DOCSLIB.ORG

Chapter 8 Preparers

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Chapter 8 Preparers Chapter 8 Preparers 8.1 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Rick Amidon, Regional Wind Habitat Conservation Plan Coordinator, Bloomington, Minnesota Kim Mitchell, Ecological Services Outreach Coordinator, Region 3, Bloomington, Minnesota Georgia Parham, Public Involvement Lead, Bloomington, Indiana 8.2 U.S. Department of the Interior Kelly Bakayza, Attorney-Advisor, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania Steve Barcley, Attorney-Advisor, Washington D.C. 8.3 ICF International Leo Lentsch, Project Director Hova Woods, Project Manager Madeline Terry, Deputy Project Manager, Physical Resources Lead Elyse Mize, Project Coordinator, Public Health and Safety Dave Johnson, Biological Resources and Water Resources Lead April Zohn, Senior NEPA Specialist John Hansel, Senior NEPA Specialist Kimberly Stevens, Decision File Manager Paola Bernazzani, Biological Resources Specialist Alex Uriarte, Land Resources, Public Services and Utilities, Transportation, Socioeconomics and Environmental Justice Jennifer Piggott, Public Involvement David Coate, Noise David Ernst, Air Quality and Climate Change Jessica Feldman, Cultural Resources Jennifer Stock, Visual Resources Ralph Grismala, Geology and Soils Midwest Wind Energy Multi-Species HCP EIS Draft EIS April 2016 8-1 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Preparers Nicholas Baker, Vegetation, Floodplains, and Wetlands Brent Bouldin, Editor Karen DiPietro, Publications Specialist 8.4 Applied Ecological Services Kim Chapman, Biological Resources (Birds) Genesis Mickel, Biological Resources (Threatened & Endangered Species) Steve Zimmerman, Biological Resources (Fish) Jason Carlson (GIS) David Aslesen (GIS) 8.5 Environmental Solutions & Innovations, Inc. Dale Sparks, Biological Resources (Bats) Virgil Brack, Biological Resources (Bats) Lawrence Brewer, Biological Resources (Vegetation) John Spaeth, Biological Resources (Aquatic Ecology) Midwest Wind Energy Multi-Species HCP EIS Draft EIS April 2016 8-2 Chapter 9 References Chapter 1, Purpose and Need American Planning Association. 2013. Planning for Wind Energy. Available: https://www.planning.org/research/wind/pdf/pas566.pdf. Accessed: July 1, 2015. Iowa Utilities Board. 2015. Wind Powered Electricity Generation in Iowa. Available: https://iub.iowa.gov/wind-powered-electricity-generation. Accessed: July 1, 2015. Kunz, T.H., and J.D. Reichard. 2010. Status Review of the Little Brown Myotis (Myotis lucifugus) and Determination that Immediate Listing under the Endangered Species Act Is Scientifically and Legally Warranted. Available: http://www.researchgate.net/publication/267791775. Accessed: July 26, 2015. Minnesota Environmental Quality Board. 2010. Guide to Minnesota Environmental Review Rules. Available: http://www.mnplan.state.mn.us/pdf/rulguid3.pdf. Accessed: July 7, 2015. Minnesota Public Utilities Commission. 2015. Energy Facilities – Commission Responsibility. Available: http://mn.gov/puc/energyfacilities/index.html. Accessed: July 2, 2015. Ohio Power Siting Board. 2015. Wind and Other Renewable Energy. Available: http://www.opsb.ohio.gov/opsb/index.cfm/information/wind-and-other-renewable-energy/. Accessed: July 2, 2015. State of Minnesota. 2008. Site Permit for Large Wind Energy Conversion Systems. Available: http://mn.gov/elicense/licenses/licensedetail.jsp?URI=tcm:29-3232&CT_URI=tcm:27-117-32. Accessed: July 2, 2015. United States Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Fisheries (NOAA Fisheries). 1996. Habitat Conservation Planning Handbook. Available: http://www.fws.gov/midwest/endangered/permits/hcp/hcphandbook.html. Accessed: July 20, 2015. ———. 2000. The HCP Handbook Addendum or “Five Point Policy.” Available: http://www.fws.gov/midwest/endangered/permits/hcp/pdf/HCPAddendum.pdf. Accessed: July 20, 2015. ———. 2010. Official Number of Protected Migratory Bird Species Climbs to More than 1,000. Available at http://www.fws.gov/midwest/news/184.html. Accessed on September 28, 2015. ———. 2014. What You Should Know About a Federal Migratory Bird Special Purpose Utility Permit. Available at: http://www.fws.gov/forms/3-200-81.pdf. Accessed on September 28, 2015. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (DNR). 2013. Wind Power. Available: http://dnr.wi.gov/topic/sectors/wind.html. Accessed: July 2, 2015. Midwest Wind Energy Multi-Species HCP EIS Draft EIS April 2016 9-1 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service References ———. 2015. Wisconsin Environmental Policy Act (WEPA). Available: http://dnr.wi.gov/topic/EIA/WEPA.html. Accessed: July 20, 2015. Chapter 2, Proposed Action and Alternatives ESRI. ArcGIS. ASCII Grid files. Version 10.3. Redlands, CA: Esri, 2015a. Available: www.esri.com. Leidos. 2015. Administrative Draft Midwest Wind Energy Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plan. Prepared for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the American Wind Energy Association. April. Parry, M.L., O.F. Canziani, J.P. Palutikof, P.J. van der Linden, and C.E. Hanson, Eds. 2007. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2007. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom. Available: http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_ipcc_fourth_assessment_report_wg2_r eport_impacts_adaptation_and_vulnerability.htm. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2012. Land-Based Wind Energy Guidelines. March 23. Available: http://www.fws.gov/ecological-services/es-library/pdfs/WEG_final.pdf. Chapter 3, Affected Environment Section 3.1, Biological Resources Allison, T. D. 2012. Eagles and Wind Energy: Identifying Research Priorities. A White Paper of the American Wind Wildlife Institute, Washington, DC. Arnett, E. B. and E. F. Baerwald. 2013. Impacts of Wind Energy Development on Bats: Implications for Conservation. In: Bat Evolution, Ecology, and Conservation. Springer New York, 2013: 435- 456. Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies (AFWA). 2015. State Wildlife Action Plans (SWAPs). Accessed 2015. http://teaming.com/state-wildlife-action-plans-swapsBoyles, J.G., J.C. Timpone, and L.W. Robbins. 2009. Bats of Missouri. Occasional Papers of the Center for North American Bat Research and Conservation, 3:1-60. Brack, V. Jr., D.W. Sparks, J.O. Whitaker Jr., B.L. Walters, and A. Boyer. 2010. Bats of Ohio. Occasional Papers of the Center for North American Bat Research and Conservation, 4:1-92. Buehler, D. A. 2000. Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus Leucocephalus). In The Birds of North America, No. 564 (A. Poole and F. Gill, eds.). The Birds of North America Online, Ithaca, New York. Byelich, J., M.E. DeCapita, G.W. Irvine, R.E. Radtke, N.I. Johnson, W.R. Jones, H. Mayfield, and W.J. Mahalak. 1976 (revised 1985). Kirtland’s Warbler Recovery Plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Twin Cities, MN. Campbell, R. W., N. K. Dawe, I. McTaggart-Cowan, J. M. Cooper, G. W. Kaiser, and M. C. E. McNall. 1990. The Birds of British Columbia, Vol. 2: Diurnal Birds of Prey through Woodpeckers. R. Br. Columbia Mus. Victoria. Clench, M.H. 1973. The fall migration route of Kirtland’s warbler. The Wilson Bulletin. 85(4): 417-428. Midwest Wind Energy Multi-Species HCP EIS Draft EIS April 2016 9-2 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service References Commission for Environment Cooperation. 2006. Ecological Regions of North America. Map Scale: 1:10,000,000. Prepared in cooperation with the United States, Canada, and Mexico. Available: ftp://ftp.epa.gov/wed/ecoregions/cec_na/NA_LEVEL_III.pdf. Accessed: July 30, 2015. ———. 2011. North American Terrestrial Ecoregions – Level III. Montreal, Canada. 149 pps. Available: ftp://ftp.epa.gov/wed/ecoregions/pubs/NA_TerrestrialEcoregionsLevel3_Final- 2june11_CEC.pdf. Accessed: July 30, 2015. ———. 2014. Terrestrial Ecosystems – Description. Available: http://www.cec.org/Page.asp?PageID=122&ContentID=1329. Accessed: July 30, 2015. Cryan, P.M. 2003. Seasonal distribution of migratory tree bats (Lasiurus and Lasionycteris) in North America. Journal of Mammalogy. 84: 579-593. Dierschke, V., and J.P. Daniels. 2003. Zur Flughöhe ziehender See-, Küsten- und Greifvögel im Seegebiet um Helgoland. [Flight altitude of migrating seabirds, coastal birds and raptors in the southeastern North Sea.] Corax, Sonderheft 2: 35-41. Ducey, J.E. 1981. Interior least tern (Sterna antillarum athalassos). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 28 Pierre, South Dakota. Unpublished report. 56 pp. ———. 1988. Nest scrape characteristics of piping plover and least tern in Nebraska. Nebraska Bird Review 56:42-44. Dzal, Y., L.P. McGuire, N. Veselka, and M.B. Fenton. 2010. Going, going, gone: the impact of white-nose syndrome on the summer activity of the little brown bat (Myotis lucifugus). Biology Letters. Elliott-Smith, E., and S.M. Haig. 2004. Piping plover (Charadrius melodus). A. Poole, ed. The Birds of North America Online. Cornell Lab of Ornithology. Ithaca, New York. Available: http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/002. Elliott-Smith, E., S.M. Haig, and B.M. Powers. 2009. Data from the 2006 international piping plover census: U.S. Geological Survey Data Series 426. 332 pp. ESRI. ArcGIS. Nonattainment Area Designation. Version 10.3. Redlands, CA: Esri, 2015b. Available: http://www3.epa.gov/airquality/greenbook/gis_download.html#Arc. Faanes, C.A. 1983. Aspects of the nesting ecology of least terns and piping plovers in central Nebraska. Prairie Naturalist 15:145-154. Francl, K.E., T.K. Canniff, R.C. Bland, D.W. Sparks, and V. Brack, Jr. 2012. Quantifying wing damage of summer bats in the northeastern United States. Journal of the Pennsylvania Academy of Science 86:38-42. Fraser, J. D. 1985. The Impact of Human
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Native Freshwater Mussels
    Native Freshwater Mussels Freshwater mussels, sometimes called clams, have always been and continue to be, an important food source for muskrat, minks, FACT SHEET raccoons, otters, fishes, and some birds such as herons. Historically, written by John Tautin Native Americans not only ate mussels but also used the shells for utensils, tools, and to make jewelry. Between the late 1800s and mid-1900s, shells were harvested to supply a multi- fluted shell million dollar pearl button industry. However, with the Lasmigona costata invention and widespread use of plastics during the 1940-50s, the pearl button industry collapsed. But by the 1950s the Japanese found a new use for mussel shells in cultured pearl production. e shells are cut and finished into beads and inserted into oysters to serve as nuclei for pearls. Still today, thousands of tons of mussel shells (especially Washboard, Mapleleaf, and ree-ridge mussels) are exported from the United States to Japan for this purpose. Elktoe Worldwide, there are about one thousand species of mussels. Mussels Alasmidonta marginata can be found on every continent but Antarctica. While the entire continent of Europe only has eight different species of mussels, there are twenty-five different species of mussels in French Creek, and about three-hundred in the United States. ese important animals are threatened, however. Today, over half of the species of mussel in the Midwest are threatened or endangered. In the French Creek watershed, thirteen species of mussels are listed as endan- gered or threatened in Pennsylvania. Four species (the northern riffleshell, kidney shell and clubshell, rayed bean, and snuffbox) are endangered at the federal level.
    [Show full text]
  • 1988007W.Pdf
    TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE LIST OF FIGURES n LIST OF TABLES w LIST OF APPENDICES iv ABSTRACT 1 INTRODUCTION 1 I OBJECTIVES OF STUDY 3 ∎ METHODS 3 I DESCRIPTION OF STUDY AREA 7 RESULTS 7 SPECIES ACCOUNTS 13 Federally Endangered Species 13 Federal Candidate Species 15 I Proposed State Endangered Species 15 Proposed State Threatened Species 16 Watch List Species 16 Other Species 17 I Introduced Species 33 ∎ DISCUSSION 33 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 35 LITERATURE CITED 36 I I I I LIST OF FIGURES PAGE Figure 1 . Collection sites in the Little Wabash River drainage, 1988 6 Figure 2. The Little Wabash River and its tributaries 8 Figure 3. Number of individuals collected liver per site in the Little Wabash River (main channel) in 1988 12 I Figure 4 . Number of species collected per site in the Little Wabash River (main channel) in 1988 12 I I I I I I LIST OF TABLES PAGE Table 1 . Comparison of the mussel species of the Little Wabash River reported by Baker (1906) and others [pre-1950], Fechtner (1963) [1951-53], Parmalee [1954], Matteson [1956], INHS [1957-88], and this study 4 Table 2 . Collection sites in the Little Wabash River drainage, 1988 5 Table 3 . Total,rank order of abundance and percent composition of the mussel species collected live in the Little Wabash River drainage, 1988 9 Table 4. Site by site listing of all mussel species collected in the Little Wabash River drainage, 1988 10-11 Table 5. Site by site listing of all mussel species collected by M .R . Matteson in the Little Wabash River, 1956 14 I I iii LIST OF APPENDICES PAGE Appendix I .
    [Show full text]
  • Environmental Report (ER) (TVA 2003) in Conjunction with Its Application for Renewal of the BFN Ols, As Provided for by the Following NRC Regulations
    Biological Assessment Browns Ferry Nuclear Power Plant License Renewal Review Limestone County, Alabama October 2004 Docket Numbers 50-259, 50-260, and 50-296 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Rockville, Maryland Biological Assessment of the Potential Effects on Endangered or Threatened Species from the Proposed License Renewal for the Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant 1.0 Introduction The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) licenses the operation of domestic nuclear power plants in accordance with the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and NRC implementing regulations. The Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) operates Browns Ferry Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1, 2, and 3 (BFN) pursuant to NRC operating license (OL) numbers DPR-33, DPR-52, DPR-68, which expire on December 20, 2013, June 28, 2014, and July 2, 2016, respectively. TVA has prepared an Environmental Report (ER) (TVA 2003) in conjunction with its application for renewal of the BFN OLs, as provided for by the following NRC regulations: C Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 54, “Requirements for Renewal of Operating Licenses for Nuclear Power Plants,” Section 54.23, Contents of application - environmental information (10 CFR 54.23). C Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 51, “Environmental Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions,” Section 51.53, Postconstruction environmental reports, Subsection 51.53(c), Operating license renewal stage (10 CFR 51.53(c)). The renewed OLs would allow up to 20 additional years of plant operation beyond the current licensed operating term. No major refurbishment or replacement of important systems, structures, or components are expected during the 20-year BFN license renewal term.
    [Show full text]
  • September 24, 2018
    September 24, 2018 Sent via Federal eRulemaking Portal to: http://www.regulations.gov Docket Nos. FWS-HQ-ES-2018-0006 FWS-HQ-ES-2018-0007 FWS-HQ-ES-2018-0009 Bridget Fahey Chief, Division of Conservation and Classification U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 5275 Leesburg Pike, MS: ES Falls Church, VA 22041-3808 [email protected] Craig Aubrey Chief, Division of Environmental Review Ecological Services Program U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 5275 Leesburg Pike, MS: ES Falls Church, VA 22041 [email protected] Samuel D. Rauch, III National Marine Fisheries Service Office of Protected Resources 1315 East-West Highway Silver Spring, MD 20910 [email protected] Re: Proposed Revisions of Endangered Species Act Regulations Dear Mr. Aubrey, Ms. Fahey, and Mr. Rauch: The Southern Environmental Law Center (“SELC”) submits the following comments in opposition to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s and National Marine Fisheries Service’s proposed revisions to the Endangered Species Act’s implementing regulations.1 We submit these comments on behalf of 57 organizations working to protect the natural resources of the 1 Revision of the Regulations for Prohibitions to Threatened Wildlife and Plants, 83 Fed. Reg. 35,174 (proposed July 25, 2018) (to be codified at 50 C.F.R. pt. 17); Revision of Regulations for Interagency Cooperation, 83 Fed. Reg. 35,178 (proposed July 25, 2018) (to be codified at 50 C.F.R. pt. 402); Revision of the Regulations for Listing Species and Designating Critical Habitat, 83 Fed. Reg. 35,193 (proposed July 25, 2018) (to be codified at 50 C.F.R.
    [Show full text]
  • Pleurobema Clava Lamarck Northern Northern Clubshell Clubshell, Page 1
    Pleurobema clava Lamarck Northern Northern Clubshell Clubshell, Page 1 State Distribution Photograph courtesy of Kevin S.Cummings, Illinois Natural History Survey Best Survey Period Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Status: State and Federally listed as Endangered umbos located close to the anterior end of the shell. Viewed from the top, the clubshell is wedge-shaped Global and state ranks: G2/S1 tapering towards the posterior end. Maximum length is approximately 3 ½ inches (90mm). The shell is tan/ Family: Unionidae (Pearly mussels) yellow, with broad, dark green rays that are almost always present and are interrupted at the growth rings. Total range: Historically, the clubshell was present in There is often a crease or groove near the center of the the Wabash, Ohio, Kanawha, Kentucky, Green, shell running perpendicular to the annular growth rings. Monogahela, and Alleghany Rivers and their tributaries. Beak sculpture consists of a few small bumps or loops, Its range covered an area from Michigan south to or is absent. Alabama, and Illinois east to Pennsylvania. The The clubshell has well-developed lateral and pseudo- clubshell currently occurs in 12 streams within the cardinal teeth and a white nacre. Shells of males and Tennessee, Cumberland, Lake Erie, and Ohio drainages. females are morphologically similar. Similar species These include the St. Joseph River in Michigan (Badra found in Michigan include the kidneyshell and Goforth 2001) and Ohio (Watters 1988), (Ptychobranchus fasciolaris) which is much more Pymatuning Creek (Ohio)(Huehner and Corr 1994), compressed laterally than the clubshell and has a kidney Little Darby Creek (Ohio), Fish Creek (Ohio and shaped outline; the round pigtoe (Pleurobema sintoxia) Indiana), Tippecanoe River (Indiana), French Creek which has a more circular outline and does not have (Pennsylvania), and the Elk River (West Virginia).
    [Show full text]
  • 2011 Annual Report
    Minnesota Mississippi River Parkway Commission 2010-11 Annual Report July 2011 300 33rd Ave S, Suite 101, Waite Park, MN 56387 651-341-4196 www.MnMississippiRiver.com Mission The mission of the Mississippi River Parkway Commission of Minnesota is to promote, preserve and enhance the resources of the Mississippi River Valley and to develop the highways and amenities of the Great River Road. The Commission is organized and guided by Minnesota statute 161.1419. Work is carried out by the full Commission along with four defined work groups – Capital Improvement; Economic Development; Marketing; and Organization. Quarterly Meetings of the Full Commission The MN-MRPC held four full Commission meetings between July 2010 and July 2011 - August 26, 2010; November 18, 2010; February 23, 2011; and May 26, 2011. Minutes are attached. Each meeting included updates from all regional citizen Commissioners and state agencies. The August 26 meeting was held in Crosby, MN and included a tour of the Cuyuna Country State Recreation Area, Croft Mine Historical Park and new mountain bike trail. Capital Improvement Work Group • Work continues on projects funded by the state’s $4.299 million appropriation for restoration of historic waysides, managed by Mn/DOT. 12 sites on or eligible for the National Register of Historic Places are included in the project. - Eight of the twelve projects have been completed: Camp Ripley Entrance Walls; St. Cloud Historical Marker; National Grange Historical Marker; Burns Avenue Overlook; Minnesota State Training School Walls; Ft. Beauharnois Historical Marker; Lake City Concourse; Reads Landing Overlook. - The final four restorations are planned for completion in 2012: Sibley Pioneer Church Monument; La Crescent Overlook; La Crescent State Entry Marker; and Reno Springs Wayside.
    [Show full text]
  • October, 2009
    TRAFFIC ENGINEERING MANUAL October, 2009 STATE OF MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION T R A F F I C E N G R October 2009 Minnesota Department of Transportation Office of Traffic, Safety, and Technology Mail Stop 725, 1500 West County Road B2 Roseville, MN 55113 Oc tober 30, 2009 TO: Holders of Traffic Engineering Manual This is the third electronic update to the "Traffic Engineering Manual" (TEM). The TEM now includes the 2007 versions of Chapters 1 thru 5 and 8 thru 13, the 2008 version of Chapter 6, Chapter 7, page 11-7 of Chapter 11, and an up to date Subject Index. This update includes minor changes to several pages as stated in the Transmittal. Printed versions of the TEM will no longer be available from the Map and Manual Sales Unit. The user may print as much or as little of the electronic version of the TEM as is needed. Manual holders and users are reminded of the need to register on the OTSO Publication website in order for them to receive notification of future updates/revisions to the TEM. Those who wish to register must go to the following website location: http://www.dot.state.mn.us/trafficeng/otepubl/updates.html, fill out the required boxes, and select “Traffic Engineering Manual” from the drop-down menu. Lastly, click on the “Submit Your Answers” button. An electronic notification will be sent out to all registrants. Electronic notifications that are returned to the sender, will result in the subscribers name being removed from the notification list. In the event that a subscriber changes email address or internet service provider, it is the responsibility of the subscriber to submit a new request for notification.
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix K-1 – Endangered Species Habitat and Wildlife Technical Report
    I-69 Ohio River Crossing Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement APPENDIX K-1 Endangered, Threatened, and Rare Species Habitat Assessment and Wildlife Technical Report Clarification Note for Central Alternative 1: Central Alternatives 1A and 1B as described in the DEIS are physically the same alternative. The only difference between them is that Central Alternative 1A would include tolls on both the new I-69 bridge and on the US 41 bridge. Central Alternative 1B would only include tolls on the new I-69 bridge. Any reference in this document to Central Alternative 1 applies to both Central Alternative 1A and Central Alternative 1B. Appendices October 15 , 2018 (1'$1*(5('7+5($7(1(' $1'5$5(63(&,(6+$%,7$7 $66(660(17 $1':,/'/,)( 7( CHNICAL 5(3257 I-69I-69 O OHIOHI O RRIVERIVER CCROSSINGROSS IN G PPROJECTROJ ECT Evansville, IN and Henderson, KY I N D O T Endangered, Threatened, and Rare Species Habitat Assessment and Wildlife Technical Report I-69 Ohio River Crossing Project Evansville, IN and Henderson, KY Prepared by: Stantec Consulting Services I-69 Ohio River Crossing Project ETR Species Habitat Assessment and Wildlife Technical Report TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER 1 – INTRODUCTION ............................................................................. 1-1 West Alternative 1 ............................................................................................. 1-4 West Alternative 2 ............................................................................................. 1-6 Central Alternative 1 .......................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Freshwater Mussels of the National Park Service Obed Wild and Scenic River, Tennessee
    Malacological Review, 2017, 45/46: 193-211 FRESHWATER MUSSELS OF THE NATIONAL PARK SERVICE OBED WILD AND SCENIC RIVER, TENNESSEE Steven A. Ahlstedt1, Joseph F. Connell2, Steve Bakaletz3, and Mark T. Fagg4 ABSTRACT The Obed River was designated as a Wild and Scenic River (WSR) in 1976 and is a unit of the National Park Service. The river is considered to be among the highest quality in the state of Tennessee supporting a rich ecological diversity. Two federally listed species (one fish and one mussel) occur in the Obed: spotfin chub Cyprinella monacha, and purple bean Villosa perpurpurea. The Obed is a major tributary to the upper Emory River. Historical mussel collections and recent sampling have documented 27 species in the drainage. Freshwater mussel sampling was relegated to the Obed WSR and tributaries to determine species composition, abundance, and whether reproduction and recruitment is occurring to the fauna. Mussel sampling was conducted from 2000-2001 within the boundaries of the WSR at access points throughout the length of the Obed including portions of the upper Emory River, Daddy’s, Clear, and Whites creek. A total of 585 mussels representing nine species were found during the study. The most abundant mussel found was Villosa iris that comprised 55% of the fauna, followed by Lampsilis fasciola 19% and Medionidus conradicus 14%. The federally endangered V. perpurpurea was represented at 3%. Two species, Pleuronaia barnesiana (live) and Lampsilis cardium (fresh dead), were found as single individuals and P. barnesiana is a new distribution record for the Obed. The mussel fauna in the Obed WSR is relatively rare and historically the river may never have had a more diverse fauna because of the biologically non-productive nature of shale and sandstone that characterize streams on the Cumberland Plateau.
    [Show full text]
  • Epioblasma Torulosa Rangiana (Lea) Northern Riffleshell
    Epioblasma torulosa rangiana (Lea) Northern Riffleshell State Distribution Photo by Kevin Cummins, courtesy of the Illinois Natural History Survey Best Survey Period Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Status: Federal and state endangered able sexual dimorphism in riffleshells. Male shells have a sulcus, or ridge, running posterio-ventrally from just Global and State Rank: G2T2/S1 below the beak. Female shells have a low bulge along the posterio-ventral edge of the shell that accommodates Family: Unionidae (Pearly Mussels) the enlarged marsupium containing eggs. Total Range: The northern riffleshell was found Best Survey Time: April through June. historically in Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, and western Habitat: The northern riffleshell requires swiftly Ontario. It was widespread in the Ohio and Maumee moving, well-oxygenated water. Riffle and run areas River basins, and in tributaries of western Lake Erie. with fine to coarse gravel are the preferred habitats. Today, the northern riffleshell occurs in short reaches of the Green River in Kentucky; the Detroit and Black Biology: The northern riffleshell has been observed to Rivers in Michigan; Big Darby Creek in Ohio; and be gravid from late summer to the following spring, at French Creek, LeBoeuf Creek and the Allegheny River which time the glochidia are released (Ortmann 1912, in Pennsylvania (Stansberry et al. 1982). Clarke 1987). The females use the posterior portion of the outer gill as a brood pouch, or marsupium, that is State Distribution: The range of the northern riffleshell accomodated by the swelling of the female shell. in Michigan is restricted to the eastern border of the Under laboratory conditions, glochidia developed with state.
    [Show full text]
  • Minnesota Mississippi River Parkway Commission 2013-14 Annual Report July 2014
    This document is made available electronically by the Minnesota Legislative Reference Library as part of an ongoing digital archiving project. http://www.leg.state.mn.us/lrl/lrl.asp Minnesota Mississippi River Parkway Commission 2013-14 Annual Report July 2014 300 33rd Ave S, Suite 101, Waite Park, MN 56387 • 651-341-4196 • www.MnMississippiRiver.com Mission The mission of the Mississippi River Parkway Commission of Minnesota is to promote, preserve and enhance the resources of the Mississippi River Valley and to develop the highways and amenities of the Great River Road. The Commission is organized and guided by Minnesota Statute 161.1419. Quarterly Meetings of the Full Commission The MN-MRPC held four full Commission meetings between July 2013 and July 2014 – August 22, 2013; November 14, 2013; February 6, 2014 and May 15, 2014. Each meeting included updates from regional citizen Commissioners and partner state agencies. Projects & Activities Great River Road Corridor Management Planning and Implementation This project will develop a Corridor Management Plan to guide the work of Minnesota’s Mississippi River Parkway Commission for the next 10 – 15 years. The project will also implement a current CMP key strategy - signing the Mississippi River Bicycle Trail (MRT) statewide. 2014 Accomplishments Phase I of Mississippi River Trail signs (Hastings to Iowa Border) were installed (148 miles). Phase II of Mississippi River Trail signs (Hastings to Elk River) were fabricated and installed (300 miles). Meetings were completed to secure municipal agreements for Phase III (Elk River to Lake Itasca) of the Mississippi River Trail sign project. Additional funds ($35,000) were received from the National Park Service, toward total cost of MRT route signage.
    [Show full text]
  • Delisting Targets for Fish/Wildlife Habitat & Population Beneficial Use Impairments for the Clinton River Area
    DELISTING TARGETS FOR FISH/WILDLIFE HABITAT & POPULATION BENEFICIAL USE IMPAIRMENTS FOR THE CLINTON RIVER AREA OF CONCERN Submitted to the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality May 8, 2009 Submitted by: 2200 Commonwealth Blvd, Suite 300 Ann Arbor, MI 48105 Ph: 734-769-3004 Fax: 734-769-3164 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS We would like to acknowledge the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)’s Great Lakes National Program Office (GLNPO) for funding the final phase of this project. At GLNPO, thanks are due to Mr. Tony Kizlauskas (Contract Manager), Ms. Vicki Thomas, and Mr. Mark Elster (both Senior Advisors) for facilitating various administrative components of this project. The first phase of this project was conceived amongst Clinton River Public Advisor Council’s Chairman Mark Richardson, Clinton River Watershed Council’s (CRWC) past Executive Director Jessica Pitelka Opfer, Environmental Consulting & Technology Inc. (ECT) Senior Program Manager Roy Schrameck, and ECT’s Vice President Sanjiv Sinha. Having preceded the development of state-wide targets in Michigan and parallel to efforts in only couple other Areas of Concerns (AOCs), that project was a precursor to many similar efforts across the Great Lakes basin. Many experts contributed their time, efforts, and talent toward the preparation of this report. The Project Team acknowledges the contributions of each of the following members of the Clinton River AOC Delisting Targets Technical Committee, and thanks them for their efforts: Dr. David Allan, University of Michigan Mrs. Laura Evans, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Mrs. Donna Folland, Oakland Land Conservancy Mr. James Francis, Michigan Dept of Natural Resources Dr. Carl Freeman, Wayne State University Ms.
    [Show full text]