. AZFA-Clark Waldram Conservation Grant. Mayfly propagation for captive propagation programs. $20,000. 2019. Tennessee Valley Authority. Assessment of genetic diversity within Blotchside Logperch. $25,000. 2019. Riverview Foundation. Launching Hidden Rivers in the Southeast. $11,170. 2018. Trout Unlimited. Propagation of Southern Appalachian Brook Trout for Supplemental Reintroduction. $1,471. 2018. AZFA Clark Waldram Conservation Grant. Climate Change Impacts on Headwater Stream Vertebrates in Southeastern United States $1,000. 2018. Hamilton County Health Department. Step 1 Teaching Garden Grants for Sequoyah School Garden. $41,000. 2018. Riverview Foundation. River Teachers: Workshops for Educators. $1,000. 2018. Tennessee Valley Authority. Youth Freshwater Summit $20,000. 2017. Tennessee Valley Authority. Lake Sturgeon Propagation. $7,500 2017. Trout Unlimited. Brook Trout Propagation. $24,783. 2017. Tennessee Wildlife Resource Agency. Assessment of Percina macrocephala and Etheostoma cinereum populations within the Duck River Basin. $35,000. 2017. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Status surveys for conservation status of Ashy (Etheostoma cinereum) and Redlips (Etheostoma maydeni) Darters.
    [Show full text]
  • BIOLOGICAL FIELD STATION Cooperstown, New York
    BIOLOGICAL FIELD STATION Cooperstown, New York 49th ANNUAL REPORT 2016 STATE UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK COLLEGE AT ONEONTA OCCASIONAL PAPERS PUBLISHED BY THE BIOLOGICAL FIELD STATION No. 1. The diet and feeding habits of the terrestrial stage of the common newt, Notophthalmus viridescens (Raf.). M.C. MacNamara, April 1976 No. 2. The relationship of age, growth and food habits to the relative success of the whitefish (Coregonus clupeaformis) and the cisco (C. artedi) in Otsego Lake, New York. A.J. Newell, April 1976. No. 3. A basic limnology of Otsego Lake (Summary of research 1968-75). W. N. Harman and L. P. Sohacki, June 1976. No. 4. An ecology of the Unionidae of Otsego Lake with special references to the immature stages. G. P. Weir, November 1977. No. 5. A history and description of the Biological Field Station (1966-1977). W. N. Harman, November 1977. No. 6. The distribution and ecology of the aquatic molluscan fauna of the Black River drainage basin in northern New York. D. E Buckley, April 1977. No. 7. The fishes of Otsego Lake. R. C. MacWatters, May 1980. No. 8. The ecology of the aquatic macrophytes of Rat Cove, Otsego Lake, N.Y. F. A Vertucci, W. N. Harman and J. H. Peverly, December 1981. No. 9. Pictorial keys to the aquatic mollusks of the upper Susquehanna. W. N. Harman, April 1982. No. 10. The dragonflies and damselflies (Odonata: Anisoptera and Zygoptera) of Otsego County, New York with illustrated keys to the genera and species. L.S. House III, September 1982. No. 11. Some aspects of predator recognition and anti-predator behavior in the Black-capped chickadee (Parus atricapillus).
    [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]
  • 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]
  • Summary Report of Freshwater Nonindigenous Aquatic Species in U.S
    Summary Report of Freshwater Nonindigenous Aquatic Species in U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Region 4—An Update April 2013 Prepared by: Pam L. Fuller, Amy J. Benson, and Matthew J. Cannister U.S. Geological Survey Southeast Ecological Science Center Gainesville, Florida Prepared for: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Southeast Region Atlanta, Georgia Cover Photos: Silver Carp, Hypophthalmichthys molitrix – Auburn University Giant Applesnail, Pomacea maculata – David Knott Straightedge Crayfish, Procambarus hayi – U.S. Forest Service i Table of Contents Table of Contents ...................................................................................................................................... ii List of Figures ............................................................................................................................................ v List of Tables ............................................................................................................................................ vi INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................. 1 Overview of Region 4 Introductions Since 2000 ....................................................................................... 1 Format of Species Accounts ...................................................................................................................... 2 Explanation of Maps ................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Thesis Improving Rock Ramp Fishways for Small-Bodied
    THESIS IMPROVING ROCK RAMP FISHWAYS FOR SMALL-BODIED GREAT PLAINS FISHES Submitted by Tyler R. Swarr Department of Fish, Wildlife, and Conservation Biology In partial fulfillment of the requirements For the Degree of Master of Science Colorado State University Fort Collins, Colorado Summer 2018 Master’s Committee: Advisor: Christopher A. Myrick Kevin R. Bestgen Brian P. Bledsoe Copyright by Tyler R. Swarr 2018 All Rights Reserved ABSTRACT IMPROVING ROCK RAMP FISHWAYS FOR SMALL-BODIED GREAT PLAINS FISHES The growing global need to improve the longitudinal connectivity of lotic systems is often met by using fish passage structures (fishways). When designing fishways in the past, biologists and engineers focused primarily on strong swimming species such as salmonids. However, the majority of riverine species in the interior United States are not salmonids and may be excluded by fishways built using salmonid criteria due to lower swimming abilities and/or behavioral differences. I designed and built a 9.1-m long adjustable hydraulic research flume at the Colorado State University Foothills Fisheries Laboratory (FFL) to test fish passage and evaluate the effects of grade (slopes of 2 – 10%, in 2% increments) on the passage success of three Great Plains fish species: Flathead Chub Platygobio gracilis, Stonecat Noturus flavus, and Arkansas Darter Etheostoma cragini. A 6.1-m long rock ramp fishway was installed in the flume and four PIT tag antennas were used to detect full or partial passage success. In order to test the key assumption that tagging does not affect fish performance, I evaluated the impacts of 8-mm PIT tags on Arkansas Darter and found no significant difference in the survival and swimming abilities of PIT tagged fish versus non-tagged fish.
    [Show full text]
  • Warmwater Streams Report 2012
    FISHERIES REPORT Warmwater Streams and Rivers Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency--Region IV Report 13-02 2012 FISHERIES REPORT REPORT NO. 13-02 WARMWATER STREAM FISHERIES REPORT REGION IV 2012 Prepared by Bart D. Carter Rick D. Bivens Carl E. Williams and James W. Habera TENNESSEE WILDLIFE RESOURCES AGENCY ii Development of this report was financed in part by funds from Federal Aid in Fish and Wildlife Restoration (TWRA Project 4350) (Public Law 91-503) as documented in Federal Aid Project FW-6. This program receives Federal Aid in Fish and Wildlife Restoration. Under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Section 504 of the Interior prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin, or handicap. If you believe you have been discriminated against in any program, activity, or facility as described above, or if you desire further information, please write to: Office of Equal Opportunity, U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington D.C. 20240. Cover: Cumberland darter (Etheostoma susanae) collected from Capuchin Creek, Campbell County. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page INTRODUCTION 1 METHODS 2 Tennessee River System: Little River 9 Pellissippi Parkway Extension Surveys 18 Holston River 27 French Broad River 38 Clinch River System: Cove Creek 47 French Broad River System: Pigeon River 50 Cumberland River System: Capuchin Creek 56 New River System: Straight Fork 59 Jake Branch 61 Clear Fork Cumberland River System: Hudson Branch 63 Terry Creek 65 Lick Fork 67 Little Elk Creek 69 Stinking Creek 72 Louse Creek 75 SUMMARY 78 LITERATURE CITED 81 iv INTRODUCTION The fish fauna of Tennessee is the most diverse in the United States, with approximately 307 species of native fish and about 30 to 33 introduced species (Etnier and Starnes 1993).
    [Show full text]
  • Endangered Species Act Section 7 Consultation Final Programmatic
    Endangered Species Act Section 7 Consultation Final Programmatic Biological Opinion and Conference Opinion on the United States Department of the Interior Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement’s Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act Title V Regulatory Program U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Ecological Services Program Division of Environmental Review Falls Church, Virginia October 16, 2020 Table of Contents 1 Introduction .......................................................................................................................3 2 Consultation History .........................................................................................................4 3 Background .......................................................................................................................5 4 Description of the Action ...................................................................................................7 The Mining Process .............................................................................................................. 8 4.1.1 Exploration ........................................................................................................................ 8 4.1.2 Erosion and Sedimentation Controls .................................................................................. 9 4.1.3 Clearing and Grubbing ....................................................................................................... 9 4.1.4 Excavation of Overburden and Coal ................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • September 24, 2018
    September 24, 2018 Sent via Federal eRulemaking Portal to: http://www.regulations.gov Docket Nos. FWS-HQ-ES-2018-0006 FWS-HQ-ES-2018-0007 FWS-HQ-ES-2018-0009 Bridget Fahey Chief, Division of Conservation and Classification U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 5275 Leesburg Pike, MS: ES Falls Church, VA 22041-3808 [email protected] Craig Aubrey Chief, Division of Environmental Review Ecological Services Program U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 5275 Leesburg Pike, MS: ES Falls Church, VA 22041 [email protected] Samuel D. Rauch, III National Marine Fisheries Service Office of Protected Resources 1315 East-West Highway Silver Spring, MD 20910 [email protected] Re: Proposed Revisions of Endangered Species Act Regulations Dear Mr. Aubrey, Ms. Fahey, and Mr. Rauch: The Southern Environmental Law Center (“SELC”) submits the following comments in opposition to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s and National Marine Fisheries Service’s proposed revisions to the Endangered Species Act’s implementing regulations.1 We submit these comments on behalf of 57 organizations working to protect the natural resources of the 1 Revision of the Regulations for Prohibitions to Threatened Wildlife and Plants, 83 Fed. Reg. 35,174 (proposed July 25, 2018) (to be codified at 50 C.F.R. pt. 17); Revision of Regulations for Interagency Cooperation, 83 Fed. Reg. 35,178 (proposed July 25, 2018) (to be codified at 50 C.F.R. pt. 402); Revision of the Regulations for Listing Species and Designating Critical Habitat, 83 Fed. Reg. 35,193 (proposed July 25, 2018) (to be codified at 50 C.F.R.
    [Show full text]
  • Basinwide Assessment Report Roanoke River Basin
    BASINWIDE ASSESSMENT REPORT ROANOKE RIVER BASIN NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES Division of Water Quality Environmental Sciences Section December 2010 This Page Left Intentionally Blank 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page LIST OF APPENDICES ...............................................................................................................................3 LIST OF TABLES.........................................................................................................................................3 LIST OF FIGURES.......................................................................................................................................4 INTRODUCTION TO PROGRAM METHODS..............................................................................................5 BASIN DESCRIPTION..................................................................................................................................6 ROA RIVER HUC 03010103—DAN RIVER HEADWATERS.......................................................................7 River and Stream Assessment .......................................................................................................7 ROA RIVER HUC 03010104—DAN RIVER……………………………………………………………………...9 River and Stream Assessment……………………………………………………………………….…..9 ROA RIVER HUC 03010102—JOHN H. KERR RESERVOIR………………………………………………..11 River and Stream Assessment………………………………………………………………………….11 ROA RIVER HUC 03010106—LAKE GASTON………………………………………………………………..13 River and Stream Assessment………………………………………………………………………….13
    [Show full text]
  • Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service
    Monday, November 9, 2009 Part III Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service 50 CFR Part 17 Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Review of Native Species That Are Candidates for Listing as Endangered or Threatened; Annual Notice of Findings on Resubmitted Petitions; Annual Description of Progress on Listing Actions; Proposed Rule VerDate Nov<24>2008 17:08 Nov 06, 2009 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4717 Sfmt 4717 E:\FR\FM\09NOP3.SGM 09NOP3 jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3 57804 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 215 / Monday, November 9, 2009 / Proposed Rules DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR October 1, 2008, through September 30, for public inspection by appointment, 2009. during normal business hours, at the Fish and Wildlife Service We request additional status appropriate Regional Office listed below information that may be available for in under Request for Information in 50 CFR Part 17 the 249 candidate species identified in SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION. General [Docket No. FWS-R9-ES-2009-0075; MO- this CNOR. information we receive will be available 9221050083–B2] DATES: We will accept information on at the Branch of Candidate this Candidate Notice of Review at any Conservation, Arlington, VA (see Endangered and Threatened Wildlife time. address above). and Plants; Review of Native Species ADDRESSES: This notice is available on Candidate Notice of Review That Are Candidates for Listing as the Internet at http:// Endangered or Threatened; Annual www.regulations.gov, and http:// Background Notice of Findings on Resubmitted endangered.fws.gov/candidates/ The Endangered Species Act of 1973, Petitions; Annual Description of index.html.
    [Show full text]
  • Geological Survey of Alabama Calibration of The
    GEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF ALABAMA Berry H. (Nick) Tew, Jr. State Geologist ECOSYSTEMS INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM CALIBRATION OF THE INDEX OF BIOTIC INTEGRITY FOR THE SOUTHERN PLAINS ICHTHYOREGION IN ALABAMA OPEN-FILE REPORT 1210 by Patrick E. O'Neil and Thomas E. Shepard Prepared in cooperation with the Alabama Department of Environmental Management and the Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources Tuscaloosa, Alabama 2012 TABLE OF CONTENTS Abstract ............................................................ 1 Introduction.......................................................... 2 Acknowledgments .................................................... 6 Objectives........................................................... 7 Study area .......................................................... 7 Southern Plains ichthyoregion ...................................... 7 Methods ............................................................ 9 IBI sample collection ............................................. 9 Habitat measures............................................... 11 Habitat metrics ........................................... 12 The human disturbance gradient ................................... 16 IBI metrics and scoring criteria..................................... 20 Designation of guilds....................................... 21 Results and discussion................................................ 23 Sampling sites and collection results . 23 Selection and scoring of Southern Plains IBI metrics . 48 Metrics selected for the
    [Show full text]