Proceedings Dedicated to the Preservation of Southeastern Fishes
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
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. -
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. -
Part IV: Scoring Criteria for the Index of Biotic Integrity to Monitor
Part IV: Scoring Criteria for the Index of Biotic Integrity to Monitor Fish Communities in Wadeable Streams in the Coosa and Tennessee Drainage Basins of the Ridge and Valley Ecoregion of Georgia Georgia Department of Natural Resources Wildlife Resources Division Fisheries Management Section 2020 Table of Contents Introduction………………………………………………………………… ……... Pg. 1 Map of Ridge and Valley Ecoregion………………………………..……............... Pg. 3 Table 1. State Listed Fish in the Ridge and Valley Ecoregion……………………. Pg. 4 Table 2. IBI Metrics and Scoring Criteria………………………………………….Pg. 5 References………………………………………………….. ………………………Pg. 7 Appendix 1…………………………………………………………………. ………Pg. 8 Coosa Basin Group (ACT) MSR Graphs..………………………………….Pg. 9 Tennessee Basin Group (TEN) MSR Graphs……………………………….Pg. 17 Ridge and Valley Ecoregion Fish List………………………………………Pg. 25 i Introduction The Ridge and Valley ecoregion is one of the six Level III ecoregions found in Georgia (Part 1, Figure 1). It is drained by two major river basins, the Coosa and the Tennessee, in the northwestern corner of Georgia. The Ridge and Valley ecoregion covers nearly 3,000 square miles (United States Census Bureau 2000) and includes all or portions of 10 counties (Figure 1), bordering the Piedmont ecoregion to the south and the Blue Ridge ecoregion to the east. A small portion of the Southwestern Appalachians ecoregion is located in the upper northwestern corner of the Ridge and Valley ecoregion. The biotic index developed by the GAWRD is based on Level III ecoregion delineations (Griffith et al. 2001). The metrics and scoring criteria adapted to the Ridge and Valley ecoregion were developed from biomonitoring samples collected in the two major river basins that drain the Ridge and Valley ecoregion, the Coosa (ACT) and the Tennessee (TEN). -
Fish Survey for Calhoun, Gordon County, Georgia
Blacktail Redhorse (Moxostoma poecilurum) from Oothkalooga Creek Fish Survey for Calhoun, Gordon County, Georgia Prepared by: DECATUR, GA 30030 www.foxenvironmental.net January 2018 Abstract Biological assessments, in conjunction with habitat surveys, provide a time-integrated evaluation of water quality conditions. Biological and habitat assessments for fish were conducted on 3 stream segments in and around Calhoun, Gordon County, Georgia on October 3 and 5, 2017. Fish, physical habitat, and water chemistry data were evaluated according to Georgia Department of Natural Resources (GADNR), Wildlife Resources Division (WRD) – Fisheries Section protocol entitled “Standard Operating Procedures for Conducting Biomonitoring on Fish Communities in Wadeable Streams in Georgia”. All of the water quality parameters at all sites were within the typical ranges for streams although conductivity was somewhat high across the sites. Fish habitat scores ranged from 80 (Tributary to Oothkalooga Creek) to 132.7 (Oothkalooga Creek). Native fish species richness ranged from 6 species (Tributary to Oothkalooga Creek) to 17 (Oothkalooga and Lynn Creeks). Index of biotic integrity (IBI) scores ranged from 16 (Tributary to Oothkalooga Creek; “Very Poor”) to 34 (Lynn Creek; “Fair”). Overall, the results demonstrate that Oothkalooga and Lynn Creeks are in fair condition whereas the Tributary to Oothkalooga Creek is highly impaired. Although the data are only a snapshot of stream conditions during the sampling events, they provide a biological characterization from which to evaluate the effect of future changes in water quality and watershed management in Calhoun. We recommend continued monitoring of stream sites throughout the area to ensure that the future ecological health of Calhoun’s water resources is maintained. -
Acknowledgments
Acknowledgments Many people contributed to the various sections of this report. The contributions of these authors, reviewers, suppliers of data, analysts, and computer systems operators are gratefully acknowl- edged. Specific contributions are mentioned in connection with the individual chapters. Chapter 1 Chapter 4 Authors: Jack Holcomb, USDA Forest Service Jack Holcomb, Team co-leader, John Greis, USDA Forest Service USDA Forest Service Patricia A. Flebbe, USDA Forest Service, Chapter 5 Southern Research Station Lloyd W. Swift, Jr., USDA Forest Service, Richard Burns, USDA Forest Service Southern Research Station Morris Flexner, U.S. Environmental Chapter 2 Protection Agency Authors: Richard Burns, USDA Forest Service Patricia A. Flebbe, USDA Forest Service, Bill Melville, U.S. Environmental Southern Research Station Protection Agency Jim Harrison, Team co-leader, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Chapter 6 Gary Kappesser, USDA Forest Service Jack Holcomb, USDA Forest Service Dave Melgaard, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Chapter 7 Jeanne Riley, USDA Forest Service Patricia A. Flebbe, USDA Forest Service, Lloyd W. Swift, USDA Forest Service, Southern Research Station Southern Research Station Jack Holcomb, USDA Forest Service Chapter 3 Jim Harrison, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Jim Harrison, U.S. Environmental Lloyd W. Swift, USDA Forest Service, Protection Agency Southern Research Station Geographic Information System Liaison (graphic and database development): Dennis Yankee, Tennessee Valley Authority Neal Burns, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Jim Wang, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Don Norris, USDA Forest Service Many people, in addition to the authors and their colleagues, contributed to the preparation of this report. Special thanks are given to the people who worked on various sub-teams and to the many reviewers and scientists who helped along the way. -
* This Is an Excerpt from Protected Animals of Georgia Published By
Common Name: CHEROKEE DARTER Scientific Name: Etheostoma scotti Other Commonly Used Names: none Previously Used Scientific Names: Etheostoma coosae Family: Percidae Rarity Ranks: G2/S2 State Legal Status: Threatened Federal Legal Status: Threatened Description: The Cherokee darter has a rounded snout, a distinct dark bar beneath the eye, and 7-8 dorsal blotches that may fuse with the 7-8 lateral blotches. The lateral blotches elongate into slightly oblique greenish-olive bars in breeding males. The anterior lateral line pores are usually outlined in black. Breeding males have an anterior red window and a single broad reddish band in the first dorsal fin, red in the second dorsal fin, and a green-edged anal fin. The caudal fin may also be edged in green dorsally and ventrally. Adult size of the Cherokee darter is 40-65 mm (1.6-2.6 in) total length. A recent population genetic study of the Cherokee darter identified three distinct evolutionarily significant units (ESUs) that are geographically separated. These ESUs are genetically distinct from one another, suggesting isolation from one another for at least tens of thousands of years. A male from the Richland Creek system (lower ESU) is pictured above. A male from the uppermost ESU and a female from the middle ESU are shown at the bottom of this account. Similar Species: The Cherokee darter belongs to the subgenus Ulocentra, commonly known as snubnose darters. Two other snubnose darters occur in the upper Coosa River basin, the Coosa darter (E. coosae) and holiday darter (E. brevirostrum). Breeding males of the three snubnose darters can be distinguished based on fin pigmentation: the Coosa darter has five discrete bands in the first dorsal fin; the holiday darter has a red band appearing over bluish or gray pigment in the second dorsal fin and anal fin; the Cherokee darter has a red wash in both the first and second dorsal fins, without banding (except lower ESU). -
Management Indicator Species Population and Habitat Trends
United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service Management Indicator Species Southern Region Population and Habitat Trends Chattahoochee-Oconee National Forests Revised and Updated May 2003 i CONTENTS Page Introduction......................................................................................................................... 1 Documentation of Management Indicator Species Selection ......................................... 1 Management Indicator Species Habitat Relationships............................................. 8 Forestwide Management Indicator Species Habitat Monitoring and Evaluation ............. 10 Forestwide Management Indicator Species Population Trend Monitoring and Evaluation ....................................................................................................................... 13 White-tailed Deer.......................................................................................................... 15 Black Bear..................................................................................................................... 19 Eastern Wild Turkey..................................................................................................... 23 Ruffed Grouse............................................................................................................... 27 Bobwhite Quail ............................................................................................................. 31 Gray Squirrel................................................................................................................ -
Environmental Assessment Is Recorded in a Decision Notice
Environmental United States Department of Assessment Agriculture Forest Service Vegetation Management in Open Areas November 2017 Ocoee Ranger District, Polk and McMinn Counties, Tennessee Tellico Ranger District, Monroe County, Tennessee Unaka Ranger District, Cocke and Greene Counties Watauga Ranger District, Carter, Johnson, Sullivan, Unicoi and Washington Counties, Tennessee For Information Contact: Mary Miller 2800 Ocoee Street North Cleveland, TN 37312 423-476-9700 The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, gender, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, or marital or family status. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, Room 326-W, Whitten Building, 14th and Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20250-9410 or call (202) 720-5964 (voice and TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. Table of Contents Glossary, Acronyms and Abbreviations ...........................................................1 Introduction .........................................................................................................7 Document Structure ......................................................................................... -
BRM SOP Part V 20110408
Part V: Scoring Criteria for the Index of Biotic Integrity and the Index of Well-Being to Monitor Fish Communities in Wadeable Streams in the Coosa and Tennessee River Basins of the Blue Ridge Ecoregion of Georgia Georgia Department of Natural Resources Wildlife Resources Division Fisheries Management Section Stream Survey Team May 23, 2013 1 Table of Contents Introduction……………………………………………………………….…...3 Figure 1: Map of Blue Ridge Ecoregion………………………….………..…6 Table 1: Listed Fish in the Blue Ridge Ecoregion………………………..…..7 Table 2: Metrics and Scoring Criteria………………………………..….…....8 Table 3: Iwb Metric and Scoring Criteria………………………….…….…..10 Figure 2: Multidimensional scaling ordination plot……………………….....11 Table 4: High Elevation criteria……………………………………….….....12 References………………………………………………………...………….13 Appendix A……………………………………………………………..……A1 Appendix B……………………………………………………….………….B1 2 Introduction The Blue Ridge ecoregion (BRM), one of Georgia’s six Level III ecoregions (Griffith et al. 2001), forms the boundary for the development of this fish index of biotic integrity (IBI). Encompassing approximately 2,639 mi2 in northeast Georgia, the BRM includes portions of four major river basins — the Chattahoochee (CHT, 142.2 mi2), Coosa (COO, 1257.5 mi2), Savannah (SAV, 345.3 mi2), and Tennessee (TEN, 894.2 mi2) — and all or part of 16 counties (Figure 1). Due to the relatively small watershed areas and physical and biological parameters of the CHT and SAV basins within the BRM, and the resulting low number of sampled sites, IBI scoring criteria have not been developed for these basins. Therefore, only sites in the COO and TEN basins, meeting the criteria set forth in this document, should be scored with the following metrics. The metrics and scoring criteria adopted for the BRM IBI were developed by the Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Wildlife Resources Division (GAWRD), Stream Survey Team using data collected from 154 streams by GAWRD within the COO (89 sites) and TEN (65 sites) basins. -
![Kyfishid[1].Pdf](https://docslib.b-cdn.net/cover/2624/kyfishid-1-pdf-1462624.webp)
Kyfishid[1].Pdf
Kentucky Fishes Kentucky Department of Fish and Wildlife Resources Kentucky Fish & Wildlife’s Mission To conserve, protect and enhance Kentucky’s fish and wildlife resources and provide outstanding opportunities for hunting, fishing, trapping, boating, shooting sports, wildlife viewing, and related activities. Federal Aid Project funded by your purchase of fishing equipment and motor boat fuels Kentucky Department of Fish & Wildlife Resources #1 Sportsman’s Lane, Frankfort, KY 40601 1-800-858-1549 • fw.ky.gov Kentucky Fish & Wildlife’s Mission Kentucky Fishes by Matthew R. Thomas Fisheries Program Coordinator 2011 (Third edition, 2021) Kentucky Department of Fish & Wildlife Resources Division of Fisheries Cover paintings by Rick Hill • Publication design by Adrienne Yancy Preface entucky is home to a total of 245 native fish species with an additional 24 that have been introduced either intentionally (i.e., for sport) or accidentally. Within Kthe United States, Kentucky’s native freshwater fish diversity is exceeded only by Alabama and Tennessee. This high diversity of native fishes corresponds to an abun- dance of water bodies and wide variety of aquatic habitats across the state – from swift upland streams to large sluggish rivers, oxbow lakes, and wetlands. Approximately 25 species are most frequently caught by anglers either for sport or food. Many of these species occur in streams and rivers statewide, while several are routinely stocked in public and private water bodies across the state, especially ponds and reservoirs. The largest proportion of Kentucky’s fish fauna (80%) includes darters, minnows, suckers, madtoms, smaller sunfishes, and other groups (e.g., lam- preys) that are rarely seen by most people. -
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. -
Field Operations Manual
United States Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water Office of Environmental Information Washington, DC EPA-841-B-07-009 National Rivers and Streams Assessment Field Operations Manual April 2009 National Rivers and Streams Assessment Final Manual Field Operations Manual Date: April 2009 Page ii This page is intentionally blank National Rivers and Streams Assessment Final Manual Field Operations Manual Date: April 2009 Page iii NOTICE The intention of the National Rivers and Streams Assessment project is to provide a comprehensive “State of the Flowing Waters” assessment for rivers and streams across the United States. The complete documentation of overall project management, design, methods, and standards is contained in four companion documents: National Rivers and Streams Assessment: Quality Assurance Project Plan (EPA- 841-B-07-007) National Rivers and Streams Assessment: Site Evaluation Guidelines (EPA-841-B- 07-008) National Rivers and Streams Assessment: Field Operations Manual (EPA-841-B-07- 009) National Rivers and Streams Assessment: Laboratory Methods Manual (EPA-841-B- 07-010) This document (Field Operations Manual) contains a brief introduction and procedures to follow at the base location and on-site, including methods for sampling water chemistry (grabs and in situ measurements), periphyton, benthic macroinvertebrates, sediment enzymes, fish composition, fish tissue (at non-wadeable sites), a fecal indicator, and physical habitat. These methods are based on the guidelines developed and followed in the Western Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program (Baker, et al., 1997), the methods outlined in Concepts and Approaches for the Bioassessment of Non-wadeable Streams and Rivers (Flotemersch, et al., 2006), and methods employed by several key states that were involved in the planning phase of this project.