Conservation Action Plan for the Cumberlands in Tennessee and Kentucky: A crosswalk of the State Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategies

Produced by:

Katherine Medlock, Alliance for the Cumberlands

In Partnership with: National Fish and Wildlife Foundation Kentucky Department of Fish and Wildlife Resources Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency University of Tennessee, Department of Forestry, Wildlife and Fisheries

Table of Contents

Title Page Table of Contents 2

List of Tables 3

List of Figures 3

Executive Summary 4

Introduction 5

Process 7

Results 10

Conclusion 20

Conservation Maps 21

Appendix A 22

Appendix B 34

Appendix C 39

Appendix D 41

List of Tables

Table 1. Tier One Species 14
Table 2. Common Stresses and Sources of Stress 15
Table 3 Conservation Actions Common to Both State Plans 16

List of Figures

Figure 1. Project Boundary Map 10
Figure 2. Terrestrial Priority Areas in TN 11
Figure 3. Aquatic Priority Areas in TN 12
Figure 4. All Priority Areas in KY 13

Executive Summary
The purpose of this document is to inform and encourage cross-state lines collaboration in the Cumberland region for conservation of species of concern identified during the State Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategies process.

This document provides coordinated priorities for conservation, a wide array of strategies, and a collaborative approach to implementation. This report details the process that was used to develop a cross-walk between the two State Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy plans (SCWCS), and presents the results of that process. This Conservation Action Plan outlines a process by which cross-state lines conservation projects can be determined based on common species of greatest conservation need, priority areas and sources of stress for those species. This Conservation Action Plan also provides a menu of common high priority conservation actions that can be undertaken at the project, state, regional, or national level to achieve conservation benefits for the species in the Cumberland region.
The results of this project show that the Cumberland region holds a large number of habitats and species, many of which are species of concern. Conservation efforts focused in this region are likely to yield significant results to numerous species of concern. We found 54 species of concern that were of a high priority in both state plans. A list of those species, as well as the commons sources of stress, can be found in the Results section of this document. We determined that there were several conservation actions that were common to both plans; however, those that were of the highest priority were fee title ownership and permanent protective easements, and research needs. We found that there are numerous priority areas within this region and that conservation work in any of them would prove beneficial (please see the results section for a map of the priority areas in the region). However, we determined through this collaborative process that a good place to begin cross-state lines conservation work would be within the Big South Fork watershed.
Introduction
In order to make the best use of the State Wildlife Grants program, Congress charged each State Wildlife Agency with developing a State Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy (SCWCS, also referred to as the State Wildlife Action Plans or SWAPs). These strategies were designed to provide the foundation for the future of wildlife conservation by coordinating the roles of the State Wildlife Agencies, and other conservation partners. There was not a universal format for the formation of these plans. Each state endeavored to address the planning process in a way that made the most sense to their operations. They were required, only to include the following items:

Information on the distribution and abundance of species of wildlife, including low and declining populations as the State fish and wildlife agency deems appropriate, that are indicative of the diversity and health of the State’s wildlife;
Descriptions of locations and relative condition of key habitats and community types essential to conservation of species identified in #1
Descriptions of problems which may adversely affect species identified in #1 or their habitats, and priority research and survey efforts needed to identify factors which may assist in restoration and improved conservation of these species and habitats;
Descriptions of conservation actions proposed to conserve the identified species and habitats and priorities for implementing such actions;
Proposed plans for monitoring species identified in #1 and their habitats, for monitoring the effectiveness of the conservation actions proposed in #4, and for adapting these conservation actions to respond appropriately to new information or changing conditions;
Descriptions of procedures to review the State comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Plan at intervals not to exceed ten years; and
Plans for coordinating the development, implementation, review, and revision of the State Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation plan with Federal, State and local agencies and Indian tribes that manage significant land and water areas within the State or administer programs that significantly affect the conservation of identified species and habitats.
The National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, in partnership with the Doris Duke Charitable Foundation recognized that the funds available under the State Wildlife Grants program are limited, and state and fish and wildlife agencies are compelled to utilize said funds in the support and implementation of individual State Comprehensive Wildlife Conservations Strategies. Therefore, they provided additional funding via the State Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Support Program to allow states and regional associations to develop compatible conservation approaches that transcend boundaries.
The Conservation Action Plan for the Cumberlands of TN and KY is a result of the State Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Support Program. The creation of the CAP was an effort coordinated by the Alliance for the Cumberlands. The Alliance for the Cumberlands is a coalition of over 50 public and private organizations unified in their commitment to protect the Cumberland Mountains and Plateau Region.
The purpose of this project was to provide coordinated priorities for conservation, a wide array of strategies, and a collaborative approach to implementation. This report details the process that was used to develop a cross-walk between the two SCWCS plans, and presents the results of that process. This Conservation Action Plan outlines a process by which cross-state lines conservation projects can be determined based on common species of greatest conservation need, priority areas and sources of stress for those species. This Conservation Action Plan also provides a menu of common high priority conservation actions that can be undertaken at the project, state, regional, or national level to achieve conservation benefits for the species in the Cumberland region.
The Cumberland region (Northern Tennessee and Southeastern Kentucky) is among the most biologically diverse areas in the country. The biological richness of this region is due largely to its unique geology. The region is made up of a low mountain chain surrounded by a high plateau. The plateau is heavily eroded creating steep river gorges, high waterfalls, unique rock formations and an abundance of caves. The region is home to numerous species of concern; accordingly, both the Tennessee and the Kentucky SCWCS plans identified this area as a priority for conservation efforts.
Process
The objectives of this project were to:

Provide support to Kentucky Department of Fish and Wildlife Resources and Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency to integrate cross-state coordination of their SCWCS Plans in the Cumberland Region of Northern Tennessee and Southeastern Kentucky.
Identify shared conservation priorities in the project area and prioritize collaborative conservation opportunities.
Prioritize and enhance implementation of the conservation strategies in each state’s SCWCS Plan.
Engage Alliance for the Cumberlands to facilitate multi-partner consensus and ownership in the regional Conservation Action Plan and improve its implementation success.
For this project, a working group was formed that consisted of key conservation planners and GIS personnel from both state agencies that were extremely familiar with the SCWCS plans and the process used to prepare them, an independent GIS contractor, and the director of the Alliance for the Cumberlands. The working group proceeded in a stepwise fashion. Starting in December of 2005, the working group held a series of conference calls and meetings at each step of the process. All of the decisions regarding the process and the results were made by consensus and reviewed by expert biologists within each state agency. Once consensus among the working group was reached, the results were reviewed by a larger audience, including other state agencies, federal agencies, and non-profit organizations. This was achieved via meetings and several phone conversations. Any changes or suggestions were considered and incorporated as appropriate.
Kentucky and Tennessee determined the priority species and priority conservation areas within their SCWCS plans in very different fashions. For example, Kentucky organized their results by taxonomic class. Their overall conservation priority areas were determined based on the overlay of priority areas for each class. Tennessee created a GIS model that identifies priority areas based on data queries. Queries can be conducted for individual species, all terrestrial or all aquatic species. In addition, there were differences in the scale of the analysis for each state’s plans. Kentucky used 8 and 14 digit HUCS, while Tennessee used 12 digit HUCS for aquatic species and roadless blocks for terrestrial species. Therefore, you will note that the maps throughout this document provide information at somewhat different scales. A description of the process of combining the data from each state’s plans to determine priority areas for the CAP is described in detail later in this section.
The purpose of this project was not to recreate the SCWCS plan for each state, nor did we want to change the State’s expressed priorities. Therefore, it was not necessary, or additive to pick one methodology and convert the other plan. Instead, our efforts centered on describing a process by which cross-state lines projects could be determined based on the shared priorities of both states and developing a broad consensus for that process. The benefit of this approach is its adaptability. Rather than determining a static priority area or conservation action, this provides a consensus based process by which high priority projects can be determined into the future as conditions change.
Our first priority for completing the CAP was to determine the project area. We created several criteria for determining the best possible location of the project boundary. First, the boundary needed to dovetail the existing SCWCS plans and both of the State Agencies’ patterns of project implementation. Second, the boundary needed to rely on morphological boundaries in the landscape (ie. watershed or ecoregional boundaries). Third, the boundary needed to include as many SCWCS priority areas and species of greatest conservation need as the previous criteria would allow.
Determining the project boundary allowed us to create a list of the SCWCS species of greatest conservation need for the project area. Species were put into Tiers based on their presence in both plans. Tier One species were present in the plans for both states, while Tier Two species were only found in one of the two SCWCS plans.
Maps were then created that showed priority areas based on Kentucky’s “Conservation Areas” which were determined based on the overlapping of priority areas for each class and Tennessee’s “Habitat Prioritization”, which was determined via a GIS model that included species occurrence records, estimated viability, and other factors. The TN SCWCS plan GIS model is fully explained in the TN SCWCS plan. In addition, maps were created that showed priority areas based on Kentucky’s species richness and Tennessee’s “Habitation Prioritization” scores for the Tier One Species. These maps can be found in Appendix A.
Once this was complete, it was determined that in order to decide upon priority conservation projects the large list of species and priority areas for each plan needed to be focused down to those that were the highest priority for the CAP. Therefore, maps of the areas that were determined to be of high or very high priority by the SCWCS plans and members of the working group were generated. These areas became the CAP Priority Areas. In addition, a list of species occurring within those designated CAP high or very high priority areas were generated. This approach will maximize the potential impact to species of concern of each project implemented within these CAP Priority Areas. Please see the results section for maps of the Conservation Action Plan Priority Areas (also referred to as High/Very High Priority Areas) and the resulting species list.
Next, a list of Common Stresses or Sources of Stress to these species was determined by compiling the stresses or sources of stress found in each plan. Again, those stresses or sources of stress that were found in both plans were given priority. By compiling this list, we were able to create a short list of regional conservation concerns which can help guide conservation efforts. However, the presence of these stresses or sources of stress at any particular project location is unknown, so, this list, along with the information within both plans that ties stresses to individual species, can be used to help guide the process, but, project managers must rely on accurate information and knowledge of the area to maximize efficiency.
Next, a list of Common Conservation Actions was generated in a similar fashion. The language of the two plans and scale of the actions was very different. However, where similarities were found, they were given priority. The Conservation Actions of each SCWCS plan were analyzed for similar language. When items were very similar or the same in concept, the language that was more detailed of the two versions was used. The Tennessee SCWCS plan’s categories of actions (found in bold in Table 3) were used in this process for clarity and to simplify the use of this document. The list of Common Conservation Actions provides a regional perspective and will help guide conservation efforts, particularly at a regional scale. The potential to engage all of these actions for each project is virtually impossible; however, priority should be given to those projects that engage multiple actions.
Figure 1 shows the project boundary. This area encompasses the greatest number of the SCWCS’s priority areas while adhering to morphological boundaries and dovetailing the state agencies’ existing methods for project determination.
Figure 1. Project Boundary map

Figure 2 shows the map detailing the Conservation Action Plan Priority Areas for all of the terrestrial species in TN.

Figure 2. Tennessee Terrestrial Occurrences in High/Very High Priority Areas

Figure 3 shows the map detailing the Conservation Action Plan Priority Areas for all of the aquatic species in TN.

Figure 3. TN Aquatic Occurrences in High/Very High Priority Watersheds

Figure 4 shows the map detailing the Conservation Action Plan Priority Areas for all of the terrestrial and aquatic species in KY.

Figure 4. Kentucky Terrestrial and Aquatic Occurrences in High/Very High Priority Watersheds.

Conclusion

The process to create this Conservation Action Plan has resulted in numerous potential benefits to the region and we anticipate that the document and the process created will be used into the future by both state agencies. This document presents the results of the Conservation Action Planning process, however, a short list of the achievements are as follows:

-Defined mutual areas of interest by determining the project boundary -Determined a list of species of mutual concern -Developed a list of regional stresses to guide conservation efforts -Determined two key regional Conservation Actions as well as a list of
common priority Conservation Actions. -Developed a process for determining priority projects across state lines -Created a greater understanding by state personnel of neighboring SCWCS
plans -Consensus among a larger audience regarding the priorities and approach to
conservation in the region.
The results of this process were data driven. For example, through our conversations with other interested parties, we know for certain that the Big South Fork watershed is a high priority area and contains several species of concern. However, that information was not available to the TWRA planners at the time the SCWCS plan was created, and is not reflected in the State’s plan. We were able to address this particular situation, and ensure that the area was shown as a priority in this document. However, there may be other areas that contain species of concern that we do not know about or simply do not have any data for. This reinforces the need for research, which was determined to be one of the key Common Conservation Actions for the region.
Even after our efforts to pick only the highest priority areas, there are still many priority areas present within the project area, and determining which one would be the best place to start is daunting. However, during the course of this process, we determined that the Big South Fork watershed was a priority concern to all involved in this process. More specifically, the New River Watershed—its species diversity, stresses and potential future stresses—presents itself as a potential starting ground for cross state lines collaborative work.
The Cumberland Plateau region is significant primarily due to the vast number of habitats and species present, and many of those are species of concern. We started with a list of 236 species of concern that occurred within at least one of the SCWCS plans. Our best efforts to cull the list down to the species that were of common concern to both states and species that were in the highest priority areas resulted in a list of 54 species. The large number of species of concern contained within these priority areas shows that conservation efforts focused in this region are likely to yield significant results to numerous species of concern.

Conservation Maps

The Following are Area Occurence Map, listing ares Priority Scores, and Species Richness.

APPENDICES

Appendix A. Maps of Taxonomic Group Priority Conservation Areas.

The first map in the series is based on Kentucky’s designated “Conservation Areas” and Tennessee’s “Habitat Prioritization”. The second mapin the series is based on Kentucky’s species richness and Tennessee’s “Habitat Prioritization” for the Tier One species only.

Amphibian Conservation Area Maps

Bird Conservation Area Maps

Bivalve Conservation Area Maps

Fish Conservation Area Maps

Mammal Conservation Area Maps

Reptile Conservation Area Maps

Appendix D. Kentucky SWCS’s priority research and survey needs by taxonomic class
Class ACTINOPTERYGII and CEPHALASPIDOMORPHI

Research projects

Conduct life history studies to determine habitat use/requirements, spawning location and timing, fecundity, diet, competition, and population dynamics.
Conduct studies to determine vulnerability of priority species to specific conservation issues.
Resolve taxonomic status of species considered to be complexes (i.e., multiple taxa that are rare and may require protection), and provide formal descriptions and diagnoses for known or putative undescribed species.
Assess potential impacts of non-indigenous fishes to priority species.
Determine impact of increased sedimentation to fish communities resulting from agriculture, mining, and timber harvest.
Determine impacts of impoundments to priority fish species.
Examine underlying causes and biological consequences of population fragmentation for priority species existing in small isolated populations.

Develop a captive rearing program for potential reintroduction or population
augmentation.

Survey projects

Utilize available resources (e.g., Southern Illinois University Carbondale ichthyological collection) to update and fill gaps in distributional information.
Conduct baseline surveys and status assessments for priority species lacking complete distributional information.
Determine distribution and abundance of nonindigenous species that may pose a threat to priority species.
Identify high priority sites and landowners (public and private) for priority fish species conservation and recovery.
Mussels Class BIVALVIA

Research projects

Conduct research into controlled propagation to discover methods and techniques most suitable to recover populations.
Identify hosts for mussels (especially those that are unknown) for both natural distribution and for propagation.
Identify the food and feeding requirements of freshwater mussels.
Identify suitable and critical habitat (i.e., substrate, flow) requirements for freshwater mussels.
Identify limiting factors in current mussel populations, such as host fish presence/absence, host fish densities, critical densities at which mussels need to maintain recruitment.
Identify limiting factors in current mussel populations, such as host fish presence/absence, host fish densities, critical densities at which mussels need to maintain recruitment.
Examine reproductive behavior for all species and document seasonal timing of gametogenesis in association with environmental variables.
Conduct research into the life history requirements of freshwater mussels.
Increase the awareness of mussels and their link to the environment through
outreach education.

Survey projects

Conduct baseline surveys and status assessments for priority species that lack complete distributional information.
Survey areas within historic range to determine current distribution (and conduct at a frequency to determine long term monitoring) (specifically Salt River, Upper Kentucky, Upper Cumberland, Middle and Upper Green, and any of the deep larger rivers).
Identify high priority sites and landowners (public and private) for mussel conservation and recovery. These sites should be located within priority areas.
Amphibians
Class AMPHIBIA
Research projects

Conduct field research to gather life history information and increase and/or refine ourbasic knowledge of habitat use and habitat requirements for priority amphibian species where needed so that habitat management guidelines can be developed and/or improved. Included here would be conducting demographic studies to determine breeding success, egg and larval survivorship, successful metamorphosis, longevity of adults, high value habitats, etc.
Establish projects to identify factors limiting expansion and/or recovery of priority amphibian populations and determine habitat patch size and/or degree of habitat connectivity needed to sustain viable populations of priority species in today’s often-highly-fragmented landscapes.
Examine interactions and basic ecological relationships between selected priority amphibian species and their close relatives (i.e. Plethodon ventralis-P. dorsalis; Plethodon wehrlei- P. kentucki-P. glutinosus; Plethodon cinereus-P. richmondi-P. electromorphus; Ambystoma barbouri- A. texanum; Rana pipiens-R. sphenocephala; Hyla avivoca-H. versicolor- H. chrysoscelis, etc.). Several priority amphibian species appear to either compete with or hybridize with similar, related species in areas where both occur in the same habitats, and this may play a role in limiting the range or abundance of some of the rarer species.
Examine responses of priority amphibian species to species-specific and/or guild-specific conservation actions performed within Priority Amphibian Conservation Areas.
Develop techniques for the successful reintroduction of extirpated priority amphibian species into historic portions of their Kentucky ranges within Priority Amphibian Conservation Areas.
Develop reliable recognition characters for Rana areolata circulosa tadpoles.
Examine effects of diseases (iridovirus, ranavirus, etc.), contaminants (pesticides, herbicides, mercury contamination from power plants, etc.), and stochastic events (drought, flooding, etc.) on populations of priority amphibian species.
Examine impacts of various types of land use (grazing, surface mining, timber
harvest, etc.) on priority amphibian species and amphibian communities.

Survey projects

Compile available baseline data on distribution, life history, ecology, habitat requirements, and population status/trends for all Kentucky amphibians with emphasis on priority amphibian species. This data could be coupled with species identification information and photographs to complete an in-progress book on Kentucky’s amphibians and reptiles that would be available to the public.
Conduct and/or coordinate field surveys to gather additional data on distribution, life history, ecology, habitat requirements, and population status/ trends for all Kentucky amphibians as needed, with emphasis on priority amphibian species.
Establish protocols for the preparation of species distribution maps for amphibians that could show year-by-year changes in the Kentucky range of any selected species.
Survey Wildlife Management Areas and other public lands throughout Kentucky for amphibians, with emphasis on priority species and their most significant habitats.
Sample priority amphibian species and/or suitable surrogates for contaminants
(i.e. pesticides, herbicides, mercury from power plants, etc.), diseases (i.e. iridovirus), and incidence of various deformities and establish long-term monitoring protocols.
Birds Class AVES

Research projects

Develop GIS modeling applications that aid in identifying available habitats required by priority species.
Examine land use impacts to avian species (e.g., grazing, mining, hunting, developments, silviculture, human disturbance, communication towers, river channelization, etc.). Where feasible, conduct pre- and post-impact monitoring of avian communities (productivity and species composition).
Establish demographic studies for priority species (e.g., nest success, juvenile survival, etc.) to identify factors limiting populations.
Determine habitat requirements of marsh birds and whether those requirements differ for breeding versus transient birds.
Research basic life history requirements for transient shorebirds (staging site selection, minimum invertebrate density, resting site characteristics, etc.).
Examine impacts among and between species and with other flora and fauna (e.g., disease, predation, nest parasitism, hybridization, introduced species, invasive plants, etc.).
Examine effects of abiotic factors (e.g., pesticides, stochastic events, etc.) to priority species.
Conduct research needed to validate assumptions upon which models that predict habitat objectives are based (shorebird, waterfowl, and landbird habitat objectives).
Research effects of habitat loss outside of Kentucky on migratory birds and how these losses may affect birds that breed, stage, or winter in Kentucky.
Compare breeding phenology and habitat requirements of the American
woodcock to that of traditional breeding areas in northern states.

Survey projects

Gather baseline data on distribution and population status of marsh birds and distribution of emergent wetland habitat in Kentucky.
Gather baseline data on distribution and population status of transient shorebirds and shorebird habitat in Kentucky.
Gather baseline data on distribution and population status for landbirds where data is lacking (e.g., bank swallow, common raven, red-headed woodpecker, least flycatcher, Bell’s vireo, etc.) and identify suitable habitat availability (e.g., banks, cliffs, savannahs, early successional habitat, reclaimed mine lands, etc.).
Conduct winter surveys for priority avian species on areas improved through various incentive program practices (e.g., Habitat Buffers for Upland Birds under CP-33 of Conservation Reserve Program) through partnerships with Partners in Flight, Southeast Quail Study Group, etc. This will assist in establishing long-term monitoring protocols.
Develop survey technique to collect population trend data for species or suites of species that existing surveys do not capture (e.g., Henslow’s sparrow, Bachman’s sparrow, Bewick’s wren, golden-winged warbler, Swainson’s warbler, short-eared owl, green heron, yellowcrowned night-heron, bank swallow, hooded merganser, wintering birds, etc.) and establish monitoring protocols for each.
Continue pilot raptor survey at Peabody Wildlife Management Area and expand or revise into monitoring protocol.
Survey habitats in Kentucky for neotropical migrant songbird use.
Mammals Class MAMMALIA

Research projects

Establish projects for priority mammal species to identify factors limiting populations (i.e., survival, low densities, habitat connectivity, etc.), especially for those species experiencing declines.
Examine land use impacts (i.e. silviculture, grazing, mining, fire regimes, hunting, developments, human disturbance, etc.) on mammal species that are experiencing declines or have unknown trends.
Examine impacts of disease and contaminants on populations of mammals in decline or of unknown status. These issues seem to be particularly important in Allegheny woodrats and the various bat species.
Examine habitat use by declining species during critical periods of their life cycle (e.g., foraging and breeding habitat of swamp rabbits with litters).
Examine responses of priority mammal species to targeted habitat improvement practices (e.g., response of bat populations to cave improvements designed to improve hibernacula conditions, response of cotton mouse/swamp rabbits to various Wetland Reserve Program practices).
Survey projects

Distribution data for many of the bat species (both summer and winter) is lacking. Specifically, intensive surveys (i.e., mist-net, harp trap, Anabat, etc.) need to be conducted throughout Kentucky during the foraging or “swarming” periods of the year. Additionally, targeted efforts to identify new hibernacula for these species must also occur.
Data for swamp rabbits and Appalachian cottontails and (e.g., distribution, abundance, population status, etc.) is generally lacking. We need to expand upon previous surveys that have been conducted in Kentucky for these species (i.e., Sole 1994, 1999 respectively). Targeted habitat restoration projects and management recommendations can be based on survey results.
Intensive trapping surveys are needed in order to gather distribution and abundance data for the priority small mammal species. Surveys will be targeted at portions of the expected ranges where we lack site records. Specifically, we (1) lack the most information for rock shrews and cotton mice in Kentucky, (2) have marginal information regarding abundance of cinereus shrews and Kentucky red-backed voles (distribution data for these species is fair to good), and (3) need additional surveys to better delineate the range and abundance of Allegheny woodrats.
Reptiles Class REPTILIA

Research projects

Conduct field research to gather life history information and increase and/or refine our basic knowledge of habitat use and habitat requirements for priority reptile species where needed so that habitat management guidelines can be developed and/or improved. Included here would be conducting demographic studies to determine breeding success, juvenile survivorship, longevity of adults, high value habitats, etc.
Establish projects to identify factors limiting expansion and/or recovery of priority reptile populations and determine habitat patch size and/or degree of habitat connectivity needed to sustain viable populations of priority species in today’s often-highly-fragmented landscapes.
Examine responses of priority reptile species to species-specific and/or guild-specific conservation actions performed within Priority Reptile Conservation Areas.
Develop techniques for the successful reintroduction of extirpated priority reptile species into historic portions of their Kentucky ranges within Priority Reptile Conservation Areas.
Examine responses of priority reptile species to targeted habitat improvement practices.
Develop techniques for the successful reintroduction of extirpated priority reptile species into historic portions of their ranges in Kentucky.
Evaluate effectiveness of various types of barriers and underpasses in areas where priority reptile species are particularly vulnerable to highway mortality
(e.g. KY 307 at Obion WMA, KY 268 at Sloughs WMA, etc.).
Examine effects of contaminants (pesticides, herbicides, mercury contamination from power plants, etc.) on populations of priority reptile species.
Examine impacts of various types of land use (grazing, surface mining, timber
harvest, etc.) on priority reptile species and reptile communities.

Survey projects

Compile available baseline data on distribution, life history, ecology, habitat requirements, and population status/trends for all Kentucky reptiles with emphasis on priority reptile species. This data could be coupled with species identification information and photographs to complete an in-progress book on Kentucky’s amphibians and reptiles that would be available to the public.
Conduct and/or coordinate field surveys to gather additional data on distribution, life history, ecology, habitat requirements, and population status/ trends for all Kentucky reptiles as needed, with emphasis on priority reptile species.
Establish protocols for the preparation of species distribution maps for reptiles that could show year-by-year changes in the Kentucky range of any selected species.
Survey Wildlife Management Areas and other public lands throughout Kentucky for reptiles, with emphasis on priority species and their most significant habitats.
Sample priority reptile species and/or suitable surrogates for contaminants
(i.e. pesticides, herbicides, mercury from power plants, etc.), diseases (i.e. iridovirus), and incidence of various deformities and establish long-term monitoring protocols.