DOCSLIB.ORG

HABITAT NEEDS ASSESSMENT for the UPPER MISSISSIPPI RIVER SYSTEM Technical Report October 2000

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
HABITAT NEEDS ASSESSMENT for the UPPER MISSISSIPPI RIVER SYSTEM Technical Report October 2000 HABITAT NEEDS ASSESSMENT FOR THE UPPER MISSISSIPPI RIVER SYSTEM Technical Report October 2000 Upper Midwest Environmental Sciences Center The Upper Mississippi River System Habitat Needs Assessment was a cooperative effort of the state and Federal agencies represented by their logos below. These agencies have made great strides to protect and restore river habitats under the auspices of the Environmental Management Program. Reauthorization of the program continues the partnership and ensures that this Habitat Needs Assessment can be used to assist future Upper Mississippi River System Habitat Rehabilitation and Enhancement planning. Citation: Theiling, C.H., C. Korschgen, H. De Haan, T. Fox, J. Rohweder, and L. Robinson. 2000. Habitat Needs Assessment for the Upper Mississippi River System: Technical Report. U.S. Geological Survey, Upper Midwest Environmental Sciences Center, La Crosse, Wisconsin. Contract report prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, St. Louis District, St. Louis, Missouri. 248 pp. + Appendices A to AA. Web Site: www.umesc.usgs.gov/habitat_needs_assessment/emp_hna.html Additional Copies or Comments: Environmental Management Program Regional Program Manager U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Rock Island District Clock Tower Building P.O. Box 2004 Rock Island, IL 61204-2004 Acknowledgements HNA Technical Committee Gordon Farabee – Chair Missouri Department of Conservation, Jefferson City, MO Robert Clevenstine U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Rock Island, IL Michael Thompson U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, St. Louis, MO Dan Wilcox U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, St. Paul, MN Scott Whitney U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Rock Island, IL T. Miller U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, St. Louis, MO Michael Davis Minnesota Department of Conservation, Lake City, MN Jeffery Janvrin Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, La Crosse, WI Michael Griffin Iowa Department of Natural Resources, Bellevue, IA William Bertrand Illinois Department of Natural Resources, Aledo, IL Richard Steinbach U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Quincy, IL Report Contributors Dan Wilcox U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, St. Paul, MN Jeffery Janvrin Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, La Crosse, WI Scott Whitney U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Rock Island, IL John C. Nelson Illinois Department of Natural Resources Species Group Specialists Eileen Kirsch U.S. Geological Survey, La Crosse, WI Melinda Knutson U.S. Geological Survey, La Crosse, WI Kevin Kenow U.S. Geological Survey, La Crosse, WI Robert Hrabik Missouri Department of Conservation, Jefferson City, MO John Pitlo Iowa Department of Natural Resources, Bellevue, IA John Tucker Illinois Natural History Survey, Brighton, IL We also thank the members of the UMRS natural resource management community and the public that contributed to the many workshops and surveys needed to complete the HNA. It is continued cooperation and coordination among natural resource professionals and the public they serve that will protect and preserve the Upper Mississippi River System ecosystem for future generations. Habitat Needs Assessment for the Upper Mississippi River System: Technical Report Prepared by: Charles Theiling, Carl Korschgen, Henry De Haan, Timothy Fox, Jason Rohweder, and Larry Robinson U.S. Geological Survey Upper Midwest Environmental Sciences Center 2630 Fanta Reed Rd. La Crosse, Wisconsin 54601 October 2000 Prepared for: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers St. Louis District 1222 Spruce St. St. Louis, Missouri 63103-2833 Upper Mississippi River Navigation System Geomorphic Reaches 1 – Pools 1 – 3 2 – Pool 4 3 – Pools 5 – 9 4 – Pools 10 – 13 5 – Pools 14 – 17 6 – Pools 18 – 19 7 – Pools 20 –22 8 – Pools 24 – 26 9 – Pool 26 – Thebes Gap 10 – Thebes Gap – Ohio River IR1 – Lk. Michigan – Starved Rock IR2 – Peoria Pool – Alton Pool ii Contents Contents iii Tables v Figures vii Appendices ix 1 Introduction........................................................................................................................... 10 1.1 Background ................................................................................................................ 10 1.2 General Approach to Conducting a Habitat Needs Assessment for the UMRS......... 11 1.3 Application of a Habitat Needs Assessment to the EMP ........................................... 11 1.4 Need for a Habitat Needs Assessment ....................................................................... 11 2 UMRS Geomorphology and Climate.................................................................................... 14 2.1 Longitudinal Geomorphologic Variation................................................................... 14 2.2 Lateral Geomorphic Variation ................................................................................... 20 2.3 Substrates and Soils.................................................................................................... 20 2.4 Climate ....................................................................................................................... 23 2.5 Summary .................................................................................................................... 23 3 Historic Land Cover Change................................................................................................. 24 3.1 Landscape Perspective ............................................................................................... 24 3.2 Forest Successional Change....................................................................................... 34 3.3 Summary .................................................................................................................... 37 4 UMRS Ecological Disturbances and Habitat Forming Processes......................................... 38 4.1 Natural Disturbances.................................................................................................. 38 4.2 Biotic Disturbances .................................................................................................... 47 4.3 Human-Induced Disturbances.................................................................................... 48 4.4 Summary .................................................................................................................... 56 5 Land Cover and Geomorphic Area Classification ................................................................ 58 5.1 Land Cover................................................................................................................. 58 5.2 Geomorphic Area....................................................................................................... 64 5.3 Summary .................................................................................................................... 68 6 HNA Guild/Species Query Tool Development..................................................................... 69 6.1 HNA Habitat Areas Classification and GIS Database ............................................... 69 6.2 HNA Species and Guild Approach ............................................................................ 71 6.3 HNA Guild Classifications......................................................................................... 72 6.4 Task 1.3 HNA Area and Species/Guild Matrices....................................................... 81 6.5 Summary .................................................................................................................... 85 7 Existing Conditions............................................................................................................... 87 7.1 Systemic and River Summaries.................................................................................. 87 7.2 HNA Land Cover Areas Distribution/Abundance/Scarcity ..................................... 104 7.3 HNA Geomorphic Areas Distribution-Abundance-Scarcity.................................... 131 7.4 Habitat Richness and Diversity................................................................................ 151 7.5 Habitat Fragmentation.............................................................................................. 151 7.6 Habitat Connectivity ................................................................................................ 156 7.7 Public Land Distribution.......................................................................................... 157 7.8 Potential Species/Guild Habitat Abundance/Scarcity/Absence ............................... 161 7.9 Species/Guild Habitat Fragmentation, Connectivity, and Distribution.................... 163 7.10 Summary .................................................................................................................. 163 8 Terrestrial Vegetation Successional Model ........................................................................ 164 8.1 Approach.................................................................................................................. 164 8.2 Results...................................................................................................................... 169 8.3 Summary .................................................................................................................. 173 iii 9 Future Geomorphic and Land Cover Conditions ................................................................ 181 9.1 Qualitative Assessment of Geomorphic Change...................................................... 181 9.2 Future Geomorphic Conditions...............................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Upper Mississippi River Conservation Opportunity Area Wildlife Action Plan
    Version 3 Summer 2012 UPPER MISSISSIPPI RIVER CONSERVATION OPPORTUNITY AREA WILDLIFE ACTION PLAN Daniel Moorehouse Mississippi River Pool 19 A cooperative, inter-agency partnership for the implementation of the Illinois Wildlife Action Plan in the Upper Mississippi River Conservation Opportunity Area Prepared by: Angella Moorehouse Illinois Nature Preserves Commission Elliot Brinkman Prairie Rivers Network We gratefully acknowledge the Grand Victoria Foundation's financial support for the preparation of this plan. Table of Contents List of Figures .............................................................................................................................. ii Acronym List .............................................................................................................................. iii I. Introduction to Conservation Opportunity Areas ....................................................................1 II. Upper Mississippi River COA ..................................................................................................3 COAs Embedded within Upper Mississippi River COA ..............................................................5 III. Plan Organization .................................................................................................................7 IV. Vision Statement ..................................................................................................................8 V. Climate Change .......................................................................................................................9
    [Show full text]
  • Seasonal and Diel Movements and Habitat Use of Robust Redhorses in the Lower Savannah River. Georgia, and South Carolina
    Transactions of the American FisheriesSociety 135:1145-1155, 2006 [Article] © Copyright by the American Fisheries Society 2006 DO: 10.1577/705-230.1 Seasonal and Diel Movements and Habitat Use of Robust Redhorses in the Lower Savannah River, Georgia and South Carolina TIMOTHY B. GRABOWSKI*I Department of Biological Sciences, Clemson University, Clemson, South Carolina,29634-0326, USA J. JEFFERY ISELY U.S. Geological Survey, South Carolina Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, Clemson University, Clemson, South Carolina, 29634-0372, USA Abstract.-The robust redhorse Moxostonta robustum is a large riverine catostomid whose distribution is restricted to three Atlantic Slope drainages. Once presumed extinct, this species was rediscovered in 1991. Despite being the focus of conservation and recovery efforts, the robust redhorse's movements and habitat use are virtually unknown. We surgically implanted pulse-coded radio transmitters into 17 wild adults (460-690 mm total length) below the downstream-most dam on the Savannah River and into 2 fish above this dam. Individuals were located every 2 weeks from June 2002 to September 2003 and monthly thereafter to May 2005. Additionally, we located 5-10 individuals every 2 h over a 48-h period during each season. Study fish moved at least 24.7 ± 8.4 river kilometers (rkm; mean ± SE) per season. This movement was generally downstream except during spring. Some individuals moved downstream by as much as 195 rkm from their release sites. Seasonal migrations were correlated to seasonal changes in water temperature. Robust redhorses initiated spring upstream migrations when water temperature reached approximately 12'C. Our diel tracking suggests that robust redhorses occupy small reaches of river (- 1.0 rkm) and are mainly active diumally.
    [Show full text]
  • Amphibian and Reptile Surveys in the Kaskaskia River Drainage of Illinois During 1997 and 1998
    Journal of the Iowa Academy of Science: JIAS Volume 107 Number 3-4 Article 27 2000 Amphibian and Reptile Surveys in the Kaskaskia River Drainage of Illinois During 1997 and 1998 Allan K. Wilson Southern Illinois University at Carbondale Let us know how access to this document benefits ouy Copyright © Copyright 2000 by the Iowa Academy of Science, Inc. Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.uni.edu/jias Part of the Anthropology Commons, Life Sciences Commons, Physical Sciences and Mathematics Commons, and the Science and Mathematics Education Commons Recommended Citation Wilson, Allan K. (2000) "Amphibian and Reptile Surveys in the Kaskaskia River Drainage of Illinois During 1997 and 1998," Journal of the Iowa Academy of Science: JIAS, 107(3-4), 203-205. Available at: https://scholarworks.uni.edu/jias/vol107/iss3/27 This Research is brought to you for free and open access by the Iowa Academy of Science at UNI ScholarWorks. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal of the Iowa Academy of Science: JIAS by an authorized editor of UNI ScholarWorks. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Jour. Iowa Acad. Sci. 107(3):203-205, 2000 Amphibian and Reptile Surveys in the Kaskaskia River Drainage of Illinois During 1997 and 1998 ALLAN K. WILSON Department of Zoology, Southern Illinois University at Carbondale, Carbondale, Illinois 62901-6501 Email: [email protected] Currently there is little doubt among the scientific community of Interstate 64 and lay within the largest unfragmented forest tract in the decline of amphibians on an international scale (Berger et al. Illinois.
    [Show full text]
  • V081N1 045.Pdf
    Copyright © 1981 Ohio Acad. Sci. 0030-0950/81/0001-0045 $1.50/0 BRIEF NOTE DISCOVERY OF THE RIVER REDHORSE, M0X0ST0MA CARINATUM, IN THE GRAND RIVER, AN OHIO TRIBUTARY OF LAKE ERIE1 ANDREW M. WHITE, Department of Biology, John Carroll University, Cleveland, OH MILTON B. TRAUTMAN, Department of Zoology, The Ohio State University, Columbus OH OHIO J. SCI. 81(1): 45, 1981 The River Redhorse, Moxostoma cari- Goslin (1943) found pharyngeal bones natum, currently has a disjunct range. of this sucker in middens at a prehistoric It is present in portions of the Canadian Indian village near the present city of St. Lawrence River system, including Painesville, Ohio, which is adjacent to Lacs St. Pierre and St. Louis and some the Grand River (Trautman 1957). northern tributaries (Scott and Crossman The bones of other suckers and other fish 1973). In the United States, the species species currently part of the Grand River was or is present in Michigan in the fauna also were present; however, Indians Muskegon River, a tributary of Lake commonly utilized fishes as food and oc- Michigan, and in the Detroit River of casionally carried smoked, sun-dried, or Lake Erie. An 1893 specimen from the fire-dried portions of fishes on journeys. Tiffin River, a tributary of the Maumee It is conceivable that the bones examined River, is in the Lake Erie drainage of in the middens were from fishes captured Ohio (Jenkins 1970). In the Mississippi in the tributaries of the Ohio River, less drainage, it is or was present from than 50 miles to the south, and trans- Minnesota south to Arkansas, including ported to these localities where they were portions of the Missouri and Ohio rivers, discovered by Goslin.
    [Show full text]
  • Lower Mississippi River Basin Planning Scoping Document
    2001 Basin Plan Scoping Document Balmm Basin Alliance for the Lower Mississippi In Minnesota Lower Mississippi River Basin Planning Scoping Document June 2001 balmm Basin Alliance for the Lower Mississippi in Minnesota About BALMM A locally led alliance of land and water resource agencies has formed in order to coordinate efforts to protect and improve water quality in the Lower Mississippi River Basin. The Basin Alliance for the Lower Mississippi in Minnesota (BALMM) covers both the Lower Mississippi and Cedar River Basins, and includes a wide range of local, state and federal resource agencies. Members of the Alliance include Soil and Water Conservation District managers, county water planners, and regional staff of the Board of Soil and Water Resources, Pollution Control Agency, Natural Resources Conservation Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, University of Minnesota Extension, Department of Natural Resources, Mississippi River Citizen Commission, the Southeastern Minnesota Water Resources Board, the Cannon River Watershed Partnership, and others. BALMM meetings are open to all interested individuals and organizations. Existing staff from county and state agencies provide administrative, logistical and planning support. These include: Kevin Scheidecker, Fillmore SWCD, Chair; Norman Senjem, MPCA-Rochester, Basin Coordinator; Clarence Anderson, Rice SWCD, Area 7 MASWCD Liaison; Bea Hoffmann, SE Minnesota Water Resources Board Liaison. This Basin Plan Scoping Document is the fruit of a year-long effort by participants in BALMM. Environmental Goals, Geographic Management Strategies and Land-Use Strategies were developed by either individual BALMM members or strategy teams. An effort was made to involve those who will implement the strategies in developing them.
    [Show full text]
  • ECOLOGY of NORTH AMERICAN FRESHWATER FISHES
    ECOLOGY of NORTH AMERICAN FRESHWATER FISHES Tables STEPHEN T. ROSS University of California Press Berkeley Los Angeles London © 2013 by The Regents of the University of California ISBN 978-0-520-24945-5 uucp-ross-book-color.indbcp-ross-book-color.indb 1 44/5/13/5/13 88:34:34 AAMM uucp-ross-book-color.indbcp-ross-book-color.indb 2 44/5/13/5/13 88:34:34 AAMM TABLE 1.1 Families Composing 95% of North American Freshwater Fish Species Ranked by the Number of Native Species Number Cumulative Family of species percent Cyprinidae 297 28 Percidae 186 45 Catostomidae 71 51 Poeciliidae 69 58 Ictaluridae 46 62 Goodeidae 45 66 Atherinopsidae 39 70 Salmonidae 38 74 Cyprinodontidae 35 77 Fundulidae 34 80 Centrarchidae 31 83 Cottidae 30 86 Petromyzontidae 21 88 Cichlidae 16 89 Clupeidae 10 90 Eleotridae 10 91 Acipenseridae 8 92 Osmeridae 6 92 Elassomatidae 6 93 Gobiidae 6 93 Amblyopsidae 6 94 Pimelodidae 6 94 Gasterosteidae 5 95 source: Compiled primarily from Mayden (1992), Nelson et al. (2004), and Miller and Norris (2005). uucp-ross-book-color.indbcp-ross-book-color.indb 3 44/5/13/5/13 88:34:34 AAMM TABLE 3.1 Biogeographic Relationships of Species from a Sample of Fishes from the Ouachita River, Arkansas, at the Confl uence with the Little Missouri River (Ross, pers. observ.) Origin/ Pre- Pleistocene Taxa distribution Source Highland Stoneroller, Campostoma spadiceum 2 Mayden 1987a; Blum et al. 2008; Cashner et al. 2010 Blacktail Shiner, Cyprinella venusta 3 Mayden 1987a Steelcolor Shiner, Cyprinella whipplei 1 Mayden 1987a Redfi n Shiner, Lythrurus umbratilis 4 Mayden 1987a Bigeye Shiner, Notropis boops 1 Wiley and Mayden 1985; Mayden 1987a Bullhead Minnow, Pimephales vigilax 4 Mayden 1987a Mountain Madtom, Noturus eleutherus 2a Mayden 1985, 1987a Creole Darter, Etheostoma collettei 2a Mayden 1985 Orangebelly Darter, Etheostoma radiosum 2a Page 1983; Mayden 1985, 1987a Speckled Darter, Etheostoma stigmaeum 3 Page 1983; Simon 1997 Redspot Darter, Etheostoma artesiae 3 Mayden 1985; Piller et al.
    [Show full text]
  • Lower Mississippi River Basin
    1 Response to RFI for Long-Term Agro-ecosystem Research (LTAR) Network 2012 Lower Mississippi River Basin Abstract: The Lower Mississippi River Basin (LMRB) is a key 2-digit HUC watershed comprised of highly productive and diverse agricultural and natural ecosystems lying along the lower reaches of the largest river in North America. The alluvial plain within the LMRB is one of the most productive agricultural regions in the United States, particularly for rice, cotton, corn and soybeans. The LMRB accounts, for example, for a quarter of total U.S. cotton and two-thirds of total U.S. rice production. The 7.1 million irrigated acres of the LMRB cover a larger percentage (>10%) of the entire land area of the basin than for any other two-digit HUC in the country and the basin is second only to California in total groundwater pumped for irrigation. The LMRB is therefore one of the most intensively developed regions for irrigated agriculture in the country. This region is the hydrologic gateway to the Gulf of Mexico and thus links the agricultural practices of the LMRB and the runoff and sediment/nutrient loads from the Upper Mississippi, Missouri, and Ohio basins with the Gulf ecosystem. While the natural and agricultural ecosystems of the LMRB are each of national significance, they are also intimately inter-connected, for example, the intensive agricultural irrigation along the alluvial plain has resulted in rapidly declining water tables. Changes in stream hydrology due to declining base-flow combined with the water quality impacts of agriculture make the LMRB a tightly-coupled agro-ecosystem with national significance and thus an ideal addition to the LTAR network.
    [Show full text]
  • Mississippi Flyway Council Policy Management of Mute Swans
    MISSISSIPPI FLYWAY COUNCIL POLICY MANAGEMENT OF MUTE SWANS Introduction This document briefly describes the history, status, selected biology, management concerns, and recommendations for the management of mute swans (Cygnus olor), a non-native, invasive species that has become established in several locations in the Mississippi Flyway (e.g., Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, Ontario, and Wisconsin). Although the populations are relatively low in most Flyway states, establishing and implementing a Flyway policy is important because the birds have high reproductive potential and have negative impacts on native species and damage aquatic habitats. In recent years, the numbers have continued to increase. The policy recommendations below represent the consensus of wildlife agencies in the Mississippi Flyway with respect to management of this species. The purpose of this document is to provide direction for the cooperative management of mute swans by natural-resource agencies in the Flyway. Background Introduction and Populations - Mute swans are native to Eurasia. Although once severely reduced in numbers by market-hunting and war within their natural range, they have been domesticated for centuries and are now widely distributed throughout Europe. The Eurasian population is estimated at 1 million. Mute swans were introduced into North America during the late 1800s as decorative waterfowl and have now established feral populations in all four Flyways due to escaped and released birds. Nelson (1997) estimated a population of 18,000 mute swans in North America, with most being in the Atlantic Flyway. By 2000, Nelson estimated a total of 6,800 mute swans in the Mississippi Flyway, with feral populations occurring in 9 of 17 states or provinces.
    [Show full text]
  • Restoring America's Greatest River Plan
    RESTORING AMERICA’S GREATEST RIVER A HABITAT RESTORATION PLAN FOR THE LOWER MISSISSIPPI RIVER LOWER MISSISSIPPI RIVER CONSERVATION COMMITTEE CONTENTS INTRODUCTION 3 RIVER MODIFICATIONS 4 HABITATS AND LAND USE 6 FLOODPLAINS 8 SPECIES OF CONCERN 10 Mission: Promote the protection, restoration, enhancement, understanding, awareness and wise use NATIVE FISHES 13 of the natural resources of the Lower Mississippi River, through coordinated and cooperative efforts involving CLIMATE ADAPTATION 14 research, planning, management, information sharing, public education and advocacy. PLANNING 16 ACCOMPLISHMENTS 18 GOALS AND ACTIONS 22 CITATIONS 24 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 27 Suggested citation: Lower Mississippi River Conservation Committee. 2015. Restoring America’s Greatest River: A Habitat Restoration Plan for the Lower Mississippi River. Published electronically at http://lmrcc.org. Vicksburg, Mississippi. The cover photo, taken by Bruce Reid near Fitler, Mississippi, shows the Mississippi River main channel, a sandbar, a notched dike and the batture forest. © 2015 Lower Mississippi River Conservation Committee 2 INTRODUCTION he Lower Mississippi River Conservation Committee (LMRCC) was founded in 1994 and is a coalition of 12 state natural resource MISSISSIPPI RIVER WATERSHED Tconservation and environmental quality agencies from Arkansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri and Tennessee. The LMRCC Executive Committee has one member from each of the agencies. There are also five federal partners: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). The USFWS provides a coordination office. LMRCC staff work out of the USFWS’s Lower Mississippi River Fish and Wildlife Conservation Office in Jackson, Mississippi.
    [Show full text]
  • Lower Mississippi River Fisheries Coordination Office
    U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Lower Mississippi River Fisheries Coordination Office Station Facts Activity Highlights ■ Established: 1994. ■ Development of an Aquatic Resource Management Plan to ■ Number of staff: one. restore natural resources in the 2.7 ■ Geographic area covered: million-acre, leveed floodplain of Arkansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, the Lower Mississippi River. Mississippi, Missouri, and ■ Publication of the LMRCC Tennessee. Newsletter, a regional newsletter Station Goals on aquatic resource conservation photo: USFWS photo: ■ Provide a permanent forum for management issues, and natural facilitating the management of the resource-based economic aquatic natural resources of the development. Lower Mississippi River leveed ■ Provide long-term economic, floodplain. environmental, and public ■ Restore and enhance aquatic recreation benefits to the region by habitat in the Lower Mississippi cooperatively addressing aquatic River leveed floodplain and resource management issues. tributaries. Questions and Answers: photo: USFWS photo: ■ Increase public awareness and What does your office do? encourage sustainable use of the The Lower Mississippi River Lower Mississippi River’s natural Fisheries Coordination Office resources. (FCO) coordinates the work of many different state and Federal ■ Promote natural resource-based natural resource management and economic development. environmental quality agencies that deal with the Lower Mississippi River ■ Increase technical knowledge of the aquatic resource issues. Lower Mississippi River’s natural resources. Why is the Lower Mississippi River photo: USFWS photo: important? Services provided to: The Mississippi River is the fourth ■ Project leader serves as longest river in the world, flowing coordinator for the Lower for more than 2,350 miles from its Mississippi River Conservation headwaters in Lake Itasca, Minnesota Committee (LMRCC); LMRCC to the Gulf of Mexico.
    [Show full text]
  • Nutrient Delivery from the Mississippi River to the Gulf of Mexico And
    the entire landscape must be considered if hydrologic and water quality models are doi:10.2489/jswc.69.1.26 used to predict the delivery of sediment and nutrients. Similarly, the contribution of other sources (including noncultivated lands, urban areas, forests, and the direct discharge Nutrient delivery from the Mississippi of waste water to streams and rivers) should be accounted for. In addition, processes River to the Gulf of Mexico and effects of occurring in streams, lakes, and reservoirs affect the fate of pollutants as they are trans- cropland conservation ported through the system and should also be included. M.J. White, C. Santhi, N. Kannan, J.G. Arnold, D. Harmel, L. Norfleet, P. Allen, M. DiLuzio, X. Comprehensive water quality simulation Wang, J. Atwood, E. Haney, and M. Vaughn Johnson at the scale of the Mississippi River Basin (MRB, 3,220,000 km2 [1,240,000 mi2]) is Abstract: Excessive nutrients transported from the Mississippi River Basin (MRB) have cre- a difficult task; thus, only a few modeling ated a hypoxic zone within the Gulf of Mexico, with numerous negative ecological effects. efforts at that scale have been conducted Copyright © 2014 Soil and Water Conservation Society. All rights reserved. Furthermore, federal expenditures on agricultural conservation practices have received to date. The contiguous United States was Journal of Soil and Water Conservation intense scrutiny in recent years. Partly driven by these factors, the USDA Conservation simulated by Srinivasan et al. (1998) in the Effects Assessment Project (CEAP) recently completed a comprehensive evaluation of nutri- Hydrologic Unit Model for the United ent sources and delivery to the Gulf.
    [Show full text]
  • Central Flyway Databook 2020 MIGRATORY GAME BIRD HUNTING PERMITS by PROVINCE/TERRITORY of PURCHASE in CANADA
    CENTRAL FLYWAY HARVEST AND POPULATION SURVEY DATA BOOK 2020 compiled by: James A. Dubovsky CENTRAL FLYWAY REPRESENTATIVE U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE DIVISION OF MIGRATORY BIRD MANAGEMENT 134 Union Blvd., Suite 540 Lakewood, CO 80228 (303) 275-2386 Suggested Citation: Dubovsky, J. A., compiler. 2020. Central Flyway harvest and population survey data book 2020. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Lakewood CO. CENTRAL FLYWAY 1948-2020 73 YEARS OF MIGRATORY BIRD CONSERVATION Important Note to Users: From 1961-2001, estimates of waterfowl harvest, waterfowl hunter participation, and waterfowl hunter success in the United States were derived from a combination of several sources: 1) sales of migratory bird conservation stamps (Duck Stamps), 2) a Mail Questionnaire Survey of individuals who purchased ducks stamps for hunting purposes, and 3) the Waterfowl Parts Collection Survey (PCS). This survey, which was based on duck stamp sales was discontinued after the 2001 hunting season. Beginning in 1999, new survey methods were implemented that obtained estimates of waterfowl harvest, hunter participation, and hunter success from: 1) States' lists of migratory bird hunters identified through the Harvest Information Program (HIP), 2) a questionnaire (HIP Survey) sent to a sample of those hunters, and 3) the Waterfowl PCS. The basic difference is that during 1961 - 2001 waterfowl hunter activity and harvest estimates were derived from a Mail Questionnaire Survey (MQS) of duck stamp purchasers, whereas from 1999 to the present those estimates were derived from HIP surveys of people identified as migratory bird hunters by the States. Both survey systems relied on the Waterfowl PCS for species composition data.
    [Show full text]