DOCSLIB.ORG

KDFWR Annual Research Highlights 2011

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
KDFWR Annual Research Highlights 2011 Kentucky Department of Fish and Wildlife Resources Annual Research Highlights 2011 Volume V, Oct. 2012 Kentucky Department of Fish and Wildlife Resources Annual Research Highlights 2011 Volume V, Oct. 2012 Our Mission: To conserve and enhance fish and wildlife resources and provide opportunity for hunting, fishing, trapping, boating and other wildlife related activities. Annual Research Highlights 2011 1 Foreword tucky and to successfully imple- ment conservation measures for these species and habitats. These two documents are available to the public, and are intended for frequent revision and re-adjustment to incorpo- rate ever changing agency and public needs and interests. The 2011 Kentucky Department of Fish and Wildlife Resources Research Summary represents our targeted efforts to fulfill the goals of our State Wildlife Ac- tion Plan as well as the goals of the 2008 – 2012 Strategic Plan. These project summaries serve as a testament to KDFWR’s vig- ilance in the conservation of the fish and wildlife resources that we hold in trust for the public. Funding Sources and Guidance to Federal Programs Collaring black bear / Obie Williams The Kentucky Department of Fish and Wildlife Resources The mission of the Kentucky well as agency issues as a whole. receives no general fund taxpay- Department of Fish and Wildlife Re- er dollars. As a result, the Department sources (KDFWR) is to conserve and The five primary goals of the relies on hunting and fishing license enhance fish and wildlife resources Strategic plan are: fees, boat registration fees, and federal and to provide opportunity for hunt- 1) To conserve and enhance fish and programs to fund the seven divisions ing, fishing, trapping, boating, and wildlife populations and their habi- within KDFWR. Projects that are en- other wildlife related activities. To tats; tirely funded by the state are labeled effectively conserve and enhance all 2) To increase opportunity for, and safe “non-federal aid” (NFA); however, fish and wildlife resources in Kentucky, participation in hunting, fishing, most of the projects included in this long-term planning is necessary. Over trapping, boating, and other wildlife- document are partially or fully funded the past several years, KDFWR has related activities; by federal programs such as the State collaborated with multiple outside 3) To foster a more informed and in- and Tribal Wildlife Grant Program, agencies, non-profit organizations, pro- volved public; the Wildlife Restoration Act (Pittman- fessionals, and biologists to complete 4) To expand and diversify our Robertson), the Sport Fish Restoration two important planning documents: user base and Program (Dingell-Johnson), and the The 2008 – 2012 Kentucky Department 5) To create a more diverse, Cooperative Endangered Species Con- of Fish and Wildlife Resources Strate- effective, and efficient orga- servation Fund (Section 6). gic Plan (http://fw.ky.gov/pdf/strategic- nization. These federal programs serve a va- plan2008-2012.pdf), and Kentucky’s riety of purposes; however, each has an State Wildlife Action Plan (revised Complementing the Strategic Plan, underlying goal of fish, wildlife, and/ in 2010; http://fw.ky.gov/kfwis/stwg/). the State Wildlife Action Plan is Ken- or habitat conservation. Brief descrip- Both of these documents are designed tucky’s roadmap for sustaining fish and tions of each of these programs are as to guide agency decisions; however, wildlife diversity. The two primary follows: they serve two unique purposes. The goals of this plan are to identify and 2008 – 2012 Strategic Plan addresses prioritize important species and habitats fish and wildlife management issues as of conservation concern within Ken- 2 Kentucky Department of Fish & Wildlife Resources FOREWORD Federal Funding Source Program Goal Wildlife To restore, conserve, manage and Restoration Act enhance wild birds and mammals (Pittman-Robertson) and their habitats To fund fishery management Sport Fish Restoration projects, boating access, and aquatic (Dingell-Johnson) Program education Cooperative To fund conservation projects Endangered Species for candidate, proposed, or listed Conservation Fund species (Section 6) To develop and implement programs that benefit wildlife and State Wildlife Grant their habitats; specifically, species (SWG) Program and habitats of conservation concern Dove banding/ John Brunjes These federal programs provided Contents. For projects that have been in 2011, a brief 1-page overview of approximately 19 million dollars to completed and not yet published, a de- the project is included in the second KDFWR in 2011 (see Figure 1). For tailed summary will be included in the portion (“project highlights”) of the reference, we have included the state first portion (“completed projects”) of document. For select ongoing projects, and federal funding sources for each the document. For projects that began brief updates are included in the last project; however, these proj- section (“project updates”) of ects may be additionally 2% this document. In the table of supplemented by outside fund- contents, an expected date of ing provided by non-profit completion, where applicable, organizations or universities. is listed for each project. This When possible, we listed these will facilitate looking up de- sources in addition to the state tailed summaries of completed and federal funding sources. projects in later years. A com- For each project summary, we 38% prehensive project reference also identify the specific goals 50% guide lists all projects included of the strategic plan or State in Research Highlights docu- Wildlife Action Plan, as well ments, beginning with publica- as the KDFWR contact respon- tion year 2007. sible for each project. How to Use This 7% 3% Please use the Document following citation This document is divided 1% when referencing this into four main sections: pub- Hunting and Fishing Licenses Program Income document: lished research, completed Federal Reimbursement Miscellaneous Receipts Kentucky Department of projects, project highlights, Boat Registration Fees Interest Income Fish and Wildlife Resources and project updates. Citations Annual Research Highlights, for all published research 2011. Volume V. Publication with Kentucky Department of Figure 1. Kentucky Department of Fish and Wildlife of the Wildlife and Fisheries Fish and Wildlife involvement Resources Funding Sources 2011. Total revenues for Divisions. October, 2012, 142 are included in the Table of 2011 were $50,392,814.44 pp. Annual Research Highlights 2011 3 Table of Contents Published Research Characteristics of River Otters in Kentucky ............26 Contact Research Coordinator, Danna Baxley Status of a Reintroduced Black Bear Population in the ([email protected]) for reprints of these publications. Big South Fork Area in Kentucky .............................36 Culp, J.J., W.R. Haag, D.A. Arrington, and T.B. The Return of the Black Bear to Eastern Kentucky: Kennedy. 2011. Seasonal and species-specific patterns Conflict and Tolerance Between People in abundance of freshwater mussel glochidia and Wildlife ...............................................................45 in stream drift. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 30:436-445. American Woodcock Nocturnal Field Usage During Spring Migration in Central Kentucky ......................52 Eisenhour, D.J., A.M. Richter, and J.M. Schiering. 2011. Conservation status of the longhead darter, Percina macrocephala, in Kinniconick Creek, Kentucky. Quail and Grassland Bird Response to Production Southeastern Fishes Council Proceedings 53:13-20. Stands of Native Warm-Season Grasses ....................59 Frary, V.J., J. Duchamp, D.S. Maehr, and J.L. Larkin. The Common Raven in Cliff Habitat: Detectability and 2011. Density and distribution of a colonizing front of Occupancy .................................................................64 the American black bear Ursus americanus. Wildlife Biology 17:404-416. Development of In Vitro Laboratory Methods for Culturing Freshwater Mussels .................................70 Reidy, J.L., F.R. Thompson III, and J.W. Bailey. 2011. Comparison of methods for estimating density of The Conservation Status of forest songbirds from point counts. Journal of Cambarus veteranus Wildlife Management 75:558-568. (Big Sandy Crayfish) and Cambarus parvoculus (Mountain Midget Crayfish) in Kentucky ..............76 Shock, B.C., S.M. Murphy, L.L. Patton, P.M. Shock, C.Olfenbuttel, J. Beringer, S. Prange, D.M. Grove, M. Response of Crayfish Populations to Restored Stream Peek, J.W. Butfiloski, D.W. Hughes, J.M. Lockhart, Habitats in Disturbed Portions of East Fork Little S.N. Bevins, S. VandeWoude, K.R. Crooks, V.F. Sandy River Basin .....................................................80 Nettles, H.M. Brown, D.S. Peterson and M.J. Yabsley. 2011. Distribution and prevalence of Cytauxzoon Effects of Phragmites Removal on Species of felis in bobcats (Lynx rufus), the natural reservoir, Greatest Conservation Need at Clear Creek Wildlife and other wild felids in thirteen states. Veterinary Management Area .....................................................84 Parasitology 175:325-330. Natural Grassland Survey of the Interior Low Plateau Karst Priority Conservation Area ..............................92 Completed Projects Fisheries Project Highlights These projects began in 2011 Status and Life History of the Amblyopsid Cavefishes in Kentucky .................................................................9 Fishes Wildlife
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Species Status Assessment Report for the Barrens Darter (Etheostoma Forbesi)
    Species Status Assessment Report for the Barrens Darter (Etheostoma forbesi) Version 2.0 Acknowledgements: This Species Status Assessment would not have been possible without the research and assistance of Dr. Richard Harrington, Yale University Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, Dr. Hayden Mattingly and his students, Tennessee Tech University School of Environmental Studies, Dr. John Johansen, Austin Peay State University Department of Biology, and Mark Thurman, Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency. 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter 1: Introduction ............................................................................................................... 3 Chapter 2: Biology and Life History ........................................................................................... 4 Taxonomy ................................................................................................................................ 4 Genetic Diversity ..................................................................................................................... 5 Morphological Description ...................................................................................................... 5 Habitat ..................................................................................................................................... 6 Lifecycle .................................................................................................................................. 7 Population Needs ....................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Amblyopsidae, Amblyopsis)
    A peer-reviewed open-access journal ZooKeys 412:The 41–57 Hoosier(2014) cavefish, a new and endangered species( Amblyopsidae, Amblyopsis)... 41 doi: 10.3897/zookeys.412.7245 RESEARCH ARTICLE www.zookeys.org Launched to accelerate biodiversity research The Hoosier cavefish, a new and endangered species (Amblyopsidae, Amblyopsis) from the caves of southern Indiana Prosanta Chakrabarty1,†, Jacques A. Prejean1,‡, Matthew L. Niemiller1,2,§ 1 Museum of Natural Science, Ichthyology Section, 119 Foster Hall, Department of Biological Sciences, Loui- siana State University, Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70803, USA 2 University of Kentucky, Department of Biology, 200 Thomas Hunt Morgan Building, Lexington, KY 40506, USA † http://zoobank.org/0983DBAB-2F7E-477E-9138-63CED74455D3 ‡ http://zoobank.org/C71C7313-142D-4A34-AA9F-16F6757F15D1 § http://zoobank.org/8A0C3B1F-7D0A-4801-8299-D03B6C22AD34 Corresponding author: Prosanta Chakrabarty ([email protected]) Academic editor: C. Baldwin | Received 12 February 2014 | Accepted 13 May 2014 | Published 29 May 2014 http://zoobank.org/C618D622-395E-4FB7-B2DE-16C65053762F Citation: Chakrabarty P, Prejean JA, Niemiller ML (2014) The Hoosier cavefish, a new and endangered species (Amblyopsidae, Amblyopsis) from the caves of southern Indiana. ZooKeys 412: 41–57. doi: 10.3897/zookeys.412.7245 Abstract We describe a new species of amblyopsid cavefish (Percopsiformes: Amblyopsidae) in the genus Amblyopsis from subterranean habitats of southern Indiana, USA. The Hoosier Cavefish, Amblyopsis hoosieri sp. n., is distinguished from A. spelaea, its only congener, based on genetic, geographic, and morphological evi- dence. Several morphological features distinguish the new species, including a much plumper, Bibendum- like wrinkled body with rounded fins, and the absence of a premature stop codon in the gene rhodopsin.
    [Show full text]
  • Indiana Species April 2007
    Fishes of Indiana April 2007 The Wildlife Diversity Section (WDS) is responsible for the conservation and management of over 750 species of nongame and endangered wildlife. The list of Indiana's species was compiled by WDS biologists based on accepted taxonomic standards. The list will be periodically reviewed and updated. References used for scientific names are included at the bottom of this list. ORDER FAMILY GENUS SPECIES COMMON NAME STATUS* CLASS CEPHALASPIDOMORPHI Petromyzontiformes Petromyzontidae Ichthyomyzon bdellium Ohio lamprey lampreys Ichthyomyzon castaneus chestnut lamprey Ichthyomyzon fossor northern brook lamprey SE Ichthyomyzon unicuspis silver lamprey Lampetra aepyptera least brook lamprey Lampetra appendix American brook lamprey Petromyzon marinus sea lamprey X CLASS ACTINOPTERYGII Acipenseriformes Acipenseridae Acipenser fulvescens lake sturgeon SE sturgeons Scaphirhynchus platorynchus shovelnose sturgeon Polyodontidae Polyodon spathula paddlefish paddlefishes Lepisosteiformes Lepisosteidae Lepisosteus oculatus spotted gar gars Lepisosteus osseus longnose gar Lepisosteus platostomus shortnose gar Amiiformes Amiidae Amia calva bowfin bowfins Hiodonotiformes Hiodontidae Hiodon alosoides goldeye mooneyes Hiodon tergisus mooneye Anguilliformes Anguillidae Anguilla rostrata American eel freshwater eels Clupeiformes Clupeidae Alosa chrysochloris skipjack herring herrings Alosa pseudoharengus alewife X Dorosoma cepedianum gizzard shad Dorosoma petenense threadfin shad Cypriniformes Cyprinidae Campostoma anomalum central stoneroller
    [Show full text]
  • Francis Marion National Forest Freshwater Mussel Surveys: Final Report
    Francis Marion National Forest Freshwater Mussel Surveys: Final Report Contract No. AG-4670-C-10-0077 Prepared For: Francis Marion and Sumter National Forests 4931 Broad River Road Columbia, SC 29212-3530 Prepared by: The Catena Group, Inc. 410-B Millstone Drive Hillsborough, NC 27278 November 2011 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Background and Objectives ................................................................................. 1 2.0 STUDY AREA ........................................................................................................ 2 3.0 METHODS .............................................................................................................. 2 4.0 RESULTS ................................................................................................................ 3 5.0 DISCUSSION ........................................................................................................ 19 5.1 Mussel Habitat Conditions in the FMNF (Objective 1) ..................................... 19 5.2 Mussel Fauna of the FMNF (Objective 2) ......................................................... 19 5.2.1 Mussel Species Found During the Surveys ................................................ 19 5.3 Highest Priority Mussel Fauna Streams of the FMNF (Objective 3) ................. 25 5.4 Identified Areas that Warrant Further Study in the FMNF (Objective 4) .......... 25 6.0 LITERATURE CITED .........................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Simonthomas1985.Pdf (8.751Mb)
    r DESCRIPTIONS OF LARVAL PERCIDAE INHABITING THE UPPER MISSISSIPPI RIVER BASIN (OSTEICHTIIYES: ETHEOSTOMATINI) A Thesis Submitted to the Faculty of University. of Wisconsin·· ;.,; La Crosse LaCrosse,Wisconsin 54601 by Thomas P. Simon In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science in Biology May 1~85 • v\)-\ . \ () () UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN ... LA CROSSE La Crosse, Wisconsin 54601 COLLEGE OF ARTS, LETTERS, AND SCIENCES Candidate: Thomas P. Simon We recommend acceptance of this thesis to the College of Arts,. Letters, and Science in partial fulfillment of this candidate's requirements for thedegre~.}fElli3t~:r. ()~ .. SC!E!n.ce .in Biology. The candidate .has completed his oral defense of the thesis. Thesis approved: ~p2?;/J75~· Date qq?C~Tq8? D e 9-:f--~zc4f:s ~ L ~e~ f2~' ~ ?t:~J'J Thesis Committee Member /Dat Ii$<' Dea~: ~~A~~ers. ~:±tJ:jl!!~.C snd-Seienees . _ n •••• ~ulIJ\J ~ .its- rv~ 3<J, /tf~)--- Dean, Office of Graduate Studies Date 86,-00531 l1li ABSTRACT Eggs, larvae, and juveniles of six species of darters inhabiting the Upper Mississippi River are described. Attention to meristic, morphometric, pigment, and morphological apparent were employed for identification. Species of the genus Etheostoma possess well.developed pectoral fins, D1~:xillary, mandible,fewerthari 18 preanal myome:res, and have greater body depth tharacteristics/TL than does the subgenus Percina. The subgenus Catonotus (E. kennicotti, E.flabellare lineolatum, arid E. sguamiceps) has large, robust, spherical yolk sacs when compared to eithe~.. the Microperca, Percina, or Imostoma subgenera. The Microperca subgenus (E. microperca) has 15 preanal and 19 postanal myomeres and hatches at smaller lengths than other Etheostoma.
    [Show full text]
  • A SUMMARY of the LIFE HISTORY and DISTRIBUTION of the SPRING CAVEFISH, Chologaster ]Gassizi, PUTNAM, with POPULATION ESTIMATES for the SPECIES in SOUTHERN ILLINOIS
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Illinois Digital Environment for Access to Learning and Scholarship Repository A SUMMARY OF THE LIFE HISTORY AND DISTRIBUTION OF THE SPRING CAVEFISH, Chologaster ]gassizi, PUTNAM, WITH POPULATION ESTIMATES FOR THE SPECIES IN SOUTHERN ILLINOIS PHILIP W. SMITH -NORBERT M. WELCH Biological Notes No.104 Illinois Natural History Survey Urbana, Illinois • May 1978 State of Illinois Department of Registration and Education Natural History Survey Division A Summary of the life History and Distribution of the Spring Cavefish~ Chologasfer agassizi Putnam~ with Population Estimates for the Species in Southern Illinois Philip W. Smith and Norbert M. Welch The genus Chologaster, which means mutilated belly various adaptations and comparative metabolic rates of in reference to the absence of pelvic fins, was proposed all known amblyopsids. The next major contribution to by Agassiz ( 1853: 134) for a new fish found in ditches our knowledge was a series of papers by Hill, who worked and rice fields of South Carolina and described by him with the Warren County, Kentucky, population of spring as C. cornutus. Putnam (1872:30) described a second cave fish and described oxygen preferences ( 1968), food species of the genus found in a well at Lebanon, Tennes­ and feeding habits ( 1969a), effects of isolation upon see, naming it C. agassizi for the author of the generic meristic characters ( 1969b ), and the development of name. Forbes ( 1881:232) reported one specimen of squamation in the young ( 1971). Whittaker & Hill Chologaster from a spring in western Union County, ( 1968) described a new species of cestode parasite, nam­ Illinois, and noted that it differed from known specimens ing it Proteocephalus chologasteri.
    [Show full text]
  • THE NAUTILUS (Quarterly)
    americanmalacologists, inc. PUBLISHERS OF DISTINCTIVE BOOKS ON MOLLUSKS THE NAUTILUS (Quarterly) MONOGRAPHS OF MARINE MOLLUSCA STANDARD CATALOG OF SHELLS INDEXES TO THE NAUTILUS {Geographical, vols 1-90; Scientific Names, vols 61-90) REGISTER OF AMERICAN MALACOLOGISTS JANUARY 30, 1984 THE NAUTILUS ISSN 0028-1344 Vol. 98 No. 1 A quarterly devoted to malacology and the interests of conchologists Founded 1889 by Henry A. Pilsbry. Continued by H. Burrington Baker. Editor-in-Chief: R. Tucker Abbott EDITORIAL COMMITTEE CONSULTING EDITORS Dr. William J. Clench Dr. Donald R. Moore Curator Emeritus Division of Marine Geology Museum of Comparative Zoology School of Marine and Atmospheric Science Cambridge, MA 02138 10 Rickenbacker Causeway Miami, FL 33149 Dr. William K. Emerson Department of Living Invertebrates Dr. Joseph Rosewater The American Museum of Natural History Division of Mollusks New York, NY 10024 U.S. National Museum Washington, D.C. 20560 Dr. M. G. Harasewych 363 Crescendo Way Dr. G. Alan Solem Silver Spring, MD 20901 Department of Invertebrates Field Museum of Natural History Dr. Aurele La Rocque Chicago, IL 60605 Department of Geology The Ohio State University Dr. David H. Stansbery Columbus, OH 43210 Museum of Zoology The Ohio State University Dr. James H. McLean Columbus, OH 43210 Los Angeles County Museum of Natural History 900 Exposition Boulevard Dr. Ruth D. Turner Los Angeles, CA 90007 Department of Mollusks Museum of Comparative Zoology Dr. Arthur S. Merrill Cambridge, MA 02138 c/o Department of Mollusks Museum of Comparative Zoology Dr. Gilbert L. Voss Cambridge, MA 02138 Division of Biology School of Marine and Atmospheric Science 10 Rickenbacker Causeway Miami, FL 33149 EDITOR-IN-CHIEF The Nautilus (USPS 374-980) ISSN 0028-1344 Dr.
    [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]
  • Geological Survey of Alabama Calibration of The
    GEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF ALABAMA Berry H. (Nick) Tew, Jr. State Geologist WATER INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM CALIBRATION OF THE INDEX OF BIOTIC INTEGRITY FOR THE SOUTHERN PLAINS ICHTHYOREGION IN ALABAMA OPEN-FILE REPORT 0908 by Patrick E. O'Neil and Thomas E. Shepard Prepared in cooperation with the Alabama Department of Environmental Management and the Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources Tuscaloosa, Alabama 2009 TABLE OF CONTENTS Abstract ............................................................ 1 Introduction.......................................................... 1 Acknowledgments .................................................... 6 Objectives........................................................... 7 Study area .......................................................... 7 Southern Plains ichthyoregion ...................................... 7 Methods ............................................................ 8 IBI sample collection ............................................. 8 Habitat measures............................................... 10 Habitat metrics ........................................... 12 The human disturbance gradient ................................... 15 IBI metrics and scoring criteria..................................... 19 Designation of guilds....................................... 20 Results and discussion................................................ 22 Sampling sites and collection results . 22 Selection and scoring of Southern Plains IBI metrics . 41 1. Number of native species ................................
    [Show full text]
  • South Carolina Department of Natural Resources
    FOREWORD Abundant fish and wildlife, unbroken coastal vistas, miles of scenic rivers, swamps and mountains open to exploration, and well-tended forests and fields…these resources enhance the quality of life that makes South Carolina a place people want to call home. We know our state’s natural resources are a primary reason that individuals and businesses choose to locate here. They are drawn to the high quality natural resources that South Carolinians love and appreciate. The quality of our state’s natural resources is no accident. It is the result of hard work and sound stewardship on the part of many citizens and agencies. The 20th century brought many changes to South Carolina; some of these changes had devastating results to the land. However, people rose to the challenge of restoring our resources. Over the past several decades, deer, wood duck and wild turkey populations have been restored, striped bass populations have recovered, the bald eagle has returned and more than half a million acres of wildlife habitat has been conserved. We in South Carolina are particularly proud of our accomplishments as we prepare to celebrate, in 2006, the 100th anniversary of game and fish law enforcement and management by the state of South Carolina. Since its inception, the South Carolina Department of Natural Resources (SCDNR) has undergone several reorganizations and name changes; however, more has changed in this state than the department’s name. According to the US Census Bureau, the South Carolina’s population has almost doubled since 1950 and the majority of our citizens now live in urban areas.
    [Show full text]
  • Thesis Improving Rock Ramp Fishways for Small-Bodied
    THESIS IMPROVING ROCK RAMP FISHWAYS FOR SMALL-BODIED GREAT PLAINS FISHES Submitted by Tyler R. Swarr Department of Fish, Wildlife, and Conservation Biology In partial fulfillment of the requirements For the Degree of Master of Science Colorado State University Fort Collins, Colorado Summer 2018 Master’s Committee: Advisor: Christopher A. Myrick Kevin R. Bestgen Brian P. Bledsoe Copyright by Tyler R. Swarr 2018 All Rights Reserved ABSTRACT IMPROVING ROCK RAMP FISHWAYS FOR SMALL-BODIED GREAT PLAINS FISHES The growing global need to improve the longitudinal connectivity of lotic systems is often met by using fish passage structures (fishways). When designing fishways in the past, biologists and engineers focused primarily on strong swimming species such as salmonids. However, the majority of riverine species in the interior United States are not salmonids and may be excluded by fishways built using salmonid criteria due to lower swimming abilities and/or behavioral differences. I designed and built a 9.1-m long adjustable hydraulic research flume at the Colorado State University Foothills Fisheries Laboratory (FFL) to test fish passage and evaluate the effects of grade (slopes of 2 – 10%, in 2% increments) on the passage success of three Great Plains fish species: Flathead Chub Platygobio gracilis, Stonecat Noturus flavus, and Arkansas Darter Etheostoma cragini. A 6.1-m long rock ramp fishway was installed in the flume and four PIT tag antennas were used to detect full or partial passage success. In order to test the key assumption that tagging does not affect fish performance, I evaluated the impacts of 8-mm PIT tags on Arkansas Darter and found no significant difference in the survival and swimming abilities of PIT tagged fish versus non-tagged fish.
    [Show full text]
  • Endangered Species Act Section 7 Consultation Final Programmatic
    Endangered Species Act Section 7 Consultation Final Programmatic Biological Opinion and Conference Opinion on the United States Department of the Interior Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement’s Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act Title V Regulatory Program U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Ecological Services Program Division of Environmental Review Falls Church, Virginia October 16, 2020 Table of Contents 1 Introduction .......................................................................................................................3 2 Consultation History .........................................................................................................4 3 Background .......................................................................................................................5 4 Description of the Action ...................................................................................................7 The Mining Process .............................................................................................................. 8 4.1.1 Exploration ........................................................................................................................ 8 4.1.2 Erosion and Sedimentation Controls .................................................................................. 9 4.1.3 Clearing and Grubbing ....................................................................................................... 9 4.1.4 Excavation of Overburden and Coal ................................................................................
    [Show full text]