DOCSLIB.ORG

Incorporating State Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategies Into a Southeast Aquatic Habitat Plan a Joint Project Of

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Incorporating State Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategies Into a Southeast Aquatic Habitat Plan a Joint Project Of Incorporating State Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategies into a Southeast Aquatic Habitat Plan A joint project of and June 2007 1 Incorporating State Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategies into a Southeast Aquatic Habitat Plan A joint project of the Southeast Aquatic Resources Partnership and The Nature Conservancy This project was conducted with the generous financial support of the Doris Duke Charitable Foundation and the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation (NFWF) under NFWF grant agreement 2005-0005-002. Recommended Citation: Southeast Aquatic Resources Partnership and The Nature Conservancy. 2007. “Incorporating State Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategies into a Southeast Aquatic Habitat Plan.” Nashville, TN. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This project was funded by a National Fish and Wildlife Federation grant, sponsored by the Doris Duke Charitable Foundation, to the Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency acting on behalf of the Southeast Aquatic Resources Partnership (SARP). Additional funding for this grant was provided through in-kind contributions from the SARP member agencies. The Nature Conservancy (TNC) led this project in collaboration with the SARP regional aquatic habitat planning committee. The TNC project lead was Sally Palmer, and Joey Wisby of TNC led the CWCS integration database development. SARP Coordinator Scott Robinson, along with Marilyn O’Leary and Ed Comstock assisted in meeting facilitation, logistics, and collecting feedback from SARP member-state CWCS planners. Finally, this project is built upon the expertise of the literally hundreds of participants in the 2003-2005 CWCS planning efforts of Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and Virginia. i EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Southeast is a region with more aquatic diversity than any other area of the continental United States (Palmer et al. 2005). The sustainability of these freshwater, estuarine, and marine habitats and the economic, social, and cultural benefits they provide is under threat by increasing urbanization and land use changes, nonpoint source pollution, invasive plant and animal species, and incompatible water management. The Southeast Aquatic Resources Partnership was formed in 2001 with the mission to “with partners, protect, conserve, and restore aquatic resources including habitats throughout the Southeast, for the continuing benefit, use and enjoyment of the American people” (SARP MOU 2001). The SARP member states (Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee and Texas), along with other agency signatories, namely the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission (GSMFC), and the Gulf and South Atlantic Fishery Management councils (GMFMC and SAFMC), are committed to collaborative, cross- jurisdictional efforts to improve and protect the aquatic resources of the Southeastern U.S. In 2005 the SARP worked with The Nature Conservancy to launch a regional scale aquatic habitat plan (see Palmer et al. 2005). During this time, the first National Fish Habitat Action Plan (NFHAP) was completed, which identified national habitat improvement objectives as well as recognizing the SARP as the pilot Fish Habitat Partnership for the Southeastern U.S. (Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies 2006). The SARP envisions its regional habitat plan as the primary vehicle for implementing both NFHAP and regional scale aquatic habitat objectives. Also in 2005, all nongame programs in SARP member states, as directed by Congress, submitted their Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategies (CWCS) to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for approval. The state CWCS plans encompass the variety of problems facing state-identified species of greatest conservation need (SGCN) as well as strategic conservation actions aimed at improving habitats and population status of SGCNs (TWRA 2005). While engaged with its pilot regional planning effort, the SARP recognized the importance of trying to incorporate its member state’s nongame CWCS work into the regional aquatic habitat plan. The Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency, acting on behalf of SARP, submitted a grant for this project to the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation’s “State Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Support Program,” which was founded with support of the Doris Duke Charitable Foundation. The goal of this program is to facilitate regional and/or national coordination in implementing state CWCS plans. The Nature Conservancy was invited by the SARP steering committee to continue participation on its regional habitat planning committee by leading the tasks associated with the objectives of this new grant project. The two primary objectives of this project were as follows: 1. Work with the SARP’s regional habitat planning committee and member state CWCS planners to incorporate the aquatic elements of the state CWCS plans into the Southeast Aquatic Habitat Plan. ii 2. Identify potential cross-border conservation strategies and specific opportunities for state and federal integrated conservation planning for shared aquatic resources. This project report is designed to assist the SARP habitat plan committee in its efforts to integrate the aquatic elements of its member state CWCS plans into the SARP regional aquatic habitat plan. By incorporating this CWCS information and engaging with the nongame programs of its member states, the SARP can help develop habitat restoration and protection strategies that cross both programmatic and political boundaries, increasing the effectiveness of existing agencies and organizations while leveraging available funding to maximize the financial resources available to achieve regional-scale conservation objectives. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS Acknowledgements………………………………………………………………………………………..i Executive Summary……………………………………………………………………………………….ii Introduction………………………………………………………………………………………………….1 Project Methodology………………………………………………………………………………………4 Project Outcomes…………………………………………………………………………………………19 Conclusions…………………………………………………………………………………………………24 References………………………………………………………………………………………………….25 Appendices………………………………………………………………………………………………….27 List of Tables Table 1. Descriptions of Problem Categories used in SARP CWCS assessment database (adapted from TWRA 2005)………………………………………………………………………10 Table 2. Strategy Taxonomy Problem Categories used in SARP CWCS Assessment database (adapted from TWRA 2005)……………………………………………………15 Table 3. USGS Water Resource Regions largely and partially within SARP member-state political boundaries…………………………………………………………………………..20 List of Appendices APPENDIX 1: USGS WATER RESOURCE SUBREGIONS LARGELY OR PARTIALLY CONTAINTED WITHIN SARP MEMBER STATE POLITICAL BOUNDARIES……………………..28 APPENDIX 2: USGS HUC-8 WATERSHEDS COMMON TO MULTIPLE SARP MEMBER STATES. ORGANIZED BY INDIVDUAL STATE………………………………………………36 APPENDIX 3: SARP MEMBER STATE CWCS PRIORITY MAPS……….…………………………….53 APPENDIX 4: SARP MEMBER STATE (+ VA) CWCS CONTACTS………………………………..100 iv INTRODUCTION Project Overview The Southeast Aquatic Resources Partnership and Southeast Aquatic Habitat Plan The Southeast Aquatic Resources Partnership (SARP) is comprised of signatories from 13 southeastern states (Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee and Texas), the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission (GSMFC), and the Gulf and South Atlantic Fishery Management councils (GMFMC and SAFMC). The SARP was established by a Memorandum of Understanding between its member agencies in 2001, committing those agencies to work together in partnership to address the variety of conservation challenges related to the management of aquatic resources at a landscape scale in the Southeastern United States (SARP MOU 2001). The mission of the SARP is “with partners, protect, conserve, and restore aquatic resources including habitats throughout the Southeast, for the continuing benefit, use and enjoyment of the American people” (SARP MOU 2001). One of the SARP’s primary focus areas is aquatic habitat, and the partnership began its first effort to draft a Southeast Aquatic Habitat Plan in 2003 (Palmer et al. 2005). During calendar year 2005, The Nature Conservancy (TNC) assisted the Southeast Aquatic Resources Partnership (SARP) in completing a more formal pilot watershed planning project designed to initiate the development of the SARP’s Southeast Aquatic Habitat Plan. This work was funded via a National Fisheries and Wildlife Foundation (NFWF) grant to the Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency (TWRA) acting on behalf of the SARP. The SARP was also successful in receiving multi-state conservation grant funds from the Southeast Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies (SEAFWA) to continue the planning effort beyond the pilot. While the SARP’s initial regional planning efforts were underway, in 2004 the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies agreed to lead the development of the National Fish Habitat Action Plan. The first national plan was completed in 2006 and identifies “Fish Habitat Partnerships” as the “primary work units” of the action plan (Association of Fish and Wildlife Associations 2006). The SARP currently is recognized as a pilot Fish Habitat Partnership the National
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Stream-Temperature Characteristics in Georgia
    STREAM-TEMPERATURE CHARACTERISTICS IN GEORGIA By T.R. Dyar and S.J. Alhadeff ______________________________________________________________________________ U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Water-Resources Investigations Report 96-4203 Prepared in cooperation with GEORGIA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION DIVISION Atlanta, Georgia 1997 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR BRUCE BABBITT, Secretary U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Charles G. Groat, Director For additional information write to: Copies of this report can be purchased from: District Chief U.S. Geological Survey U.S. Geological Survey Branch of Information Services 3039 Amwiler Road, Suite 130 Denver Federal Center Peachtree Business Center Box 25286 Atlanta, GA 30360-2824 Denver, CO 80225-0286 CONTENTS Page Abstract . 1 Introduction . 1 Purpose and scope . 2 Previous investigations. 2 Station-identification system . 3 Stream-temperature data . 3 Long-term stream-temperature characteristics. 6 Natural stream-temperature characteristics . 7 Regression analysis . 7 Harmonic mean coefficient . 7 Amplitude coefficient. 10 Phase coefficient . 13 Statewide harmonic equation . 13 Examples of estimating natural stream-temperature characteristics . 15 Panther Creek . 15 West Armuchee Creek . 15 Alcovy River . 18 Altamaha River . 18 Summary of stream-temperature characteristics by river basin . 19 Savannah River basin . 19 Ogeechee River basin. 25 Altamaha River basin. 25 Satilla-St Marys River basins. 26 Suwannee-Ochlockonee River basins . 27 Chattahoochee River basin. 27 Flint River basin. 28 Coosa River basin. 29 Tennessee River basin . 31 Selected references. 31 Tabular data . 33 Graphs showing harmonic stream-temperature curves of observed data and statewide harmonic equation for selected stations, figures 14-211 . 51 iii ILLUSTRATIONS Page Figure 1. Map showing locations of 198 periodic and 22 daily stream-temperature stations, major river basins, and physiographic provinces in Georgia.
    [Show full text]
  • Lloyd Shoals
    Southern Company Generation. 241 Ralph McGill Boulevard, NE BIN 10193 Atlanta, GA 30308-3374 404 506 7219 tel July 3, 2018 FERC Project No. 2336 Lloyd Shoals Project Notice of Intent to Relicense Lloyd Shoals Dam, Preliminary Application Document, Request for Designation under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act and Request for Authorization to Initiate Consultation under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act Ms. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 888 First Street, N.E. Washington, D.C. 20426 Dear Ms. Bose: On behalf of Georgia Power Company, Southern Company is filing this letter to indicate our intent to relicense the Lloyd Shoals Hydroelectric Project, FERC Project No. 2336 (Lloyd Shoals Project). We will file a complete application for a new license for Lloyd Shoals Project utilizing the Integrated Licensing Process (ILP) in accordance with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s (Commission) regulations found at 18 CFR Part 5. The proposed Process, Plan and Schedule for the ILP proceeding is provided in Table 1 of the Preliminary Application Document included with this filing. We are also requesting through this filing designation as the Commission’s non-federal representative for consultation under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act and authorization to initiate consultation under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. There are four components to this filing: 1) Cover Letter (Public) 2) Notification of Intent (Public) 3) Preliminary Application Document (Public) 4) Preliminary Application Document – Appendix C (CEII) If you require further information, please contact me at 404.506.7219. Sincerely, Courtenay R.
    [Show full text]
  • List of TMDL Implementation Plans with Tmdls Organized by Basin
    Latest 305(b)/303(d) List of Streams List of Stream Reaches With TMDLs and TMDL Implementation Plans - Updated June 2011 Total Maximum Daily Loadings TMDL TMDL PLAN DELIST BASIN NAME HUC10 REACH NAME LOCATION VIOLATIONS TMDL YEAR TMDL PLAN YEAR YEAR Altamaha 0307010601 Bullard Creek ~0.25 mi u/s Altamaha Road to Altamaha River Bio(sediment) TMDL 2007 09/30/2009 Altamaha 0307010601 Cobb Creek Oconee Creek to Altamaha River DO TMDL 2001 TMDL PLAN 08/31/2003 Altamaha 0307010601 Cobb Creek Oconee Creek to Altamaha River FC 2012 Altamaha 0307010601 Milligan Creek Uvalda to Altamaha River DO TMDL 2001 TMDL PLAN 08/31/2003 2006 Altamaha 0307010601 Milligan Creek Uvalda to Altamaha River FC TMDL 2001 TMDL PLAN 08/31/2003 Altamaha 0307010601 Oconee Creek Headwaters to Cobb Creek DO TMDL 2001 TMDL PLAN 08/31/2003 Altamaha 0307010601 Oconee Creek Headwaters to Cobb Creek FC TMDL 2001 TMDL PLAN 08/31/2003 Altamaha 0307010602 Ten Mile Creek Little Ten Mile Creek to Altamaha River Bio F 2012 Altamaha 0307010602 Ten Mile Creek Little Ten Mile Creek to Altamaha River DO TMDL 2001 TMDL PLAN 08/31/2003 Altamaha 0307010603 Beards Creek Spring Branch to Altamaha River Bio F 2012 Altamaha 0307010603 Five Mile Creek Headwaters to Altamaha River Bio(sediment) TMDL 2007 09/30/2009 Altamaha 0307010603 Goose Creek U/S Rd. S1922(Walton Griffis Rd.) to Little Goose Creek FC TMDL 2001 TMDL PLAN 08/31/2003 Altamaha 0307010603 Mushmelon Creek Headwaters to Delbos Bay Bio F 2012 Altamaha 0307010604 Altamaha River Confluence of Oconee and Ocmulgee Rivers to ITT Rayonier
    [Show full text]
  • Past and Future Freshwater Use in the United States: a Technical Document Supporting the 2000 USDA Forest Service RPA Assessment
    PastPast andand FutureFuture FreshwaterFreshwater UseUse inin thethe UnitedUnited StatesStates THOMAS C. BROWN UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE A Technical Document Supporting the 2000 USDA Forest Service RPA Assessment FOREST SERVICE ROCKY MOUNTAIN RESEARCH STATION GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT RMRS-GTR-39 SEPTEMBER 1999 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE FOREST SERVICE Abstract Brown, Thomas C. 1999. Past and future freshwater use in the United States: A technical document supporting the 2000 USDA Forest Service RPA Assessment. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-39. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, 47 p. Water use in the United States to the year 2040 is estimated by extending past trends in basic water- use determinants. Those trends are largely encouraging. Over the past 35 years, withdrawals in industry and at thermoelectric plants have steadily dropped per unit of output, and over the past 15 years some irrigated regions have also increased the efficiency of their water use. Further, per-capita domestic withdrawals may have finally peaked. If these trends continue, aggregate withdrawals in the U.S. over the next 40 years will stay below 10% of the 1995 level, despite a 41% expected increase in population. However, not all areas of the U.S. are projected to fare as well. Of the 20 water resource regions in the U.S., withdrawals in seven are projected to increase by from 15% to 30% above 1995 levels. Most of the substantial increases are attributable to domestic and public or thermoelectric use, although the large increases in 3 regions are mainly due to growth in irrigated acreage.
    [Show full text]
  • 11-1 335-6-11-.02 Use Classifications. (1) the ALABAMA RIVER BASIN Waterbody from to Classification ALABAMA RIVER MOBILE RIVER C
    335-6-11-.02 Use Classifications. (1) THE ALABAMA RIVER BASIN Waterbody From To Classification ALABAMA RIVER MOBILE RIVER Claiborne Lock and F&W Dam ALABAMA RIVER Claiborne Lock and Alabama and Gulf S/F&W (Claiborne Lake) Dam Coast Railway ALABAMA RIVER Alabama and Gulf River Mile 131 F&W (Claiborne Lake) Coast Railway ALABAMA RIVER River Mile 131 Millers Ferry Lock PWS (Claiborne Lake) and Dam ALABAMA RIVER Millers Ferry Sixmile Creek S/F&W (Dannelly Lake) Lock and Dam ALABAMA RIVER Sixmile Creek Robert F Henry Lock F&W (Dannelly Lake) and Dam ALABAMA RIVER Robert F Henry Lock Pintlala Creek S/F&W (Woodruff Lake) and Dam ALABAMA RIVER Pintlala Creek Its source F&W (Woodruff Lake) Little River ALABAMA RIVER Its source S/F&W Chitterling Creek Within Little River State Forest S/F&W (Little River Lake) Randons Creek Lovetts Creek Its source F&W Bear Creek Randons Creek Its source F&W Limestone Creek ALABAMA RIVER Its source F&W Double Bridges Limestone Creek Its source F&W Creek Hudson Branch Limestone Creek Its source F&W Big Flat Creek ALABAMA RIVER Its source S/F&W 11-1 Waterbody From To Classification Pursley Creek Claiborne Lake Its source F&W Beaver Creek ALABAMA RIVER Extent of reservoir F&W (Claiborne Lake) Beaver Creek Claiborne Lake Its source F&W Cub Creek Beaver Creek Its source F&W Turkey Creek Beaver Creek Its source F&W Rockwest Creek Claiborne Lake Its source F&W Pine Barren Creek Dannelly Lake Its source S/F&W Chilatchee Creek Dannelly Lake Its source S/F&W Bogue Chitto Creek Dannelly Lake Its source F&W Sand Creek Bogue
    [Show full text]
  • Sparrow-Web: a Graphical Interactive System for Displaying Reach-Level Water- Resource Information for Rivers of the Conterminous United States
    SPARROW-WEB: A GRAPHICAL INTERACTIVE SYSTEM FOR DISPLAYING REACH-LEVEL WATER- RESOURCE INFORMATION FOR RIVERS OF THE CONTERMINOUS UNITED STATES Michael C. Ierardi, Richard B. Alexander, Gregory E. Schwarz, and Richard A. Smith* ABSTRACT: The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) has developed an interactive Web-based tool called SPARROW-Web, for displaying water-quality model results and associated reach-level information for more than 63,000 rivers in the conterminous United States. Access is provided through a user-navigated hierarchical system of mapped watersheds, based on the Water Resources Council hydrologic drainage basin classification for the United States. These nested drainage basin classifications include 18 water-resources regions, 204 subregions, 334 accounting units, and 2,106 hydrologic cataloging units (HUC). Interactive maps of the HUC watersheds include state and county boundaries, major cities, HUC names and HUC code numbers, and river reaches from the enhanced U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's River Reach File (1:500,000 RF1). Additional information can be accessed below the cataloging unit interactive maps that reference the ”Science in Your Watershed” Web site. This site provides access to USGS National Water Information System (NWIS) real- time streamflow stations and other water-resource information related to the selected watershed. Selection of an individual river reach on the HUC-level maps displays stream characteristics such as mean discharge and velocity, and watershed characteristics for the drainage basin above the reach, including drainage area, land-use, population, nutrient sources, and predictions of mean-annual nutrient concentrations and yields (total nitrogen and phosphorus) from the SPARROW (SPAtially Referenced Regressions On Watershed attributes) model.
    [Show full text]
  • Rule 391-3-6-.03. Water Use Classifications and Water Quality Standards
    Presented below are water quality standards that are in effect for Clean Water Act purposes. EPA is posting these standards as a convenience to users and has made a reasonable effort to assure their accuracy. Additionally, EPA has made a reasonable effort to identify parts of the standards that are not approved, disapproved, or are otherwise not in effect for Clean Water Act purposes. Rule 391-3-6-.03. Water Use Classifications and Water Quality Standards ( 1) Purpose. The establishment of water quality standards. (2) W ate r Quality Enhancement: (a) The purposes and intent of the State in establishing Water Quality Standards are to provide enhancement of water quality and prevention of pollution; to protect the public health or welfare in accordance with the public interest for drinking water supplies, conservation of fish, wildlife and other beneficial aquatic life, and agricultural, industrial, recreational, and other reasonable and necessary uses and to maintain and improve the biological integrity of the waters of the State. ( b) The following paragraphs describe the three tiers of the State's waters. (i) Tier 1 - Existing instream water uses and the level of water quality necessary to protect the existing uses shall be maintained and protected. (ii) Tier 2 - Where the quality of the waters exceed levels necessary to support propagation of fish, shellfish, and wildlife and recreation in and on the water, that quality shall be maintained and protected unless the division finds, after full satisfaction of the intergovernmental coordination and public participation provisions of the division's continuing planning process, that allowing lower water quality is necessary to accommodate important economic or social development in the area in which the waters are located.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 335-6-11 Water Use Classifications for Interstate and Intrastate Waters
    Environmental Management Chapter 335-6-11 DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT WATER DIVISION - WATER QUALITY PROGRAM ADMINISTRATIVE CODE CHAPTER 335-6-11 WATER USE CLASSIFICATIONS FOR INTERSTATE AND INTRASTATE WATERS TABLE OF CONTENTS 335-6-11-.01 The Use Classification System 335-6-11-.02 Use Classifications 335-6-11-.01 The Use Classification System. (1) Use classifications utilized by the State of Alabama are as follows: Outstanding Alabama Water ................... OAW Public Water Supply ......................... PWS Swimming and Other Whole Body Shellfish Harvesting ........................ SH Fish and Wildlife ........................... F&W Limited Warmwater Fishery ................... LWF Agricultural and Industrial Water Supply ................................ A&I (2) Use classifications apply water quality criteria adopted for particular uses based on existing utilization, uses reasonably expected in the future, and those uses not now possible because of correctable pollution but which could be made if the effects of pollution were controlled or eliminated. Of necessity, the assignment of use classifications must take into consideration the physical capability of waters to meet certain uses. (3) Those use classifications presently included in the standards are reviewed informally by the Department's staff as the need arises, and the entire standards package, to include the use classifications, receives a formal review at least once every three years. Efforts currently underway through local 201 planning projects will provide additional technical data on certain waterbodies in the State, information on treatment alternatives, and applicability of various management techniques, which, when available, will hopefully lead to new decisions regarding use classifications. Of particular interest are those segments which are currently classified for any usage which has an associated Supp.
    [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]
  • A List of Common and Scientific Names of Fishes from the United States And
    t a AMERICAN FISHERIES SOCIETY QL 614 .A43 V.2 .A 4-3 AMERICAN FISHERIES SOCIETY Special Publication No. 2 A List of Common and Scientific Names of Fishes -^ ru from the United States m CD and Canada (SECOND EDITION) A/^Ssrf>* '-^\ —---^ Report of the Committee on Names of Fishes, Presented at the Ei^ty-ninth Annual Meeting, Clearwater, Florida, September 16-18, 1959 Reeve M. Bailey, Chairman Ernest A. Lachner, C. C. Lindsey, C. Richard Robins Phil M. Roedel, W. B. Scott, Loren P. Woods Ann Arbor, Michigan • 1960 Copies of this publication may be purchased for $1.00 each (paper cover) or $2.00 (cloth cover). Orders, accompanied by remittance payable to the American Fisheries Society, should be addressed to E. A. Seaman, Secretary-Treasurer, American Fisheries Society, Box 483, McLean, Virginia. Copyright 1960 American Fisheries Society Printed by Waverly Press, Inc. Baltimore, Maryland lutroduction This second list of the names of fishes of The shore fishes from Greenland, eastern the United States and Canada is not sim- Canada and the United States, and the ply a reprinting with corrections, but con- northern Gulf of Mexico to the mouth of stitutes a major revision and enlargement. the Rio Grande are included, but those The earlier list, published in 1948 as Special from Iceland, Bermuda, the Bahamas, Cuba Publication No. 1 of the American Fisheries and the other West Indian islands, and Society, has been widely used and has Mexico are excluded unless they occur also contributed substantially toward its goal of in the region covered. In the Pacific, the achieving uniformity and avoiding confusion area treated includes that part of the conti- in nomenclature.
    [Show full text]
  • Depth Information Not Available for Lakes Marked with an Asterisk (*)
    DEPTH INFORMATION NOT AVAILABLE FOR LAKES MARKED WITH AN ASTERISK (*) LAKE NAME COUNTY COUNTY COUNTY COUNTY GL Great Lakes Great Lakes GL Lake Erie Great Lakes GL Lake Erie (Port of Toledo) Great Lakes GL Lake Erie (Western Basin) Great Lakes GL Lake Huron Great Lakes GL Lake Huron (w West Lake Erie) Great Lakes GL Lake Michigan (Northeast) Great Lakes GL Lake Michigan (South) Great Lakes GL Lake Michigan (w Lake Erie and Lake Huron) Great Lakes GL Lake Ontario Great Lakes GL Lake Ontario (Rochester Area) Great Lakes GL Lake Ontario (Stoney Pt to Wolf Island) Great Lakes GL Lake Superior Great Lakes GL Lake Superior (w Lake Michigan and Lake Huron) Great Lakes AL Baldwin County Coast Baldwin AL Cedar Creek Reservoir Franklin AL Dog River * Mobile AL Goat Rock Lake * Chambers Lee Harris (GA) Troup (GA) AL Guntersville Lake Marshall Jackson AL Highland Lake * Blount AL Inland Lake * Blount AL Lake Gantt * Covington AL Lake Jackson * Covington Walton (FL) AL Lake Jordan Elmore Coosa Chilton AL Lake Martin Coosa Elmore Tallapoosa AL Lake Mitchell Chilton Coosa AL Lake Tuscaloosa Tuscaloosa AL Lake Wedowee Clay Cleburne Randolph AL Lay Lake Shelby Talladega Chilton Coosa AL Lay Lake and Mitchell Lake Shelby Talladega Chilton Coosa AL Lewis Smith Lake Cullman Walker Winston AL Lewis Smith Lake * Cullman Walker Winston AL Little Lagoon Baldwin AL Logan Martin Lake Saint Clair Talladega AL Mobile Bay Baldwin Mobile Washington AL Mud Creek * Franklin AL Ono Island Baldwin AL Open Pond * Covington AL Orange Beach East Baldwin AL Oyster Bay Baldwin AL Perdido Bay Baldwin Escambia (FL) AL Pickwick Lake Colbert Lauderdale Tishomingo (MS) Hardin (TN) AL Shelby Lakes Baldwin AL Walter F.
    [Show full text]
  • Dam Nation: a Geographic Census of American Dams and Their Large-Scale Hydrologic Impacts William L
    WATER RESOURCES RESEARCH, VOL. 35, NO. 4, PAGES 1305–1311, APRIL 1999 Dam nation: A geographic census of American dams and their large-scale hydrologic impacts William L. Graf Department of Geography, Arizona State University, Tempe Abstract. Newly available data indicate that dams fragment the fluvial system of the continental United States and that their impact on river discharge is several times greater than impacts deemed likely as a result of global climate change. The 75,000 dams in the continental United States are capable of storing a volume of water almost equaling one year’s mean runoff, but there is considerable geographic variation in potential surface water impacts. In some western mountain and plains regions, dams can store more than 3 year’s runoff, while in the Northeast and Northwest, storage is as little as 25% of the annual runoff. Dams partition watersheds; the drainage area per dam varies from 44 km2 (17 miles2) per dam in New England to 811 km2 (313 miles2) per dam in the Lower Colorado basin. Storage volumes, indicators of general hydrologic effects of dams, range 2 2 2 from 26,200 m3 km 2 (55 acre-feet mile 2) in the Great Basin to 345,000 m3 km 2 (725 2 acre-feet mile 2) in the South Atlantic region. The greatest river flow impacts occur in the Great Plains, Rocky Mountains, and the arid Southwest, where storage is up to 3.8 times the mean annual runoff. The nation’s dams store 5000 m3 (4 acre-feet) of water per person. Water resource regions have experienced individualized histories of cumulative increases in reservoir storage (and thus of downstream hydrologic and ecologic impacts), but the most rapid increases in storage occurred between the late 1950s and the late 1970s.
    [Show full text]