DOCSLIB.ORG

Diversity, Distribution, and Conservation Status of the Native Freshwater Fishes of the Southern United States

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Diversity, Distribution, and Conservation Status of the Native Freshwater Fishes of the Southern United States Fisheries ISSN: 0363-2415 (Print) 1548-8446 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ufsh20 Diversity, Distribution, and Conservation Status of the Native Freshwater Fishes of the Southern United States Melvin L. Warren Jr. , Brooks M. Burr , Stephen J. Walsh , Henry L. Bart Jr. , Robert C. Cashner , David A. Etnier , Byron J. Freeman , Bernard R. Kuhajda , Richard L. Mayden , Henry W. Robison , Stephen T. Ross & Wayne C. Starnes To cite this article: Melvin L. Warren Jr. , Brooks M. Burr , Stephen J. Walsh , Henry L. Bart Jr. , Robert C. Cashner , David A. Etnier , Byron J. Freeman , Bernard R. Kuhajda , Richard L. Mayden , Henry W. Robison , Stephen T. Ross & Wayne C. Starnes (2000) Diversity, Distribution, and Conservation Status of the Native Freshwater Fishes of the Southern United States, Fisheries, 25:10, 7-31, DOI: 10.1577/1548-8446(2000)025<0007:DDACSO>2.0.CO;2 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1577/1548-8446(2000)025<0007:DDACSO>2.0.CO;2 Published online: 09 Jan 2011. Submit your article to this journal Article views: 684 View related articles Citing articles: 163 View citing articles Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ufsh20 Download by: [US Fish & Wildlife Service] Date: 25 April 2016, At: 06:40 CONSERVATION Diversity, Distribution, and Conservation Status of the Native Freshwater Fishes of the Southern United States By Melvin L. Warren, Jr., Brooks M. Burr, Stephen J. Walsh, Henry L. Bart, Jr., Robert C. Cashner, David A. Etnier, Byron J. Freeman, Bernard R. Kuhajda, Richard L. Mayden, Henry W. Robison, Stephen T. Ross, and Wayne C. Starnes ABSTRACT The Southeastern Fishes Council Technical Advisory Committee reviewed the diversity, distribution, and status of all native freshwater and diadromous fishes across 51 major drainage units of the south- ern United States. The southern United States supports more native fishes than any area of compara- ble size on the North American continent north of Mexico, but also has a high proportion of its fishes in need of conservation action. The review included 662 native freshwater and diadromous fishes and 24 marine fishes that are significant components of freshwater ecosystems. Of this total, 560 described, freshwater fish species are documented, and 49 undescribed species are included provi- sionally pending formal description. Described subspecies (86) are recognized within 43 species, 6 fishes have undescribed subspecies, and 9 others are recognized as complexes of undescribed taxa. Extinct, endangered, threatened, or vulnerable status is recognized for 28% (187 taxa) of southern freshwater and diadromous fishes. To date, 3 southern fishes are known to be extinct throughout their ranges, 2 are extirpated from the study region, and 2 others may be extinct. Of the extant south- ern fishes, 41 (6%) are regarded as endangered, 46 (7%) are regarded as threatened, and 101 (15%) are regarded as vulnerable. Five marine fishes that frequent fresh water are regarded as vulnerable. Our assessment represents a 75% increase in jeopardized southern fishes since 1989 and a 125% increase in 20 years. The trend for fishes in the southern United States is clear; jeopardized fishes are succes- sively being moved from the vulnerable category to that of imminent threat of extinction. he southern United States has the richest fish fishes in the southern United States. The Council recognized diversity and highest number of endemic fishes a need to provide up-to-date taxonomic, distributional, in North America north of Mexico (Burr and and conservation information on southern U.S. fishes due Mayden 1992; Warren et al. 1997). Unfortunately, to two factors related to dissemination of science-based this region also has a high proportion of its fish fauna information. First, research on taxonomy, distribution, and Downloaded by [US Fish & Wildlife Service] at 06:40 25 April 2016 threatened with extinction, a situation paralleled only in status of fishes, whether involving descriptions of new the arid western United States (Minckley and Deacon taxa, the backlog of undescribed taxa, or distributional 1991; Warren and Burr 1994). Despite more than 150 years surveys, is not usually readily available nor consulted and of research on southern fishes, scientific accounting of the understood by the public, natural resource managers, or ecology and taxonomy of this rich, complex fauna still policy makers. In the southern states, this communication continues. Over three dozen new southern fishes have lapse is exacerbated by the sheer number of native fishes, been discovered, and many of these scientifically the rapidity of taxonomic discovery, the backlog of taxa described, since publication of the last American Fisheries awaiting formal description or additional analysis, and the Society (AFS) conservation assessment (Williams et al. growing numbers of jeopardized fishes. Second, the U.S. 1989) and AFS list of common and scientific names of fish- Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) discontinued the desig- es (Robins et al. 1991). Often, newly discovered fish taxa nation of Category 2 species as candidates for listing are on the brink of extinction (e.g., Williams and Clemmer under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended 1991; Boschung et al. 1992; Warren et al. 1994), and the (USFWS 1996). The USFWS emphasized, however, that lack of critical information on their habitats and life histo- information derived from "States, and other private and ries precludes informed recovery efforts. public interests" would be sought on species in need of The Southeastern Fishes Council (SFC), modeled after protection and these information sources would serve as the Desert Fishes Council (Pister 1991), is an organization "the pool from which future candidates for listing" are of fisheries professionals dedicated to the conservation of drawn (USFWS 1996). To bridge the information gap from October 2000 Fisheries 7 CONSERVATION scientific discovery to management and policy, the SFC (Bowles and Arsuffi 1993; Etnier 1997). Small to medium- sought to provide in summary form the best available sci- size rivers of the region have been dammed and channel- ence-based information on the diversity, distribution, and ized extensively (Soballe et al. 1992), are subjected to urban status of southern fishes. In 1997, the SFC Technical Advi- sprawl (Burkhead et al. 1997), and/or are recipients of sory Committee was charged with reviewing the southern point (e.g., Fenholloway River, FL; Gilbert 1992) and non- fish fauna. Acting upon that charge, the Technical Adviso- point source pollutants (e.g., Etowah River, GA; Burkhead ry Committee compiled available data on southern U.S. et al. 1997). Nearly all large rivers in the southern United fishes and is responsible for the resulting conclusions. The States are dammed (Dynesius and Nilsson 1994) and exist- SFC views dissemination of this information as critical to ing large river dams and associated flow alterations have the management, integrity, and ultimate survival of the reduced or precluded spawning runs of many anadro- southern U.S. fish fauna. mous species (Angermeier 1995; Burkhead et al. 1997). The AFS has provided a leadership forum for the devel- Importantly, we emphasize that imperilment is not con- opment and communication of professionally derived con- strained to a particular taxonomic group of southern fishes servation status designations for North American fishes nor a particular river basin. Research clearly has shown (Deacon et al. 1979; Williams et al. 1989), freshwater mus- that population decline and range shrinkage are wide- sels (Williams et al. 1993), and crayfishes (Taylor et al. spread across taxonomic groups of fishes and among river 1996). Using the AFS efforts as a template, our purposes basins in the region (Angermeier 1995; Warren et al. 1997). are to assess potential and realized diversity of southern Rapid population growth and concomitant increases in fishes, to provide distributions of fishes within major consumption of natural resources in the southern United southern hydrologic units, and to assign conservation sta- States are the greatest challenges to aquatic resource man- tus to all native fishes of the southern United States. agement and dictate what we can do now and what we will be able to do in the future to conserve southern fishes Imperilment: patterns, causes, (Noss and Peters 1995; Folkerts 1997; Cordell et al. 1998). and challenges Southern aquatic biota face multiple threats as develop- Decline of native fishes in the southern United States ment of land and water resources continues to accelerate generally is attributable to pervasive, complex habitat to accommodate population growth of 84% from 1950 to degradation across the landscape that both reduces and 1990. Most of this growth occurred in the last 20 years fragments ranges and increases isolation of fish populations (Cordell et al. 1998; Wear et al. 1998). Population growth is (Angermeier 1995; Warren et al. 1997). Human-induced the underlying cause for efforts to build more dams (e.g., impacts to southern aquatic systems are similar to those Locust Fork of Black Warrior River, AL), for continuous repeatedly cited for fish declines or losses across the Unit- proposals for channel maintenance dredging (e.g., White ed States and worldwide (Moyle and Leidy 1992; Stiassny River, AR), for major interbasin transfers of water for met- 1996; Richter et al. 1997). Physical habitat alteration in the ropolitan areas (e.g., Mobile basin to Apalachicola-Chatta- form of channelization, impoundment, sedimentation, and hoochee River, AL, FL, GA), for over-pumping of major flow modification are frequently associated with species aquifers that feed vital and diverse aquatic habitats (e.g., declines and continue to threaten southern fishes (Walsh et Edwards Aquifer, TX; Bowles and Arsuffi 1993), and for al. 1995; Etnier 1997; Burkhead et al. 1997). Because so diminishment of once-rich, biologically productive river many southern fishes are geographically restricted and deltas (e.g., Mobile Delta, AL; Finch 1998).
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Geological Survey of Alabama Biological
    GEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF ALABAMA Berry H. (Nick) Tew, Jr. State Geologist ECOSYSTEMS INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LITTLE CHOCTAWHATCHEE RIVER WATERSHED IN ALABAMA OPEN-FILE REPORT 1105 by Patrick E. O'Neil and Thomas E. Shepard Prepared in cooperation with the Choctawhatchee, Pea and Yellow Rivers Watershed Management Authority Tuscaloosa, Alabama 2011 TABLE OF CONTENTS Abstract ............................................................ 1 Introduction.......................................................... 1 Acknowledgments .................................................... 3 Study area .......................................................... 3 Methods ............................................................ 3 IBI sample collection ............................................. 3 Habitat measures................................................ 8 Habitat metrics ............................................ 9 IBI metrics and scoring criteria..................................... 12 Results and discussion................................................ 17 Sampling sites and collection results . 17 Relationships between habitat and biological condition . 28 Conclusions ........................................................ 31 References cited..................................................... 33 LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Habitat evaluation form......................................... 10 Table 2. Fish community sampling sites in the Little Choctawhatchee River watershed ...................................................
    [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]
  • Proceedings of the Indiana Academy of Science 1 1 8(2): 143—1 86
    2009. Proceedings of the Indiana Academy of Science 1 1 8(2): 143—1 86 THE "LOST" JORDAN AND HAY FISH COLLECTION AT BUTLER UNIVERSITY Carter R. Gilbert: Florida Museum of Natural History, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida 32611 USA ABSTRACT. A large fish collection, preserved in ethanol and assembled by Drs. David S. Jordan and Oliver P. Hay between 1875 and 1892, had been stored for over a century in the biology building at Butler University. The collection was of historical importance since it contained some of the earliest fish material ever recorded from the states of South Carolina, Georgia, Mississippi and Kansas, and also included types of many new species collected during the course of this work. In addition to material collected by Jordan and Hay, the collection also included specimens received by Butler University during the early 1880s from the Smithsonian Institution, in exchange for material (including many types) sent to that institution. Many ichthyologists had assumed that Jordan, upon his departure from Butler in 1879. had taken the collection. essentially intact, to Indiana University, where soon thereafter (in July 1883) it was destroyed by fire. The present study confirms that most of the collection was probably transferred to Indiana, but that significant parts of it remained at Butler. The most important results of this study are: a) analysis of the size and content of the existing Butler fish collection; b) discovery of four specimens of Micropterus coosae in the Saluda River collection, since the species had long been thought to have been introduced into that river; and c) the conclusion that none of Jordan's 1878 southeastern collections apparently remain and were probably taken intact to Indiana University, where they were lost in the 1883 fire.
    [Show full text]
  • Geological Survey of Alabama Calibration of The
    GEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF ALABAMA Berry H. (Nick) Tew, Jr. State Geologist ECOSYSTEMS INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM CALIBRATION OF THE INDEX OF BIOTIC INTEGRITY FOR THE SOUTHERN PLAINS ICHTHYOREGION IN ALABAMA OPEN-FILE REPORT 1210 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 2012 TABLE OF CONTENTS Abstract ............................................................ 1 Introduction.......................................................... 2 Acknowledgments .................................................... 6 Objectives........................................................... 7 Study area .......................................................... 7 Southern Plains ichthyoregion ...................................... 7 Methods ............................................................ 9 IBI sample collection ............................................. 9 Habitat measures............................................... 11 Habitat metrics ........................................... 12 The human disturbance gradient ................................... 16 IBI metrics and scoring criteria..................................... 20 Designation of guilds....................................... 21 Results and discussion................................................ 23 Sampling sites and collection results . 23 Selection and scoring of Southern Plains IBI metrics . 48 Metrics selected for the
    [Show full text]
  • BRM SOP Part V 20110408
    Part V: Scoring Criteria for the Index of Biotic Integrity and the Index of Well-Being to Monitor Fish Communities in Wadeable Streams in the Coosa and Tennessee River Basins of the Blue Ridge Ecoregion of Georgia Georgia Department of Natural Resources Wildlife Resources Division Fisheries Management Section Stream Survey Team May 23, 2013 1 Table of Contents Introduction……………………………………………………………….…...3 Figure 1: Map of Blue Ridge Ecoregion………………………….………..…6 Table 1: Listed Fish in the Blue Ridge Ecoregion………………………..…..7 Table 2: Metrics and Scoring Criteria………………………………..….…....8 Table 3: Iwb Metric and Scoring Criteria………………………….…….…..10 Figure 2: Multidimensional scaling ordination plot……………………….....11 Table 4: High Elevation criteria……………………………………….….....12 References………………………………………………………...………….13 Appendix A……………………………………………………………..……A1 Appendix B……………………………………………………….………….B1 2 Introduction The Blue Ridge ecoregion (BRM), one of Georgia’s six Level III ecoregions (Griffith et al. 2001), forms the boundary for the development of this fish index of biotic integrity (IBI). Encompassing approximately 2,639 mi2 in northeast Georgia, the BRM includes portions of four major river basins — the Chattahoochee (CHT, 142.2 mi2), Coosa (COO, 1257.5 mi2), Savannah (SAV, 345.3 mi2), and Tennessee (TEN, 894.2 mi2) — and all or part of 16 counties (Figure 1). Due to the relatively small watershed areas and physical and biological parameters of the CHT and SAV basins within the BRM, and the resulting low number of sampled sites, IBI scoring criteria have not been developed for these basins. Therefore, only sites in the COO and TEN basins, meeting the criteria set forth in this document, should be scored with the following metrics. The metrics and scoring criteria adopted for the BRM IBI were developed by the Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Wildlife Resources Division (GAWRD), Stream Survey Team using data collected from 154 streams by GAWRD within the COO (89 sites) and TEN (65 sites) basins.
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix A: Equipment & Supplies
    National Rivers and Streams Assessment 2018/19 Field Operations Manual Version 1.1 April 2018 Appendix A: Equipment & Supplies T & SUPPLIES & T APPENDIX A: EQUIPMEN A: APPENDIX A-1 National Rivers and Streams Assessment 2018/19 Field Operations Manual Version 1.1 April 2018 T & SUPPLIES & T APPENDIX A: EQUIPMEN A: APPENDIX A-2 National Rivers and Streams Assessment 2018/19 Field Operations Manual Version 1.1 April 2018 Base Kit A Base Kit will be provided to the field crews for all sampling sites that they will go to. Some items are sent in the base kit as extra supplies to be used as needed. Base Kit Item Quantity Protocol Antibiotic Salve 1 Fish Plug Aspirator bulb 1 Fish Plug Beaker (3 L, Nalgene) 1 Water Chemistry Centrifuge tube stand 1 Chlorophyll A Centrifuge tubes (sterile, green screw-top, 50-mL) (10/pack) 1 pack Chlorophyll A Periphyton Chlorophyll bottle (2 L, brown) 1 Chlorophyll A Clinometer† 1 Physical Habitat Compass† 1 Physical Habitat Delimiter – 12 cm2 area 1 Periphyton Densiometer - Convex spherical (modified with taped V)† 1 Physical Habitat D-frame Kick Net (500 µm mesh, 52” handle) † 1 Benthics Dry ice label (Class 9)* 5 Shipping Electrical tape - roll* 1 General FedEx labels, 5 sets of each in file folder (T1, T2, T3, T5)* 1 Shipping Filtration chamber adapter 3 Enterococci, Chlorophyll A, Periphyton Filtration flask 1 Enterococci, Chlorophyll A, Periphyton Filtration flask stopper (silicone, blue) 2 Enterococci, Chlorophyll A, Periphyton Filtration unit (sterile 250 ml funnel, cap and filter holder) - spares 5 Enterococci,
    [Show full text]
  • Environmental Controls on the Spatial Distribution of Greenfin Darters and Biodiversity in the Blue Ridge Mountains
    Claremont Colleges Scholarship @ Claremont CMC Senior Theses CMC Student Scholarship 2021 Environmental Controls on the Spatial Distribution of Greenfin Darters and Biodiversity in the Blue Ridge Mountains Dri Tattersfield Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.claremont.edu/cmc_theses Part of the Aquaculture and Fisheries Commons, Biodiversity Commons, and the Geomorphology Commons Recommended Citation Tattersfield, Dri, "Environmental Controls on the Spatial Distribution of Greenfin Darters and Biodiversity in the Blue Ridge Mountains" (2021). CMC Senior Theses. 2591. https://scholarship.claremont.edu/cmc_theses/2591 This Open Access Senior Thesis is brought to you by Scholarship@Claremont. It has been accepted for inclusion in this collection by an authorized administrator. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Environmental Controls on the Spatial Distribution of Greenfin Darters and Biodiversity in the Blue Ridge Mountains A thesis presented by Dri Tattersfield To the Keck Science Department of the Claremont McKenna, Scripps and Pitzer Colleges in partial fulfillment of the degree of Bachelor of Arts Senior Thesis in Physics November 23, 2020 Table of Contents Acknowledgements 3 Abstract 4 Introduction 5 Background 7 Methods 12 Data 12 Species Distribution Modeling 14 Topographic Analysis 15 Anthropogenic impact analysis 16 Results 17 Species Distribution Modeling 17 Geology and topography 21 Discussion 24 Greenfin Darter distribution 24 1. Topography 24 2. Lithology 26 3. Climate 28 4. Land use 28 Implications for evolution 29 Anthropogenic impacts 30 Conclusion 36 References 38 Appendix A: RiverATLAS environmental predictors 44 Appendix B: Full model results 47 2 Acknowledgements Everything happens through collaboration, especially science. This thesis would not have been possible without the patient and insightful guidance of Maya Stokes, the best mentor over the past several months that I could have asked for, or the wisdom of my advisors Taylor Perron and Branwen Williams.
    [Show full text]
  • Biological Condition Gradient (BCG) Attribute Assignments for Macroinvertebrates and Fish in the Mid-Atlantic Region (Virginia, West Virginia, and Maryland)
    Mid-Atlantic Biological Condition Gradient Attributes Final Report Biological Condition Gradient (BCG) Attribute Assignments for Macroinvertebrates and Fish in the Mid-Atlantic Region (Virginia, West Virginia, and Maryland) Prepared for Jason Hill and Larry Willis VDEQ Susan Jackson USEPA Prepared by Ben Jessup, Jen Stamp, Michael Paul, and Erik Leppo Tetra Tech Final Report August 5, 2019 Mid-Atlantic BCG Attributes Final Report; August 5, 2019 Executive Summary Macroinvertebrates and fish have varying levels of sensitivity to pollution based on their taxa specific adaptations and the magnitude, frequency, and type of stressors. Environmental conditions influence the structure of lotic communities in the Mid-Atlantic. The Biological Condition Gradient is a conceptual model that describes the condition of waterbodies relative to well-defined levels of condition that are known to vary with levels of disturbance based on the pollution tolerances of aquatic organisms. In biological assessment programs, the tolerance characteristics of the aquatic organisms are part of the determination of overall stream health. This study represents the first phase of statewide BCG development in Virginia by assigning tolerance attributes to many common macroinvertebrates and fish in the Mid-Atlantic. BCG tolerance attributes reflect taxa sensitivity to stream conditions. The attributes (I – X) represent commonness, rarity, regional specialization, tolerance to disturbance, organism condition, ecosystem function and connectivity (Table 1, Appendix A). Attributes I – VI are related to tolerance to disturbance. These are used in BCG models to describe aspects of the community relative to disturbance (Table 2). Attributes I, VI, and X can be assigned to taxa to describe the natural biological condition of a waterbody.
    [Show full text]
  • Laboratory Operations Manual Version 2.0 May 2014
    United States Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water Washington, DC EPA 841‐B‐12‐010 National Rivers and Streams Assessment 2013‐2014 Laboratory Operations Manual Version 2.0 May 2014 2013‐2014 National Rivers & Streams Assessment Laboratory Operations Manual Version 1.3, May 2014 Page ii of 224 NOTICE The intention of the National Rivers and Streams Assessment 2013‐2014 is to provide a comprehensive “State of Flowing Waters” assessment for rivers and streams across the United States. The complete documentation of overall project management, design, methods, quality assurance, and standards is contained in five companion documents: National Rivers and Streams Assessment 2013‐14: Quality Assurance Project Plan EPA‐841‐B‐12‐007 National Rivers and Streams Assessment 2013‐14: Site Evaluation Guidelines EPA‐841‐B‐12‐008 National Rivers and Streams Assessment 2013‐14: Non‐Wadeable Field Operations Manual EPA‐841‐B‐ 12‐009a National Rivers and Streams Assessment 2013‐14: Wadeable Field Operations Manual EPA‐841‐B‐12‐ 009b National Rivers and Streams Assessment 2013‐14: Laboratory Operations Manual EPA 841‐B‐12‐010 Addendum to the National Rivers and Streams Assessment 2013‐14: Wadeable & Non‐Wadeable Field Operations Manuals This document (Laboratory Operations Manual) contains information on the methods for analyses of the samples to be collected during the project, quality assurance objectives, sample handling, and data reporting. These methods are based on the guidelines developed and followed in the Western Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program (Peck et al. 2003). Methods described in this document are to be used specifically in work relating to the NRSA 2013‐2014.
    [Show full text]
  • Review of Special Provisions and Other Conditions Placed on Gdot Projects for Imperiled Species Protection
    GEORGIA DOT RESEARCH PROJECT 18-06 FINAL REPORT REVIEW OF SPECIAL PROVISIONS AND OTHER CONDITIONS PLACED ON GDOT PROJECTS FOR IMPERILED SPECIES PROTECTION VOLUME III OFFICE OF PERFORMANCE-BASED MANAGEMENT AND RESEARCH 600 WEST PEACHTREE STREET NW ATLANTA, GA 30308 TECHNICAL REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE 1. Report No.: 2. Government Accession No.: 3. Recipient's Catalog No.: FHWA-GA-20-1806 Volume III N/A N/A 4. Title and Subtitle: 5. Report Date: Review of Special Provisions and Other Conditions Placed on January 2021 GDOT Projects For Imperiled Aquatic Species Protection, 6. Performing Organization Code: Volume III N/A 7. Author(s): 8. Performing Organization Report No.: Jace M. Nelson, Timothy A. Stephens, Robert B. Bringolf, Jon 18-06 Calabria, Byron J. Freeman, Katie S. Hill, William H. Mattison, Brian P. Melchionni, Jon W. Skaggs, R. Alfie Vick, Brian P. Bledsoe, (https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0779-0127), Seth J. Wenger (https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7858-960X) 9. Performing Organization Name and Address: 10. Work Unit No.: Odum School of Ecology N/A University of Georgia 11. Contract or Grant No.: 140 E. Green Str. PI#0016335 Athens, GA 30602 208-340-7046 or 706-542-2968 [email protected] 12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address: 13. Type of Report and Period Covered: Georgia Department of Transportation Final; September 2018–January 2021 Office of Performance-based 14. Sponsoring Agency Code: Management and Research N/A 600 West Peachtree St. NW Atlanta, GA 30308 15. Supplementary Notes: Conducted in cooperation with the U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration.
    [Show full text]
  • Board of Game and Inland Fisheries Meeting Agenda
    Revised Board of Game and Inland Fisheries 4000 West Broad Street, Board Room Richmond, Virginia 23230 August 14, 2012 9:00am Call to order and welcome, reading of the Mission Statement and Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. 1. Recognition of Employees and Others 2. Public Comments – Department plan to build a new headquarters under PPEA 3. Public Comments – Non-Agenda Items 4. Approval of July 10, 2012 Board Meeting Minutes 5. Committee Meeting Reports: Wildlife, Boat and Law Enforcement Committee: Mr. Turner, Chairman of the Wildlife, Boat and Law Enforcement Committee, will report on the activities of the August 7, 2012 Committee Meeting. The Committee will recommend the following items to the full Board for final action: Staff Recommendations – Fisheries Regulation Amendments Staff Recommendations – Diversity Regulation Amendments Staff Recommendations – Boating Regulation Amendments Staff Recommendations – 2012-2013 Migratory Waterfowl Seasons and Bag Limits Staff Recommendations – ADA Regulation Agency Land Use Plan Proposed CY2013 Board Meeting Schedule Finance, Audit and Compliance Committee: Mr. Colgate, Chairman of the Finance, Audit and Compliance Committee, will report on the activities of the July 25, 2012 Committee Meeting. The Committee will present the following reports: FY2012 Year-end Financial Summary Internal Audit FY2013 Work Plan - Final Action Education, Planning and Outreach Committee: Ms. Caruso, Chairwoman of the Education, Planning, and Outreach Committee Meeting. Ms. Caruso will announce the next Committee Meeting will be held on October 17, 2012 beginning at 10:00am. 6. Closed Session 7. Director's Report: 8. Chairman's Remarks 9. Additional Business/Comments 10. Next Meeting Date: October 18, 2012 beginning at 9:00am 11.
    [Show full text]
  • October 15, 2007 Jim Crew Alabama Power Company 600 18Th
    h World Wildlife Fund Southeast Rivers and Streams 2021 21st Avenue South, Suite 200 Nashville, TN 37212-4348 USA Main Phone: 615-297-1423 Direct Phone: 615-279-1814 Fax: 615-297-1429 [email protected] www.worldwildlife.org October 15, 2007 Jim Crew Alabama Power Company 600 18th Street North Birmingham, AL 35203 Subject: World Wildlife Fund comments to Martin Issue Group study planning meetings Mr. Crew: Thank you for organizing and convening the Martin Issue Group in Alexander City, Alabama on September 25 and 26, 2007 and for posting the presentations that were given. These recent and previous meetings on issues related to resources potentially affected by the Martin Hydroelectric Project (FERC Project No. 349) are invaluable as we collectively begin the relicensing process. Careful consideration of all parties’ input and issues will help develop consensus around the study plans and lead to productive dialogue about project impacts and avoidance, protection, enhancement and mitigation measures. It is in that spirit of moving forward together that World Wildlife Fund (WWF) submits this letter as initial comments to the draft studies that APC proposed and discussed in the Martin Issue Group meetings. Contained in this letter are our comments, which fall into three broad categories • Restatement of issues important to WWF; • General comments to the proposed studies; and • Draft study requests proposed by WWF based on guidance provided by the April 6, 2005 Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s Study Criteria Guidance document. WWF INTERESTS WWF has over 1.2 million members in the United States, over 7,000 of whom call Alabama home.
    [Show full text]