DOCSLIB.ORG

Here Snapper Bycatch Volume and Locations

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Here Snapper Bycatch Volume and Locations NATIONAL FISH AND WILDLIFE FOUNDATION 2020 CONSERVATION INVESTMENTS 1 A snowy egret leaps into flight in Florida. 2 The National Fish and Wildlife Foundation is dedicated to sustaining, restoring and enhancing the nation’s fish, wildlife, plants and habitats for current and future generations. NFWF will advance its mission through innovative public and private partnerships, and by investing financial resources and intellectual capital into science-based programs designed to address conservation priorities and achieve measurable outcomes. In fiscal year 2020, NFWF invested $398.5 million to support more than 950 projects across the nation, generating an on-the-ground conservation impact of more than $701.6 million. An eastern indigo snake leaves its burrow in Georgia. 2 CONTENTS United States and U.S. Territories Fiscal Year 2020 Conservation Investments Alabama 3 Montana 39 Alaska 4 Nebraska 40 Arizona 5 Nevada 40 Arkansas 5 New Hampshire 41 California 6 New Jersey 42 Colorado 11 New Mexico 45 Connecticut 13 New York 45 Delaware 14 North Carolina 49 District of Columbia 16 North Dakota 51 Florida 17 Ohio 51 Georgia 19 Oklahoma 52 Hawaii 21 Oregon 52 Idaho 23 Pennsylvania 53 Illinois 24 Rhode Island 59 Indiana 25 South Carolina 60 Iowa 26 South Dakota 61 Kansas 26 Tennessee 62 Kentucky 26 Texas 63 Louisiana 27 Utah 65 Maine 29 Vermont 66 Maryland 30 Virginia 66 Massachusetts 32 Washington 69 Michigan 35 West Virginia 71 Minnesota 37 Wisconsin 72 Mississippi 37 Wyoming 73 Missouri 38 U.S. Territories 74 United States and International Fiscal Year 2020 Conservation Investments 76 Gulf Environmental Benefit Fund Fiscal Year 2020 Project Commitments 78 Impact-Directed Environmental Accounts Fiscal Year 2020 Project Commitments 82 1 UNITED STATES AND U.S. TERRITORIES FISCAL YEAR 2020 CONSERVATION INVESTMENTS 2 ALABAMA Florida Agricultural Saltwater and Mechanical University Expanding and Improving the Use of Electronic Alabama Forestry Foundation GIS Capacity and Training to Support Gulf- Monitoring in the Gulf of Mexico Shrimp Trawl Improving Habitat for At-Risk Species in South Wide Ecosystem Conservation and Restoration Fishery (multiple states) Alabama’s Longleaf Forests — II (AL, FL, LA, MS, TX) Expand and improve the use of electronic Engage family forest owners in south Provide geographic information system monitoring in the Gulf of Mexico shrimp Alabama to restore and enhance longleaf (GIS) expertise and training in support of trawl fishery by installing electronic pine forests to improve habitat for at-risk Gulf-wide ecosystem conservation and monitoring systems and collecting data species such as gopher tortoise, eastern restoration programs and projects. Project on protected species interactions and red indigo snake and eastern hognose snake. will develop GIS layers and maps where snapper bycatch volume and locations. Project will reach and educate landowners Gulf Coast Ecosystem Restoration Council Project will maximize the utility of the through direct mail and social media and Natural Resources Damage Assessment collected data for both fishery management marketing, workshops and field days, projects have been approved for planning and dealer verification of catch origin and restore 11,500 acres of longleaf through and implementation by the U.S. Department sustainable fishing practices. plantings, prescribed burning, and invasive of Agriculture. $173,145 species control, and collect gopher tortoise $300,000 population data on private lands. The Longleaf Alliance $300,000 Mississippi State University Collaborating to Restore Longleaf in the Gulf Novel Techniques for Restoring Shortleaf Pine- Coastal Plain Ecosystem Partnership Landscape Alabama Forestry Foundation Hardwood Ecosystems on Reclaimed Mine (AL, FL) Restoring Connectivity and Improving Sites (AL) Restore and maintain 44,000 acres of In-Stream Habitat in the Upper Sipsey Fork Restore 182 acres of shortleaf pine and longleaf pine habitat in south Alabama and Watershed (AL) shortleaf pine-oak habitat on a reclaimed the western panhandle region of Florida Replace improperly installed and maintained mine site in north-central Alabama, to benefit rare and declining species such culvert crossings to restore connectivity improving soil and water quality and as the Bachman’s sparrow, red-cockaded in 13 high-priority streams in Winston benefiting species such as northern woodpecker, gopher tortoise and northern County, Alabama, benefiting numerous bobwhite and freshwater mussels. bobwhite. Project will provide technical freshwater species, including the black Project will use the restored property as assistance to private landowners and deploy warrior waterdog and flattened musk turtle. a demonstration site to engage private an ecosystem support team to implement Project will improve habitat connectivity landowners and land managers through prescribed burning, plant longleaf pine, within 101 miles of streams, improve 20 field day events and short courses, seeking remove invasive species, and support rare acres of riparian forest, and engage at least to increase adoption of habitat restoration species recovery on public and private lands. 40 private landowners through education practices on additional reclaimed mine sites. $300,000 or technical assistance to promote $174,999 conservation practices on private lands. The Nature Conservancy $225,000 Mobile County Commission Accelerating Longleaf Pine Ecosystem Dauphin Island Causeway Shoreline and Restoration in the Chattahoochee Fall Line Alabama Wildlife Federation Habitat Restoration Project (AL) Area - V (AL, GA) Alabama Longleaf Pine Restoration on Private Complete design and implementation for Accelerate longleaf pine conservation on Lands - VI breakwater and a coastal marsh in Mobile more than 20,400 acres of public and private Restore and enhance nearly 5,000 acres of Bay on the east side of the Dauphin Island land in west Georgia and east Alabama, longleaf pine on private lands within priority Causeway. Project will create and protect benefiting red-cockaded woodpecker, counties for longleaf pine and northern critical coastal marsh habitat and reduce gopher tortoise and other at-risk species. bobwhite restoration in Alabama. Project the vulnerability of the only emergency/ Project will improve forests through will engage at least 100 private landowners hurricane evacuation route between the silvicultural treatments and implement through targeted outreach and technical mainland of south Mobile County and prescribed fire on existing and restored assistance and assist landowners with Dauphin Island. longleaf habitat, with activities focused on identifying eligible incentive programs for $4,900,000 properties buffering Fort Benning, as well establishing and managing longleaf pine and as high priority state and privately owned associated wildlife habitat. Reef Fish Conservation lands. $116,538 and Education Foundation $283,000 Engaging the Next Generation of Commercial Birmingham-Southern College Fishermen in the Gulf of Mexico (AL, FL, LA, The Nature Conservancy Creating an Alabama Forest Classroom (AL) MS, TX) Calvert Prong and Turkey Creek Stream Install a rainwater harvesting system, plant Develop a workforce training program to Restoration in the Locust Fork Watershed (AL) 30 native trees and shrubs and create a 0.3 recruit and educate young fishermen for Restore and enhance riparian forests and mile “Return of the Natives” Trail on the the commercial seafood harvesting sector. support federally-listed species on two 466-acre Turkey Creek Nature Preserve. Project will engage fishery leaders from sites within the Locust Fork watershed in Project will complement the addition of a various fisheries across the Gulf of Mexico Alabama. Project will restore approximately 120-seat Turkey Creek Classroom, with new in face-to-face meetings to design and plan 10 acres of riparian buffer and .5 miles of systems to channel rainwater from the roof a young fishermen training program for streambank, preventing an estimated 400 to a 1,400 gallon cistern and drip irrigation the Gulf of Mexico and develop a review of cubic yards of sediment from entering the system, filtering rainwater to protect the similar programs around the United States. watershed annually, and improve critical critically endangered vermilion darter. $25,835 habitat for the black warrior waterdog, $35,450 flattened musk turtle, vermilion darter and other listed species. $145,948 3 The Nature Conservancy Aleutians East Borough Kenai Watershed Forum Expanding Longleaf Pine Restoration in the Implementing Electronic Monitoring Baseline Assessment of Hydrology and Water Talladega Mountains (AL, GA) for the Pollock Trawl Fishery in the Quality within the Vogel Lake Complex (AK) Plant 420 acres of longleaf pine and improve Western Gulf of Alaska Establish baselines for hydrology and water an additional 17,500 acres of existing Increase electronic monitoring for discard quality parameters throughout the Vogel Lake longleaf habitat with prescribed fire within compliance in the small vessel Pollock complex on the Kenai Peninsula in Alaska the Talladega Mountains Longleaf Pine mid-water trawl fleet in the Western Gulf of to develop a treatment plan for invasive Conservation Partnership area of north- Alaska. Project will install electronic monitoring northern pike for the benefit of native coho central Alabama and northwest Georgia. systems onboard vessels, develop compliance salmon, sockeye salmon, and rainbow trout. Project will increase prescribed fire capacity
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Following Document Comes to You From
    MAINE STATE LEGISLATURE The following document is provided by the LAW AND LEGISLATIVE DIGITAL LIBRARY at the Maine State Law and Legislative Reference Library http://legislature.maine.gov/lawlib Reproduced from scanned originals with text recognition applied (searchable text may contain some errors and/or omissions) ACTS AND RESOLVES AS PASSED BY THE Ninetieth and Ninety-first Legislatures OF THE STATE OF MAINE From April 26, 1941 to April 9, 1943 AND MISCELLANEOUS STATE PAPERS Published by the Revisor of Statutes in accordance with the Resolves of the Legislature approved June 28, 1820, March 18, 1840, March 16, 1842, and Acts approved August 6, 1930 and April 2, 193I. KENNEBEC JOURNAL AUGUSTA, MAINE 1943 PUBLIC LAWS OF THE STATE OF MAINE As Passed by the Ninety-first Legislature 1943 290 TO SIMPLIFY THE INLAND FISHING LAWS CHAP. 256 -Hte ~ ~ -Hte eOt:l:llty ffi' ft*; 4tet s.e]3t:l:ty tfl.a.t mry' ~ !;;llOWR ~ ~ ~ ~ "" hunting: ffi' ftshiRg: Hit;, ffi' "" Hit; ~ mry' ~ ~ ~, ~ ft*; eounty ~ ft8.t rett:l:rRes. ~ "" rC8:S0R8:B~e tffi:re ~ ft*; s.e]38:FtaFe, ~ ~ ffi" 5i:i'ffi 4tet s.e]3uty, ~ 5i:i'ffi ~ a-5 ~ 4eeme ReCCSS8:F)-, ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ffi'i'El, 4aH ~ eRtitles. 4E; Fe8:50nable fee5 ffi'i'El, C!E]3C::lSCS ~ ft*; sen-ices ffi'i'El, ~ ft*; ffi4s, ~ ~ ~ ~ -Hte tFeasurcr ~ ~ eouRty. BefoFc tfte sffi4 ~ €of' ~ ~ 4ep­ i:tt;- ~ ffle.t:J:.p 8:s.aitional e1E]3cfisc itt -Hte eM, ~ -Hte ~ ~~' ~, ftc ~ ~ -Hte conseRt ~"" lIiajority ~ -Hte COt:l:fity COfi111'lissioReFs ~ -Hte 5a+4 coufity. Whenever it shall come to the attention of the commis­ sioner
    [Show full text]
  • Narrow River Watershed Plan (Draft)
    DRAFT Narrow River Watershed Plan Prepared by: Office of Water Resources Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management 235 Promenade Street Providence, RI 02908 Draft: December 24, 2019, clean for local review DRAFT Contents Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................ 1 I. Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 8 A) Purpose of Plan................................................................................................................. 8 B) Water Quality and Aquatic Habitat Goals for the Watershed ........................................ 12 1) Open Shellfishing Areas ............................................................................................. 12 2) Protect Drinking Water Supplies ................................................................................ 12 3) Protect and Restore Fish and Wildlife Habitat ........................................................... 12 4) Protect and Restore Wetlands and Their Buffers ....................................................... 13 5) Protect and Restore Recreational Opportunities ......................................................... 14 C) Approach for Developing the Plan/ How this Plan was Developed .............................. 15 II. Watershed Description .........................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • NON-TIDAL BENTHIC MONITORING DATABASE: Version 3.5
    NON-TIDAL BENTHIC MONITORING DATABASE: Version 3.5 DATABASE DESIGN DOCUMENTATION AND DATA DICTIONARY 1 June 2013 Prepared for: United States Environmental Protection Agency Chesapeake Bay Program 410 Severn Avenue Annapolis, Maryland 21403 Prepared By: Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin 51 Monroe Street, PE-08 Rockville, Maryland 20850 Prepared for United States Environmental Protection Agency Chesapeake Bay Program 410 Severn Avenue Annapolis, MD 21403 By Jacqueline Johnson Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin To receive additional copies of the report please call or write: The Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin 51 Monroe Street, PE-08 Rockville, Maryland 20850 301-984-1908 Funds to support the document The Non-Tidal Benthic Monitoring Database: Version 3.0; Database Design Documentation And Data Dictionary was supported by the US Environmental Protection Agency Grant CB- CBxxxxxxxxxx-x Disclaimer The opinion expressed are those of the authors and should not be construed as representing the U.S. Government, the US Environmental Protection Agency, the several states or the signatories or Commissioners to the Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin: Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia, West Virginia or the District of Columbia. ii The Non-Tidal Benthic Monitoring Database: Version 3.5 TABLE OF CONTENTS BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................................................. 3 INTRODUCTION ..............................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission Gordon Myers, Executive Director
    North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission Gordon Myers, Executive Director March 1, 2016 Honorable Jimmy Dixon Honorable Chuck McGrady N.C. House of Representatives N.C. House of Representatives 300 N. Salisbury Street, Room 416B 300 N. Salisbury Street, Room 304 Raleigh, NC 27603-5925 Raleigh, NC 27603-5925 Senator Trudy Wade N.C. Senate 300 N. Salisbury Street, Room 521 Raleigh, NC 27603-5925 Dear Honorables: I am submitting this report to the Environmental Review Committee in fulfillment of the requirements of Section 4.33 of Session Law 2015-286 (H765). As directed, this report includes a review of methods and criteria used by the NC Wildlife Resources Commission on the State protected animal list as defined in G.S. 113-331 and compares them to federal and state agencies in the region. This report also reviews North Carolina policies specific to introduced species along with determining recommendations for improvements to these policies among state and federally listed species as well as nonlisted animals. If you have questions or need additional information, please contact me by phone at (919) 707-0151 or via email at [email protected]. Sincerely, Gordon Myers Executive Director North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission Report on Study Conducted Pursuant to S.L. 2015-286 To the Environmental Review Commission March 1, 2016 Section 4.33 of Session Law 2015-286 (H765) directed the N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission (WRC) to “review the methods and criteria by which it adds, removes, or changes the status of animals on the state protected animal list as defined in G.S.
    [Show full text]
  • 5.1 Hydrology, Water Supply, and Water Quality
    5.1 HYDROLOGY, WATER SUPPLY, AND WATER QUALITY 5.1.1 OVERVIEW AND SUMMARY The proposed Master Plan Update will provide for additional water infrastructure facilities for the City of Solvang (City). The analysis of the proposed Master Plan Update was divided into potential construction and operational impacts to the surface and groundwater hydrology, the water supply, and water quality of the Santa Ynez River. The Master Plan Update proposes that the Santa Ynez River be the primary source of water for the City. The City will be required to obtain and implement a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) as required by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). Therefore, the proposed Master Plan Update impacts to water quality during construction would be less than significant (Class III). The proposed Master Plan Update impacts to surface water hydrology, groundwater hydrology, water rights, and water supplies during construction would be less than significant (Class III). Operation of the proposed wells identified in the Master Plan Update would result in minimal reductions in flows along the Santa Ynez River at the Alisal Bridge compared to baseline conditions. Surface water quantity and quality along the Santa Ynez River would be consistent with historic measurements at the Lompoc Narrows under baseline conditions and under the proposed Master Plan Update. Water right users along the Santa Ynez River downstream of Bradbury Dam to the Highway 101 Bridge in Buellton would receive their entire water right entitlement from the riparian groundwater basins and the Cachuma Project. Therefore, potential cumulative water right impacts would be less than significant (Class III).
    [Show full text]
  • Texas Rookery Islands Project
    5 Chapter 5: Texas Rookery Islands Project 5.1 Restoration and Protection of Texas Rookery Islands: Project Description ................................... 1 5.1.1 Project Summary................................................................................................................. 1 5.1.2 Background and Project Description .................................................................................. 3 5.1.3 Evaluation Criteria ............................................................................................................ 13 5.1.4 Performance Criteria and Monitoring .............................................................................. 14 5.1.5 Offsets ............................................................................................................................... 14 5.1.6 Estimated Cost .................................................................................................................. 15 5.2 Texas Rookery Islands Project: Environmental Assessment ......................................................... 16 5.2.1 Introduction and Background, Purpose and Need ........................................................... 16 5.2.2 Scope of the Environmental Assessment ......................................................................... 17 5.2.3 Project Alternatives .......................................................................................................... 18 5.2.4 Galveston Bay Rookery Islands ........................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Fish River Scenic Byway
    Fish River Scenic Byway State Route 11 Aroostook County Corridor Management Plan St. John Valley Region of Northern Maine Prepared by: Prepared by: December 2006 Northern Maine Development Commission 11 West Presque Isle Road, PO Box 779 ­ Caribou, Maine 04736 Phone: (207) 498­8736 Toll Free in Maine: (800) 427­8736 TABLE OF CONTENTS Summary ...............................................................................................................................................................3 Why This Byway?...................................................................................................................................................5 Importance of the Byway ...................................................................................................................................5 What’s it Like?...............................................................................................................................................6 Historic and Cultural Resources .....................................................................................................................9 Recreational Resources ............................................................................................................................... 10 A Vision for the Fish River Scenic Byway Corridor................................................................................................ 15 Goals, Objectives and Strategies.........................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Historic P U B Lic W Ork S P Roje Cts on the Ce N Tra L
    SHTOIRICHISTORIC SHTOIRIC P U B LIC W ORK S P ROJE TSCP ROJE CTS P ROJE TSC ON THE CE N TRA L OCA STCOA ST OCA ST Compiled by Douglas Pike, P.E. Printing Contributed by: Table of Contents Significant Transportation P rojects......2 El Camino Real................................................... 2 US Route 101...................................................... 3 California State Route 1...................................... 6 The Stone Arch Bridge ..................................... 11 Cold Spring Canyon Arch Bridge..................... 12 Significant W ater P rojects...................14 First Dams and Reservoirs................................ 14 First Water Company........................................ 14 Cold Spring Tunnel........................................... 15 Mission Tunnel ................................................. 16 Gibraltar Dam ................................................... 16 Central Coast Conduit....................................... 18 Water Reclamation In Santa Maria Valley....... 23 Twitchell Dam & Reservoir.............................. 24 Santa Maria Levee ............................................ 26 Nacimiento Water Project................................. 28 M iscellaneous P rojects of Interest.......30 Avila Pier .......................................................... 30 Stearns Wharf.................................................... 32 San Luis Obispo (Port Harford) Lighthouse..... 34 Point Conception Lighthouse............................ 35 Piedras Blancas Light ......................................
    [Show full text]
  • Coastal Resources Management Council
    650-RICR-20-00-01 650 – COASTAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT COUNCIL CHAPTER 20 – COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM SUBCHAPTER 00 – N/A PART 1 – COASTAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT PROGRAM – RED BOOK Table of Contents 1.1 Authorities and Purpose, Definitions and Procedures 1.1.1 Authority and Purpose 1.1.2 Definitions 1.1.3 Alterations and Activities that require an Assent from the Coastal Resources Management Council (formerly § 100) 1.1.4 Applications for Category A and Category B Council Assents (formerly § 110) 1.1.5 Variances (formerly § 120) 1.1.6 Special Exceptions (formerly § 130) 1.1.7 Setbacks (formerly § 140) 1.1.8 Climate Change and Sea Level Rise (formerly § 145) 1.1.9 Coastal Buffer Zones (formerly § 150) 1.1.10 Fees (formerly § 160) 1.1.11 Violations and Enforcement Actions (formerly § 170) 1.1.12 Emergency Assents (formerly § 180) 1.2 Areas Under Council Jurisdiction 1.2.1 Tidal and Coastal Pond Waters (formerly § 200) 1.2.2 Shoreline Features (formerly § 210) 1.2.3 Areas of Historic and Archaeological Significance (formerly § 220) 1.3 Activities Under Council Jurisdiction 1.3.1 In Tidal and Coastal Pond Waters, on Shoreline Features and Their Contiguous Areas (formerly § 300) 1.3.2 Alterations to Freshwater Flows to Tidal Waters and Water Bodies and Coastal Ponds (formerly § 310) 1.3.3 Inland activities and alterations that are subject to Council permitting (formerly § 320) 1.3.4 Activities located within critical coastal areas (formerly § 325) 1.3.5 Guidelines for the protection and enhancement of the scenic value of the coastal region (formerly § 330) 1.3.6 Protection and enhancement of public access to the shore (formerly § 335) 1.3.7 Federal Consistency (formerly § 400) 1.4 Maps of Water Use Categories - Watch Hill to Little Compton and Block Island 1.5 Shoreline Change Maps 1.6 Sea Level Affecting Marshes Model (SLAMM) Maps 1.1 Authorities and Purpose, Definitions and Procedures 1.1.1 Authority and Purpose Pursuant to the federal Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (16 U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Progress Report for the San Joaquin Valley Giant Garter Snake
    PROGRESS REPORT: 2003 SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY GIANT GARTER SNAKE CONSERVATION PROJECT Prepared by: Todd Williams, Wildlife Biologist Veronica Wunderlich, Biological Science Technician U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service San Luis National Wildlife Refuge Complex Box 2176 Los Banos, CA 93635 INTRODUCTION & BACKGROUND: The giant garter snake, Thamnophis gigas (Rossman & Stewart 1987), was designated as a federally threatened species throughout its range in October 1993 and (USFWS 1993). Giant garter snakes are endemic to the Central Valley of California, and historically occurred throughout the San Joaquin and Sacramento Valleys (Hansen and Brode 1980). They are thought to have occurred as far north as Butte County and south to Kern County, within the boundaries of the foothills of the Coastal and Sierra Nevada ranges. The current range of the giant garter snake is confined to the Sacramento Valley and isolated portions of the San Joaquin Valley (USFWS 1999). The giant garter snake is primarily an aquatic species that feeds on small fishes, tadpoles, and frogs (Fitch 1941). Historically, prey items included thick-tailed chub (Gila crassicauda), Sacramento blackfish (Orthodox microlepidus), and the California red- legged frog (Rana aurora draytoni), all of which have been extirpated from the giant garter snake’s current range (Rossman et al 1996). The habitat requirements of giant garter snakes include wetland areas with sufficient emergent vegetation for cover, openings in the vegetation for basking, and access to rodent burrows for shelter and winter periods of reduced activity (USFWS 1993). Giant garter snakes tend to be absent from rivers that support populations of large predatory fish as well as watercourses that have sand, gravel or rocky substrates (Hansen 1980).
    [Show full text]
  • Sabine Lake Galveston Bay East Matagorda Bay Matagorda Bay Corpus Christi Bay Aransas Bay San Antonio Bay Laguna Madre Planning
    River Basins Brazos River Basin Brazos-Colorado Coastal Basin TPWD Canadian River Basin Dallam Sherman Hansford Ochiltree Wolf Creek Colorado River Basin Lipscomb Gene Howe WMA-W.A. (Pat) Murphy Colorado-Lavaca Coastal Basin R i t Strategic Planning a B r ve Gene Howe WMA l i Hartley a Hutchinson R n n Cypress Creek Basin Moore ia Roberts Hemphill c ad a an C C r e Guadalupe River Basin e k Lavaca River Basin Oldham r Potter Gray ive Regions Carson ed R the R ork of Wheeler Lavaca-Guadalupe Coastal Basin North F ! Amarillo Neches River Basin Salt Fork of the Red River Deaf Smith Armstrong 10Randall Donley Collingsworth Palo Duro Canyon Neches-Trinity Coastal Basin Playa Lakes WMA-Taylor Unit Pr airie D og To Nueces River Basin wn Fo rk of t he Red River Parmer Playa Lakes WMA-Dimmit Unit Swisher Nueces-Rio Grande Coastal Basin Castro Briscoe Hall Childress Caprock Canyons Caprock Canyons Trailway N orth P Red River Basin ease River Hardeman Lamb Rio Grande River Basin Matador WMA Pease River Bailey Copper Breaks Hale Floyd Motley Cottle Wilbarger W To Wichita hi ng ver Sabine River Basin te ue R Foard hita Ri er R ive Wic Riv i r Wic Clay ta ve er hita hi Pat Mayse WMA r a Riv Rive ic Eisenhower ichit r e W h W tl Caddo National Grassland-Bois D'arc 6a Nort Lit San Antonio River Basin Lake Arrowhead Lamar Red River Montague South Wichita River Cooke Grayson Cochran Fannin Hockley Lubbock Lubbock Dickens King Baylor Archer T ! Knox rin Bonham North Sulphur San Antonio-Nueces Coastal Basin Crosby r it River ive y R Bowie R B W iv os r es
    [Show full text]
  • Information on the NCWRC's Scientific Council of Fishes Rare
    A Summary of the 2010 Reevaluation of Status Listings for Jeopardized Freshwater Fishes in North Carolina Submitted by Bryn H. Tracy North Carolina Division of Water Resources North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources Raleigh, NC On behalf of the NCWRC’s Scientific Council of Fishes November 01, 2014 Bigeye Jumprock, Scartomyzon (Moxostoma) ariommum, State Threatened Photograph by Noel Burkhead and Robert Jenkins, courtesy of the Virginia Division of Game and Inland Fisheries and the Southeastern Fishes Council (http://www.sefishescouncil.org/). Table of Contents Page Introduction......................................................................................................................................... 3 2010 Reevaluation of Status Listings for Jeopardized Freshwater Fishes In North Carolina ........... 4 Summaries from the 2010 Reevaluation of Status Listings for Jeopardized Freshwater Fishes in North Carolina .......................................................................................................................... 12 Recent Activities of NCWRC’s Scientific Council of Fishes .................................................. 13 North Carolina’s Imperiled Fish Fauna, Part I, Ohio Lamprey .............................................. 14 North Carolina’s Imperiled Fish Fauna, Part II, “Atlantic” Highfin Carpsucker ...................... 17 North Carolina’s Imperiled Fish Fauna, Part III, Tennessee Darter ...................................... 20 North Carolina’s Imperiled Fish Fauna, Part
    [Show full text]