STATE Kentucky PROJECT W-38 DATE February 1, 1967 STREAMBANK WILDLIFE HABITAT SURVEY SPECIAL PROBLEMS INVESTIGATIONS A Pittman-Robertson Project Final Report For the Period July 1, 1963_to_June 30, 1966 Project Leader: Lee K. Nelson Phase Leader: Dan M. Russell Supervisor: Frederick C. Hardy, P-R Coordinator Cooperating Agencies: Kentucky Department of Fish and Wildlife Resources United States Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Their The writer wishes to express his appreciation to all biologists and assistants who conducted special surveys in their assigned areas. survey reports and photographs are essential parts of this report. is also extended to all Conservation Officers participating in the questionnaire survey. Their reports and comments aided greatly in the overall appraisal of the current status of streambank cover as wildlife habitat. Much of the photographic printing and enlarging was done by Joe Bruna and Carlos Kays. Special mention is due to supervisory and office personnel for assistance with the study, critical review of the manuscript and aid in preparation of the final report. Thanks is due Biologist Pete Troublefield for producing the cover illustration. INTRODUCTION It is known that the area immediately adjacent to a stream is of major importance to most wildlife species. It was observed that this particular habitat type is subject to severe damage from many sources, chiefly from practices related to agriculture and timber operations. The purpose of this study was to observe the current status and expected future changes which adversely affect the quality of the wildlife habitat in this ecological precinct. A review of available literature studies of streambank wildlife habitat. to water quality and fish resources. indicate the urgency for a program of protecting, preserving and enhancing streambank wildlife habitat. Such would be allied to and directly commensurate with procedures to preserve water quality and enhance fish resources and other recreational pursuits. showed no reference to any special Stream work is generally in reference Observations and findings in this report This preliminary study was begun in 1963. The field work was generally completed in 1966. Further studies of the field work should point the way toward more sophisticated methods of study and evaluation, with the objective of providing refined methods and procedures for preserving and enhancing this particular habitat type. OBJECTIVES AND PROCEDURES This job constituted a preliminary survey to determine the present status of streambank wildlife habitat; to determine and evaluate current and future changes; and to amass facts useful to actions toward preservation where needed. Field studies were conducted by the study leader and selected biologists by floating the stream or by traversing the banks on foot. Standard data forms were devised to obtain comparable data for tabulation purposes. Distances were determined by map-measure. Photographs in black and white and in color were taken to illustrate observations. Records were maintained on the mileage of stream surveyed, the status of the streambanks altered or normal the types of alteration, wildlife species observed, human activity observed and name and location of the stream surveyed. A questionnaire was sent to all Conservation Officers to gain information on the streambank habitat in their respective work areas to supplement the overall survey. FINDINGS A total of eighteen streams or sections of streams were surveyed, covering a distance of 218. 2 miles. Of this total, 89. 5 miles or (41.0%) was found to have been recently altered. One section of the Green River, within the boundaries of Mammoth Cave National Park, was surveyed to determine the permanency of bank clearing. This area has been protected since 1936 and still shows evidence of former abuse. One peculiarity in evidence was that a landowner does just about what his neighbor does. This should be of use in attempts to halt destructive practices. Outstanding examples of good and bad practices were found. In the case of Red River in Simpson County, hardly a tree was cut. The banks are well protected and stabilized and excellent wildlife habitat exists on both sides. On the other hand, sections of the Rolling Fork River in Marion, Larue and Hardin Counties are prime examples of habitat destruction. Of all surveys conducted, the most neglect and abuse was found along this stream. The most frequently observed streambank habitat destruction practice was in agricultural clearing, where land along the stream had been bulldozed and otherwise cleared, supposedly to increase crop production or provide more land for cultivation. Severe washing, erosion, . siltation, debris blocked channels and subsequent flood marks are noted where these destructive practices have been applied. Refuse dumping, gravel operations and tree cutting are more than just common. The most extensive example of total destruction of streambank habitat was found on Salt River in Bullitt County. For a distance of fourteen miles and one hundred feet on each side, the banks were cleared and cleaned of trees and shrubs. This job was done by the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, reportedly to prevent headwater flooding in a town down river. The stream is now strewn with stumps and snags. Siltation was so great that the small survey boat dragged in mid-stream. Over all, nearly half of the streambank habitat surveyed was found to be damaged or destroyed by methods ranging from individual tree cutting to strip clearing to complete elimination of all cover adjacent to the stream. A summary of the total Streambank Habitat survey trips is presented in Table I. Following that is an individual record of each survey trip, listing the habitat status and observations as to human activity, wildlife utilization and general observations. Photographs are included to show specific examples and to illustrate observations. Color photos in 35 mm were taken in many instances but are not reproduced in this report. 62-365 71 pt. 3 - 36 |