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