DOCSLIB.ORG

Watercress Darter National Wildlife Refuge

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Watercress Darter National Wildlife Refuge Watercress Darter National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan U.S. Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service Southeast Region October 2010 Watercress Darter National Wildlife Refuge COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION PLAN WATERCRESS DARTER NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE Jefferson County, Alabama U.S. Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service Southeast Region Atlanta, Georgia October 2010 Table of Contents iii Watercress Darter National Wildlife Refuge TABLE OF CONTENTS COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION PLAN I. BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................................. 1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 1 Purpose And Need For The Plan ................................................................................................. 1 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ...................................................................................................... 1 National Wildlife Refuge System .................................................................................................. 3 Legal and Policy Context .............................................................................................................. 5 National and International Conservation Plans and Initiatives ..................................................... 6 Relationship To State Wildlife Agency ..........................................................................................8 II. REFUGE OVERVIEW ........................................................................................................................ 9 Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 9 Refuge History and Purpose ........................................................................................................ 9 Special Designations .................................................................................................................. 14 Ecosystem Context .....................................................................................................................14 Regional Conservation Plans and Initiatives ..............................................................................14 Central Gulf Coast Ecosystem Plan ..................................................................................16 Alabama Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy (2005) ..................................... 16 Ecological Threats and Problems ............................................................................................... 17 Habitat Loss and Fragmentation .......................................................................................17 Alterations to Hydrology and Degradation of Aquatic Ecosystems ...................................18 Physical Resources .................................................................................................................... 20 Climate .............................................................................................................................. 20 Geology AND Topography ................................................................................................21 Soils .................................................................................................................................. 21 Hydrology .......................................................................................................................... 22 Air Quality ..........................................................................................................................23 Water Quality and Quanity ................................................................................................23 Biological Resources .................................................................................................................. 26 Habitat ............................................................................................................................... 26 Cultural Resources ..................................................................................................................... 28 Socioeconomic Environment ...................................................................................................... 29 Outdoor Recreation Economics ........................................................................................29 Tourism ............................................................................................................................. 32 Refuge Administration and Management ...................................................................................32 Land Protection and Conservation ....................................................................................32 Visitor Services ................................................................................................................. 32 Personnel, Operations, and Maintenance .........................................................................32 III. PLAN DEVELOPMENT .................................................................................................................. 35 Overview ..................................................................................................................................... 35 Summary of Issues, Concerns, and Opportunities .....................................................................36 Table of Contents i IV. MANAGEMENT DIRECTION ....................................................................................................... 39 Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 39 Vision ......................................................................................................................................... 40 Goals, Objectives, and Strategies .............................................................................................. 40 Fish and Wildlife Population Management........................................................................ 40 Habitat Management......................................................................................................... 41 Resource Protection ......................................................................................................... 42 Visitor Services ................................................................................................................. 46 Refuge Administration ...................................................................................................... 48 V. PLAN IMPLEMENTATION ............................................................................................................ 49 Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 49 Proposed Projects ...................................................................................................................... 49 Fish And Wildlife Population Management ....................................................................... 49 Habitat Management......................................................................................................... 51 Resource protection .......................................................................................................... 51 Visitor Services ................................................................................................................. 53 Refuge Administration ...................................................................................................... 54 Funding and Personnel .............................................................................................................. 54 Partnership/Volunteer Opportunities .......................................................................................... 54 Step-Down Management Plans .................................................................................................. 55 Monitoring and Adaptive Management ....................................................................................... 55 Plan Review and Revision.......................................................................................................... 55 APPENDICES APPENDIX A. GLOSSARY ................................................................................................................ 57 APPENDIX B. REFERENCES AND LITERATURE CITATIONS ...................................................... 67 APPENDIX C. RELEVANT LEGAL MANDATES AND EXECUTIVE ORDERS ............................... 71 APPENDIX D. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT ........................................................................................... 85 Summary Of Public Scoping Comments .................................................................................... 90 Draft Plan Comments and Service Responses .......................................................................... 91 APPENDIX E. COMPATIBILITY DETERMINATIONS ....................................................................... 97 APPENDIX F. INTRA-SERVICE SECTION 7 BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION .................................. 105 APPENDIX G. WILDERNESS REVIEW .........................................................................................
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]
  • A Thesis Entitled Molecular, Morphological, and Biogeographic Resolution of Cryptic Taxa in the Greenside Darter Etheostoma Blen
    A Thesis Entitled Molecular, morphological, and biogeographic resolution of cryptic taxa in the Greenside Darter Etheostoma blennioides complex By Amanda E. Haponski Submitted as partial fulfillment of the requirements for The Master of Science Degree in Biology (Ecology-track) ____________________________ Advisor: Dr. Carol A. Stepien ____________________________ Committee Member: Dr. Timothy G. Fisher ____________________________ Committee Member: Dr. Johan F. Gottgens ____________________________ College of Graduate Studies The University of Toledo December 2007 Copyright © 2007 This document is copyrighted material. Under copyright law, no parts of this document may be reproduced without the expressed permission of the author. An Abstract of Molecular, morphological, and biogeographic resolution of cryptic taxa in the Greenside Darter Etheostoma blennioides complex Amanda E. Haponski Submitted as partial fulfillment of the requirements for The Master of Science Degree in Biology (Ecology-track) The University of Toledo December 2007 DNA sequencing has led to the resolution of many cryptic taxa, which are especially prevalent in the North American darter fishes (Family Percidae). The Greenside Darter Etheostoma blennioides commonly occurs in the lower Great Lakes region, where two putative subspecies, the eastern “Allegheny” type E. b. blennioides and the western “Prairie” type E. b. pholidotum , overlap. The objective of this study was to test the systematic identity and genetic divergence distinguishing the two subspecies in areas of sympatry and allopatry in comparison to other subspecies and close relatives. DNA sequences from the mtDNA cytochrome b gene and control region and the nuclear S7 intron 1 comprising a total of 1,497 bp were compared from 294 individuals across 18 locations, including the Lake Erie basin and the Allegheny, Meramec, Obey, Ohio, Rockcastle, Susquehanna, and Wabash River systems.
    [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]
  • Watercress Darter (Etheostoma Nuchale)
    RECOVERY PLAN Watercress Darter (Etheostoma nuchale) U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service WATERCRESS DARTER (Etheostoma nuchal e (Second Revision) RECOVERY PLAN (Original Approved: June 25, 1980) (First Revision Approved March 27, 1984) Prepared by Watercress Darter Recovery Team Revised by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for Southeast Region U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Atlanta, Georgia Approved: Jr~~W&~ J es W. Pul Regional Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Date: March 29, 1993 ) Recovery plans delineate reasonable actions which are believed to be required to recover and/or protect the listed species. Plans are prepared by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, sometimes with the assistance of recovery teams, contractors, State agencies, and others. Objectives will only be attained and funds expended contingent upon appropriations, priorities, and other budgetary constraints. Recovery plans do not necessarily represent the views nor the official positions or approvals of any individuals or agencies, other than the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, involved in the plan formulation. They represent the official position of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service only after they have been signed by the Regional Director or Director as aoDroved. Approved recovery plans are subject to modification as dictated by new findings, changes in species status, and the completion of recovery tasks. Literature citation should read as follows: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1992. Watercress Darter (Etheostoma nuchale) Recovery Plan. Jackson, Mississippi. 16 pp. Additional copies may be purchased from: Fish and Wildlife Reference Service 5430 Grosvenor Lane, Suite 110 Bethesda, Maryland 20814 Telephone: 301/492—6403 or 1/800/582—3421 Fees for recovery plans vary, depending on the number of pages.
    [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]
  • DIET CHANGES in BREEDING TAWNY OWLS &Lpar;<I>Strix Aluco</I>&Rpar;
    j Raptor Res. 26(4):239-242 ¸ 1992 The Raptor ResearchFoundation, Inc. DIET CHANGES IN BREEDING TAWNY OWLS (Strix aluco) DAVID A. KIRK 1 Departmentof Zoology,2 TillydroneAvenue, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen,Scotland, U.K. AB9 2TN ABSTVO,CT.--I examinedthe contentsof Tawny Owl (Strix alucosylvatica) pellets, between April 1977 and February 1978, in mixed woodlandand gardensin northeastSuffolk, England. Six mammal, 14 bird and 5 invertebratespecies were recordedin a sample of 105 pellets. Overall, the Wood Mouse (Apodemussylvaticus) was the most frequently taken mammal prey and the House Sparrow (Passer domesticus)was the mostfrequently identified bird prey. Two typesof seasonaldiet changewere found; first, a shift from mammal prey in winter to bird prey in the breedingseason, and second,a shift from smallprey in the winter to medium-sized(> 30 g) prey in the breedingseason. Contrary to somefindings elsewherein England, birds, rather than mammals, contributedsignificantly to Tawny Owl diet during the breedingseason. Cambiosen la dieta de bfihosde la especieStrix alucodurante el periodode reproduccibn EXTRACTO.--Heexaminado el contenidode egagrbpilasdel bfiho de la especieStrix alucosylvatica, entre abril de 1977 y febrerode 1978, en florestasy huertosdel norestede Suffolk, Inglaterra. Seismamlferos, catorceaves y cincoespecies invertebradas fueron registradosen una muestrade 105 egagrbpilas.En el total, entre los mamlferos,el roedorApodemus sylvaticus fue el que conmils frecuenciafue presade estos bfihos;y entre las aves,la presaidentificada con mils frecuenciafue el gorribnPasser domesticus. Dos tipos de cambib en la dieta estacionalfueron observados:primero, un cambib de clase de presa: de mamlferosen invierno a la de avesen la estacibnreproductora; y segundo,un cambiben el tamafio de las presas:de pequefiasen el inviernoa medianas(>30 g) en la estacibnreproductora.
    [Show full text]
  • Ketupa Zeylonensis) Released More Than a Decade After Admission to a Wildlife Rescue Centre in Hong Kong SAR China
    Survivorship and dispersal ability of a rehabilitated Brown Fish Owl (Ketupa zeylonensis) released more than a decade after admission to a wildlife rescue centre in Hong Kong SAR China The Brown Fish Owl, Sam, in captivity at Kadoorie Farm and Botanic Garden April 2008 Kadoorie Farm and Botanic Garden Publication Series: No 3 Survivorship and dispersal ability of a rehabilitated Brown Fish Owl (Ketupa zeylonensis) released more than a decade after admission to a wildlife rescue centre in Hong Kong SAR China Authors Rupert Griffiths¹ and Gary Ades ¹Present Address: The Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, West Hatch Wildlife Centre, Taunton, Somerset, TA 35RT, United Kingdom Citation Kadoorie Farm and Botanic Garden. 2008. Survivorship and dispersal ability of a rehabilitated Brown Fish Owl (Ketupa zeylonensis) released more than a decade after admission to a wildlife rescue centre in Hong Kong SAR China. Kadoorie Farm and Botanic Garden Publication Series No.3. Kadoorie Farm and Botanic Garden, Hong Kong Special Adminstrative Region. Copyright © Kadoorie Farm and Botanic Garden Corporation Lam Kam Road, Tai Po, N.T. Hong Kong Special Adminstrative Region April 2008 ii CONTENTS Page Execuitve Summary 1 Introduction 2 Methodology 3 Results 4 Discussion 4 Acknowledgments 5 References 5 Table 7 Figures 8 iii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY A Brown Fish Owl (Ketupa zeylonensis) which had been maintained in captivity at Kadoorie Farm & Botanic Garden, for 11 years following its rescue, was released at a site in Sai Kung in Hong Kong on 28th November 2003. Post-release monitoring was carried out and the bird was confirmed to have survived for at least 3 months before the radio-transmitter was dropped.
    [Show full text]
  • CALIFORNIA SPOTTED OWL (Strix Occidentalis Occidentalis) Jeff N
    II SPECIES ACCOUNTS Andy Birch PDF of California Spotted Owl account from: Shuford, W. D., and Gardali, T., editors. 2008. California Bird Species of Special Concern: A ranked assessment of species, subspecies, and distinct populations of birds of immediate conservation concern in California. Studies of Western Birds 1. Western Field Ornithologists, Camarillo, California, and California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento. California Bird Species of Special Concern CALIFORNIA SPOTTED OWL (Strix occidentalis occidentalis) Jeff N. Davis and Gordon I. Gould Jr. Criteria Scores Population Trend 10 Range Trend 0 Population Size 7.5 Range Size 5 Endemism 10 Population Concentration 0 Threats 15 Year-round Range Winter-only Range County Boundaries Water Bodies Kilometers 100 50 0 100 Year-round range of the California Spotted Owl in California. Essentially resident, though in winter some birds in the Sierra Nevada descend to lower elevations, where, at least to the south, small numbers of owls also occur year round. Outline of overall range stable but numbers have declined. California Spotted Owl Studies of Western Birds 1:227–233, 2008 227 Studies of Western Birds No. 1 SPECIAL CONCERN PRIORITY occurrence: one along the west slope of the Sierra Nevada from eastern Tehama County south to Currently considered a Bird Species of Special Tulare County, the other in the mountains of Concern (year round), priority 2. Included on southern California from Santa Barbara, Ventura, the special concern list since its inception, either and southwestern Kern counties southeast to together with S. o. caurina (Remsen 1978, 2nd central San Diego County. Elevations of known priority) or by itself (CDFG 1992).
    [Show full text]
  • <I>STRIX ALUCO</I>
    j Raptor Res. 28(4):246-252 ¸ 1994 The Raptor ResearchFoundation, Inc. DIET OF URBAN AND SUBURBAN TAWNY OWLS (STRIX ALUCO) IN THE BREEDING SEASON ANDRZEJ ZALEWSKI Mammal ResearchInstitute, Polish Academy of Sciences,77-230 Biatowieœa, Poland ABSTI•CT.--The diet of tawny owls (Strix aluco)was studiedduring the breedingseasons 1988-90 in an urbanand a suburbanarea in Torufi, Poland.Two amphibian,18 bird,and 14 mammalspecies were recordedas prey in a sampleof 312 pellets.From 600 prey itemsfound in bothsites, the housesparrow (Passerdomesticus) was the mostfrequently taken bird prey and the commonvole (Microtus arvalis) the mostfrequently taken mammal prey. Significantlymore mammals than birdswere taken at the suburban sitethan at the urbansite (P < 0.001). At the urbansite, the proportionof birds(except for tits [Parus spp.]and housesparrows) increased over the courseof the breedingseason, while the proportionof Apodemusspp. decreased.Similarly, at the suburbansite the proportionof all birds increasedand the proportionof Microtusspp. decreased. House sparrows at the urban site and Eurasiantree sparrows (Passermontanus) and tits at the suburbansite were takenin higherproportion than their availability. An examinationof dietarystudies from elsewhere in Europeindicated that therewas a positivecorrelation betweenmean prey sizeand increasingproportion of birdsin tawny owl diets(P = 0.003). KEY WORDS: tawnyowl; diet;urban and rural area;bird selection;prey-size selection. Dieta de Strixaluco urbano y suburbanoen la estaci6nreproductiva RESUMEN.--Seestudi6 la dietade Strixaluco durante las estacionesreproductivas de 1988 a 1990 en un fireaurbana y suburbanaen Torun, Polonia.Dos antibios, 18 avesy 14 especiesde mam•ferosfueron registradoscomo presa en una muestrade 312 egagr6pilas.De 600 categorlasde presasencontradas en ambossitios, Passer domesticus rue el ave-presamils frecuentejunto al mfimfferoMicrotus arvalis.
    [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]
  • Seasonal Changes in Tawny Owl (Strix Aluco) Diet in an Oak Forest in Eastern Ukraine
    Turkish Journal of Zoology Turk J Zool (2017) 41: 130-137 http://journals.tubitak.gov.tr/zoology/ © TÜBİTAK Research Article doi:10.3906/zoo-1509-43 Seasonal changes in Tawny Owl (Strix aluco) diet in an oak forest in Eastern Ukraine 1, 2 Yehor YATSIUK *, Yuliya FILATOVA 1 National Park “Gomilshanski Lisy”, Kharkiv region, Ukraine 2 Department of Zoology and Animal Ecology, Faculty of Biology, V.N. Karazin Kharkiv National University, Kharkiv, Ukraine Received: 22.09.2015 Accepted/Published Online: 25.04.2016 Final Version: 25.01.2017 Abstract: We analyzed seasonal changes in Tawny Owl (Strix aluco) diet in a broadleaved forest in Eastern Ukraine over 6 years (2007– 2012). Annual seasons were divided as follows: December–mid-April, April–June, July–early October, and late October–November. In total, 1648 pellets were analyzed. The most important prey was the bank vole (Myodes glareolus) (41.9%), but the yellow-necked mouse (Apodemus flavicollis) (17.8%) dominated in some seasons. According to trapping results, the bank vole was the most abundant rodent species in the study region. The most diverse diet was in late spring and early summer. Small forest mammals constituted the dominant group in all seasons, but in spring and summer their share fell due to the inclusion of birds and the common spadefoot (Pelobates fuscus). Diet was similar in late autumn, before the establishment of snow cover, and in winter. The relative representation of species associated with open spaces increased in winter, especially in years with deep snow cover, which may indicate seasonal changes in the hunting habitats of the Tawny Owl.
    [Show full text]
  • GCP LCC Regional Hypotheses of Ecological Responses to Flow
    Gulf Coast Prairie Landscape Conservation Cooperative Regional Hypotheses of Ecological Responses to Flow Alteration Photo credit: Brandon Brown A report by the GCP LCC Flow-Ecology Hypotheses Committee Edited by: Mary Davis, Coordinator, Southern Aquatic Resources Partnership 3563 Hamstead Ct, Durham, North Carolina 27707, email: [email protected] and Shannon K. Brewer, U.S. Geological Survey Oklahoma Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, 007 Agriculture Hall, Stillwater, Oklahoma 74078 email: [email protected] Wildlife Management Institute Grant Number GCP LCC 2012-003 May 2014 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS We thank the GCP LCC Flow-Ecology Hypotheses Committee members for their time and thoughtful input into the development and testing of the regional flow-ecology hypotheses. Shannon Brewer, Jacquelyn Duke, Kimberly Elkin, Nicole Farless, Timothy Grabowski, Kevin Mayes, Robert Mollenhauer, Trevor Starks, Kevin Stubbs, Andrew Taylor, and Caryn Vaughn authored the flow-ecology hypotheses presented in this report. Daniel Fenner, Thom Hardy, David Martinez, Robby Maxwell, Bryan Piazza, and Ryan Smith provided helpful reviews and improved the quality of the report. Funding for this work was provided by the Gulf Coastal Prairie Landscape Conservation Cooperative of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and administered by the Wildlife Management Institute (Grant Number GCP LCC 2012-003). Any use of trade, firm, or product names is for descriptive purposes and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government. Suggested Citation: Davis, M. M. and S. Brewer (eds.). 2014. Gulf Coast Prairie Landscape Conservation Cooperative Regional Hypotheses of Ecological Responses to Flow Alteration. A report by the GCP LCC Flow-Ecology Hypotheses Committee to the Southeast Aquatic Resources Partnership (SARP) for the GCP LCC Instream Flow Project.
    [Show full text]