DOCSLIB.ORG

Aquatic Resource Report

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Aquatic Resource Report United States Department of Agriculture Aquatic Resource Report Forest Service September 2019 Foothills Landscape Project Chattahoochee-Oconee National Forests Dawson, Fannin, Gilmer, Habersham, Lumpkin, Murray, Rabun, and White Counties, Georgia For Information Contact: David Vinson, Zone Wildlife Biologist Chattahoochee-Oconee National Forests, Chattooga River Ranger District 9975 Highway 441S, Lakemont, GA 30552 706-754-6221 [email protected] In accordance with Federal civil rights law and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) civil rights regulations and policies, the USDA, its Agencies, offices, and employees, and institutions participating in or administering USDA programs are prohibited from discriminating based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity (including gender expression), sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, political beliefs, or reprisal or retaliation for prior civil rights activity, in any program or activity conducted or funded by USDA (not all bases apply to all programs). Remedies and complaint filing deadlines vary by program or incident. Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication for program information (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, American Sign Language, etc.) should contact the responsible Agency or USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720- 2600 (voice and TTY) or contact USDA through the Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339. Additionally, program information may be made available in languages other than English. To file a program discrimination complaint, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, AD-3027, found online at http://www.ascr.usda.gov/complaint_filing_cust.htm l and at any USDA office or write a letter addressed to USDA and provide in the letter all of the information requested in the form. To request a copy of the complaint form, call (866) 632-9992. Submit your completed form or letter to USDA by: (1) mail: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, D.C. 20250-9410; (2) fax: (202) 690-7442; or (3) email: [email protected]. USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender. Table of Contents Aquatic Resource Report ..................................................................................................................... 1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 1 Methodology ................................................................................................................................... 2 Species Identified for Analysis ...................................................................................................... 3 Species Analyzed in Detail .................................................................................................................... 3 Endangered Species Act (ESA) – Threatened, Endangered, or Proposed Species ................................ 3 Designated Critical Habitat .................................................................................................................... 3 *High Priority species in the State Wildlife Action Plan (SWAP) (GaDNR 2015) .............................. 5 Regional Forester Sensitive Species ...................................................................................................... 5 *High Priority species in the SWAP (GaDNR 2015) ............................................................................ 6 Management Indicator Species (MIS) ................................................................................................... 6 Locally Rare Species (LR) ..................................................................................................................... 6 Other Species of Public Interest ............................................................................................................. 7 Sources of information ........................................................................................................................... 7 Project Design Features ......................................................................................................................... 7 Analysis Indicators ................................................................................................................................ 7 Measures ................................................................................................................................................ 8 Assumptions........................................................................................................................................... 8 Spatial and Temporal Bounding of Analysis Area ................................................................................ 8 Affected Environment ................................................................................................................... 9 Rare Aquatic Fauna ..................................................................................................................... 12 Freshwater Mussels .............................................................................................................................. 12 Fish……............................................................................................................................................... 13 Amphibians .......................................................................................................................................... 14 Aquatic Insects ..................................................................................................................................... 15 Other Species of Concern .................................................................................................................... 15 Brook Trout and Non-Native Trout ................................................................................................. 15 Environmental Consequences ..................................................................................................... 16 Federally-Listed Species ...................................................................................................................... 16 i Alternative 1 – No Action .................................................................................................................... 16 Direct and Indirect Effects ............................................................................................................... 16 Critical Habitat (CH) and Primary Constituent Elements (PCEs) ................................................... 16 Cumulative Effects .......................................................................................................................... 17 Determination of Effects .................................................................................................................. 18 Alternative 2 – Proposed Action .......................................................................................................... 19 Direct Effects ................................................................................................................................... 19 Indirect Effects................................................................................................................................. 24 Critical Habitat (CH) and Primary Constituent Elements (PCEs) ................................................... 27 Cumulative Effects .......................................................................................................................... 28 Determination of Effects .................................................................................................................. 29 Compliance with Law, Regulation, Policy, and the Forest Plan ..................................................... 30 Literature Cited .................................................................................................................................. 31 Appendix A – Table of Proposed Activities ......................................................................................... AP1 Appendix B - Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Activities................................................. AP7 Appendix C – Aquatic Species Evaluated .......................................................................................... AP24 List of Tables Table 1 Federally-Listed Aquatic Species and Critical Habitat Units Analyzed in Detail for the Foothills Landscape Project ................................................................................................................................. 4 Table 2. Aquatic Regional Forester Sensitive Species Analyzed in Detail for the Foothills Landscape Project ................................................................................................................................................... 5 Table 3. Cumulative Effect on Aquatic Measures ...................................................................................... 18 Table 4 Alternative 2 Activities Potentially Affecting Riparian Corridor (100 Feet of Perennial and Intermittent Streams) .......................................................................................................................... 20 Table 5 Cumulative Effect on Aquatic Measures
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]
  • Habitat Suitability and Detection Probability of Longnose Darter (Percina Nasuta) in Oklahoma
    HABITAT SUITABILITY AND DETECTION PROBABILITY OF LONGNOSE DARTER (PERCINA NASUTA) IN OKLAHOMA By COLT TAYLOR HOLLEY Bachelor of Science in Natural Resource Ecology and Management Oklahoma State University Stillwater, OK 2016 Submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate College of the Oklahoma State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE December, 2018 HABITAT SUITABILITY AND DETECTION PROBABILITY OF LONGNOSE DARTER (PERCINA NASUTA) IN OKLAHOMA Thesis Approved: Dr. James M. Long Thesis Advisor Dr. Shannon Brewer Dr. Monica Papeş ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I am truly thankful for the support of my advisor, Dr. Jim Long, throughout my time at Oklahoma State University. His motivation and confidence in me was invaluable. I also thank my committee members Dr. Shannon Brewer and Dr. Mona Papeş for their contributions to my education and for their comments that improved this thesis. I thank the Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation (ODWC) for providing the funding for this project and the Oklahoma Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit (OKCFWRU) for their logistical support. I thank Tommy Hall, James Mier, Bill Rogers, Dick Rogers, and Mr. and Mrs. Terry Scott for allowing me to access Lee Creek from their properties. Much of my research could not have been accomplished without them. My field technicians Josh, Matt, and Erick made each field season enjoyable and I could not have done it without their help. The camaraderie of my friends and fellow graduate students made my time in Stillwater feel like home. I consider Dr. Andrew Taylor to be a mentor, fishing partner, and one of my closest friends.
    [Show full text]
  • Species Status Assessment (SSA) Report for the Ozark Chub (Erimystax Harryi) Version 1.2
    Species Status Assessment (SSA) Report for the Ozark Chub (Erimystax harryi) Version 1.2 Ozark chub (Photo credit: Dustin Lynch, Arkansas Natural Heritage Commission) August 2019 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service - Arkansas Ecological Services Field Office This document was prepared by Alyssa Bangs (U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) – Arkansas Ecological Services Field Office), Bryan Simmons (USFWS—Missouri Ecological Services Field Office), and Brian Evans (USFWS –Southeast Regional Office). We greatly appreciate the assistance of Jeff Quinn (Arkansas Game and Fish Commission), Brian Wagner (Arkansas Game and Fish Commission), and Jacob Westhoff (Missouri Department of Conservation) who provided helpful information and review of the draft document. We also thank the peer reviewers, who provided helpful comments. Suggested reference: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2019. Species status assessment report for the Ozark chub (Erimystax harryi). Version 1.2. August 2019. Atlanta, GA. CONTENTS Chapter 1: Executive Summary 1 1.1 Background 1 1.2 Analytical Framework 1 CHAPTER 2 – Species Information 4 2.1 Taxonomy and Genetics 4 2.2 Species Description 5 2.3 Range 6 Historical Range and Distribution 6 Current Range and Distribution 8 2.4 Life History Habitat 9 Growth and Longevity 9 Reproduction 9 Feeding 10 CHAPTER 3 –Factors Influencing Viability and Current Condition Analysis 12 3.1 Factors Influencing Viability 12 Sedimentation 12 Water Temperature and Flow 14 Impoundments 15 Water Chemistry 16 Habitat Fragmentation 17 3.2 Model 17 Analytical
    [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]
  • 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]
  • 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).
    [Show full text]
  • An Econometric Approach to Applied Microeconomic Theories: the Case of Natural Resource-Based Industries
    An Econometric Approach to Applied Microeconomic Theories: The Case of Natural Resource-Based Industries by Hakan Uslu A dissertation submitted to the Graduate Faculty of Auburn University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy Auburn, Alabama May 7, 2016 Keywords: Economic well-being, Demand, Cost Copyright 2016 by Hakan Uslu Approved by Larry Teeter, Professor, School of Forestry and Wildlife Sciences Conner Bailey, Professor, Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology Duha Altindag, Assistant Professor, Department of Economics Yaoqi Zhang, Professor, School of Forestry and Wildlife Sciences Abstract The forest products industry of Alabama has a dominant role in the state’s economy. The industry has experienced a general downturn in production, employment and number of operating establishments since the mid-1990s. In this study, the possible determinants of the decline in the forest products industry of Alabama are discussed. Moreover, economic impact analyses are used to investigate how the contribution of the industry to the economy of Alabama has changed since the mid-1990s. Additionally, econometric analyses are employed to estimate the relationship between the decline in the industry and changes in the factors behind the decline. Furthermore, additional econometric analyses are employed to estimate the relationship between economic well-being and forest sector dependence in the counties of Alabama. Results showed that the forest products industry of Alabama has lost many employees, production, mills, and contribution to the economy of the state between 1996 and 2012. There is statistically significant relationship between increases in cost of production and decreases in demand for the forest products and the downturn in the industry.
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • Fws–R4–Es–2014–N167; Fxes11130400000c2–145–Ff04e00000]
    This document is scheduled to be published in the Federal Register on 11/06/2014 and available online at http://federalregister.gov/a/2014-26362, and on FDsys.gov Billing Code 4310–55 DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Fish and Wildlife Service [FWS–R4–ES–2014–N167; FXES11130400000C2–145–FF04E00000] Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Final Recovery Plan for Georgia Pigtoe Mussel, Interrupted Rocksnail, and Rough Hornsnail AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior. ACTION: Notice of availability. SUMMARY: We, the Fish and Wildlife Service, announce the availability of the final recovery plan for the endangered Georgia pigtoe mussel, interrupted rocksnail, and rough hornsnail. The final recovery plan includes specific recovery objectives and criteria the interrupted rocksnail and rough hornsnail would have to meet in order for us to downlist them to threatened status under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). Recovery criteria for the Georgia pigtoe will be developed after we complete critical recovery actions and gain a greater understanding of the species. ADDRESSES: You may obtain a copy of the recovery plan by contacting Jeff Powell at the Alabama Field Office, by U.S. mail at U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Alabama Field Office, 1208–B Main Street, Daphne, AL 36526, or by telephone at (251) 441–5858; or by visiting our recovery plan website at http://www.fws.gov/endangered/species/recovery-plans.html. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeff Powell (see ADDRESSES above). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Introduction We listed the Georgia pigtoe mussel (Pleurobema hanleyianum), interrupted rocksnail (Leptoxis foremani), and rough hornsnail (Pleurocera foremani) as endangered species under the Act (16 U.S.C.
    [Show full text]
  • William March (William Edward Campbell)
    William March (William Edward Campbell) William March (1893-1954) was a decorated combat veteran of the U.S. Marine Corps in the First World War, a successful businessman, and an influential author of numerous novels and short stories. His literary work draws primarily on two sources: his childhood and youth in Alabama and his war experiences in France. Four of March’s six novels are set in Alabama, as are most of his short stories. March’s Alabama-based works are commonly referred to as the “Pearl County” or “Reedyville” series, after the fictional Alabama locales in which many of them are set. March was born William Edward Campbell on September 18, 1893, in Mobile, Mobile County. March was the second of 11 children born to John Leonard Campbell, an orphaned son of a Confederate soldier and itinerant worker in the lumber towns of south Alabama and the Florida panhandle, and Susan March Campbell, daughter of a well-to- do Mobile family. The Campbells, however, were poor, so William left school at the age of 14 to work in the office of a lumber mill in Lockhart, Covington County. At the age of 16, he moved to Mobile, where he took a job in a law office to earn money for school. He spent a year obtaining his high school diploma at Valparaiso University in Indiana and then studied law for a year at the University of Alabama in Tuscaloosa, Tuscaloosa County. He moved to New York City in 1916 and settled in Brooklyn, taking a job as a clerk with a New York law firm.
    [Show full text]
  • Reproductive Timing of the Largescale Stoneroller, Campostoma Oligolepis, in the Flint River, Alabama
    REPRODUCTIVE TIMING OF THE LARGESCALE STONEROLLER, CAMPOSTOMA OLIGOLEPIS, IN THE FLINT RIVER, ALABAMA by DANA M. TIMMS A THESIS Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science in The Department of Biological Sciences to The School of Graduate Studies of The University of Alabama in Huntsville HUNTSVILLE, ALABAMA 2017 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to thank my advisor Dr. Bruce Stallsmith for all his guidance on this project and greater dedication to raising awareness to Alabama’s river ecosystems. I am grateful to my other committee members, Dr. Gordon MacGregor and Dr. Debra Moriarity also from UAH. Thanks to everyone who braved the weather and elements on collecting trips: Tiffany Bell, Austin Riley, Chelsie Smith, and Joshua Mann. I would like to thank Megan McEown, Corinne Peacher, and Bonnie Ferguson for dedicating long hours in the lab. Special thanks to Matthew Moore who assisted in collections, lab work, and data processing. Most of all, I would like to thank my husband, Patrick, for his love and encouragement in all my endeavors. v TABLE OF CONTENTS Page • List of Figures viii • List of Tables x • CHAPTER ONE: Introduction 1 o Context 1 o Campostoma oligolepis Taxonomy 3 o History of Campostoma oligolepis 4 ▪ Campostoma oligolepis in the South 6 ▪ Campostoma Hybridization 8 ▪ Campostoma Ranges and Species Differentiation 9 ▪ Life History 12 ▪ Reproduction 12 o Purpose and Hypothesis 15 • CHAPTER TWO: Methodology 17 o Laboratory Analysis 19 o Reproductive Data 21 o Ovary and Oocyte Staging 22 o Statistical Analysis 22 • CHAPTER THREE: Results 27 o Reproductive Data 29 ▪ Ovary and Oocyte Development 32 ▪ Testicular Development 39 vi • CHAPTER FOUR: Discussion 40 o Study Limitations 40 o Lateral Line Scale Count 41 o Reproductive Cues and Environmental Influences 42 o Multiple-spawners 42 o Asymmetry of Ovaries 42 o Bourgeois Males 43 o Campostoma variability 44 o Conclusion 45 • WORKS CITED 46 vii LIST OF FIGURES Page • 1.1 Campostoma oligolepis, Largescale Stoneroller, specimens from the Flint River, Alabama.
    [Show full text]
  • Proceedings of the Indiana Academy of Science 1 1 8(2): 143—1 86
    2009. Proceedings of the Indiana Academy of Science 1 1 8(2): 143—1 86 THE "LOST" JORDAN AND HAY FISH COLLECTION AT BUTLER UNIVERSITY Carter R. Gilbert: Florida Museum of Natural History, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida 32611 USA ABSTRACT. A large fish collection, preserved in ethanol and assembled by Drs. David S. Jordan and Oliver P. Hay between 1875 and 1892, had been stored for over a century in the biology building at Butler University. The collection was of historical importance since it contained some of the earliest fish material ever recorded from the states of South Carolina, Georgia, Mississippi and Kansas, and also included types of many new species collected during the course of this work. In addition to material collected by Jordan and Hay, the collection also included specimens received by Butler University during the early 1880s from the Smithsonian Institution, in exchange for material (including many types) sent to that institution. Many ichthyologists had assumed that Jordan, upon his departure from Butler in 1879. had taken the collection. essentially intact, to Indiana University, where soon thereafter (in July 1883) it was destroyed by fire. The present study confirms that most of the collection was probably transferred to Indiana, but that significant parts of it remained at Butler. The most important results of this study are: a) analysis of the size and content of the existing Butler fish collection; b) discovery of four specimens of Micropterus coosae in the Saluda River collection, since the species had long been thought to have been introduced into that river; and c) the conclusion that none of Jordan's 1878 southeastern collections apparently remain and were probably taken intact to Indiana University, where they were lost in the 1883 fire.
    [Show full text]