DOCSLIB.ORG

Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service Tuesday, July 2, 2002 Part II Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service 50 CFR Part 17 Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of Critical Habitat for the Carolina Heelsplitter; Final Rule VerDate jun<06>2002 19:27 Jul 01, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4717 Sfmt 4717 E:\FR\FM\02JYR2.SGM pfrm15 PsN: 02JYR2 44502 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 127 / Tuesday, July 2, 2002 / Rules and Regulations DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Background Pee Dee River system in Union County, Lea (1852) originally described the NC; and an area in South Carolina Fish and Wildlife Service Carolina heelsplitter, a native freshwater referred to only as the ‘‘Abbeville mussel, as Unio decoratus. Johnson District,’’ a terminology no longer 50 CFR Part 17 (1970) synonymized this species with employed (Clarke 1985, Keferl and Lasmigona subviridis (Conrad 1835). Shelly 1988, Keferl 1991). The records RIN 1018–AH31 Clarke (1985) recognized the Carolina from the Abbeville District, SC, heelsplitter as a distinct species, previously were believed to have been Endangered and Threatened Wildlife Lasymigona decorata, and synonymized from the Saluda River system (Clarke and Plants; Designation of Critical Unio charlottensis (Lea 1863) and Unio 1985, Keferl and Shelly 1988, Keferl Habitat for the Carolina Heelsplitter insolidus (Lea 1872) with Lasmigona 1991, Service 1993). However, biologists decorata. A genetic comparison of a discovered a population of the Carolina AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, heelsplitter in the spring of 1995 in the Interior. specimen of L. decorata with specimens of L. subviridis (Tim King, U.S. Savannah River system (Stevens Creek ACTION: Final rule. Geological Survey, Leetown, West watershed) (Alderman 1995, 1998a, and Virginia, pers. comm. 2001) supports 1998b; J. Fridell personal observation SUMMARY: We, the Fish and Wildlife 1995, 1998, 2000, 2001). Therefore, the Service (Service), designate critical Clarke’s (1985) position on the taxonomy (scientific classification) of historic records from the Abbeville habitat for the Carolina heelsplitter District may have been from either the (Lasmigona decorata), a freshwater this species. The Carolina heelsplitter has an ovate, Saluda River system or the Savannah mussel, pursuant to the Endangered River system or both. An additional Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). trapezoid-shaped, unsculptured (smooth with no distinct bumps or protrusions) historic record of the Carolina The areas designated as critical habitat heelsplitter from the main stem of the for the Carolina heelsplitter total shell. The shell of the largest known specimen measures 11.5 centimeters Pee Dee River in Richmond County, NC, approximately 148.4 kilometers (92.2 was discovered recently (Art Bogan, miles) of streams, including portions of (cm) (4.5 inches (in)) in length, 3.9 cm (1.5 in) in width, and 6.8 cm (2.7 in) in North Carolina Museum of Science and three creeks in North Carolina and one Natural History, pers. comm. 2001); river and six creeks in South Carolina. height. The shell’s outer surface varies from greenish brown to dark brown in however, surveys by biologists with the Critical habitat identifies specific color, and shells from younger North Carolina Wildlife Resources areas that are essential to the specimens have faint greenish brown or Commission (NCWRC) and North conservation of a listed species and that black rays. The nacre (inside surface) is Carolina Department of Transportation may require special management often pearly white to bluish white, (NCDOT) have failed to find any considerations or protection. grading to orange in the area of the evidence of a surviving population of Section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires that umbo (bulge or beak that protrudes near the species at the site of this record or each Federal agency shall, in the hinge of a mussel). However, in elsewhere in the main stem of the Pee consultation with the Service, insure older specimens the entire nacre may be Dee River (John Alderman, NCWRC, that any action authorized, funded or a mottled pale orange. The hinge teeth personal communication 2001; Tim carried out by such agency is not likely (pseudocardinal teeth and lateral teeth) Savidge, NCDOT, personal to jeopardize the continued existence of of the species are well developed but communication 2001). an endangered or threatened species or thin and rather delicate. The left valve Recent collection records (Keferl and result in the destruction or adverse (half of a mussel shell) has two blade- Shelly 1988; Keferl 1991; Alderman modification of critical habitat. Section like pseudocardinal teeth and two 1995, 1998a, and 1998b; North Carolina 4 of the Act requires us to consider lateral teeth, and the right valve has one Wildlife Resources Commission 1999 economic and other relevant impacts of of each. The left valve may also have an and 2000) indicate that the Carolina specifying any particular area as critical interdental projection, a slight heelsplitter has been eliminated from habitat. projection located between the lateral the majority of its historical range, and We solicited data and comments from and pseudocardinal teeth (adapted from only six populations are presently the public on all aspects of this Keferl 1991). Clarke (1985) provides a known to exist. In Union County, NC, proposal, including data on economic detailed description of the shell, with one small remnant population occurs in and other impacts of the designation. illustrations. Waxhaw Creek, a tributary to the DATES: This rule is effective August 1, Catawba River, and another small 2002. Distribution, Habitat, and Life History population occurs in both Goose Creek, The Carolina heelsplitter currently a tributary in the Rocky River, and Duck ADDRESSES: Comments and materials has a very fragmented, relict Creek, a tributary to Goose Creek, in the received, as well as supporting distribution but historically was known Pee Dee River system. In South documentation used in preparation of from several locations within the Carolina, there are four small surviving this final rule, are available for public Catawba and Pee Dee River systems in populations—one each in the Pee Dee inspection, by appointment, during North Carolina and the Pee Dee and and Catawba River systems and two in normal business hours at the Asheville Savannah River systems, and possibly the Savannah River system. The Field Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife the Saluda River system, in South population in the Pee Dee River system Service, 160 Zillicoa Street, Asheville, Carolina. Historically, the species was occurs in a relatively short reach of the NC 28801. collected from the Catawba River, Lynches River in Chesterfield, FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Mecklenburg County, NC; several Lancaster, and Kershaw Counties and Fridell, Fish and Wildlife Biologist (see streams and ‘‘ponds’’ in the Catawba extends into Flat Creek, a tributary to ADDRESSES section), (telephone 828/ River system around the Charlotte area the Lynches River in Lancaster County. 258–3939, extension 225; facsimile 828/ of Mecklenburg County, NC; one small In the Catawba River system, the species 258–5330). stream in the Pee Dee River system in survives only in a short reach of Gills SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Cabarrus County, NC; one ‘‘pond’’ in the Creek in Lancaster County. In the VerDate May<23>2002 19:11 Jul 01, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02JYR2.SGM pfrm17 PsN: 02JYR2 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 127 / Tuesday, July 2, 2002 / Rules and Regulations 44503 Savannah River system, one population history are unknown, but likely are populations—in Gill Creek and is found in Turkey Creek in Edgefield similar to that of other native freshwater Cuffytown Creek—have been found and McCormick Counties, and two of its mussels. For the reproductive cycle of since then, the concerns expressed in tributaries, Mountain Creek and mussels in general, males release sperm the recovery plan regarding the Beaverdam Creek in Edgefield County; into the water column; the sperm are vulnerability of the Carolina heelsplitter another smaller population survives in then taken in by the females through are still valid. The recovery plan states: Cuffytown Creek, in Greenwood and their siphons during feeding and ‘‘The low number of individuals and the McCormick Counties. Despite extensive respiration. The females retain the restricted range of each of the surviving surveys in recent years, no evidence of fertilized eggs in their gills until the populations make them extremely a population has been found in the larvae (glochidia) fully develop. The vulnerable to extirpation from a single Saluda River system (Keferl and Shelly mussel glochidia are released into the catastrophic event or activity, such as a 1988; Keferl 1991; Alderman 1998a). water, and within a few days they must toxic chemical spill or major channel Historically, the Carolina heelsplitter attach to the appropriate species of host alteration. Also, the existing and was reported from small to large, fish, which are then parasitized for a potential future land-uses of the moderate-gradient streams and rivers as short time while the glochidia develop surrounding area threaten the habitat well as ponds. The ‘‘ponds’’ referred to into juvenile mussels. They then detach and water quality of all four populations in historic records are believed to have from their ‘‘fish host’’ and sink to the with increased discharge or runoff of been mill ponds on some of
Load more

Recommended publications
  • North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission Gordon Myers, Executive Director
    North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission Gordon Myers, Executive Director March 1, 2016 Honorable Jimmy Dixon Honorable Chuck McGrady N.C. House of Representatives N.C. House of Representatives 300 N. Salisbury Street, Room 416B 300 N. Salisbury Street, Room 304 Raleigh, NC 27603-5925 Raleigh, NC 27603-5925 Senator Trudy Wade N.C. Senate 300 N. Salisbury Street, Room 521 Raleigh, NC 27603-5925 Dear Honorables: I am submitting this report to the Environmental Review Committee in fulfillment of the requirements of Section 4.33 of Session Law 2015-286 (H765). As directed, this report includes a review of methods and criteria used by the NC Wildlife Resources Commission on the State protected animal list as defined in G.S. 113-331 and compares them to federal and state agencies in the region. This report also reviews North Carolina policies specific to introduced species along with determining recommendations for improvements to these policies among state and federally listed species as well as nonlisted animals. If you have questions or need additional information, please contact me by phone at (919) 707-0151 or via email at [email protected]. Sincerely, Gordon Myers Executive Director North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission Report on Study Conducted Pursuant to S.L. 2015-286 To the Environmental Review Commission March 1, 2016 Section 4.33 of Session Law 2015-286 (H765) directed the N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission (WRC) to “review the methods and criteria by which it adds, removes, or changes the status of animals on the state protected animal list as defined in G.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Carolina Heelsplitter (Lasmigona Decorata)
    Carolina Heelsplitter (Lasmigona decorata) 5-Year Review: Summary and Evaluation 2012 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Southeast Region Asheville Ecological Services Field Office Asheville, North Carolina 5-YEAR REVIEW Carolina heelsplitter (Lasmigona decorata) I. GENERAL INFORMATION. A. Methodology Used to Complete the Review: This 5-year review was accomplished using pertinent status data obtained from the recovery plan, peer-reviewed scientific publications, unpublished research reports, and experts on this species. Once all known and pertinent data were collected for this species, the status information was compiled and the review was completed by the species’ lead recovery biologist John Fridell in the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s (Service) Ecological Services Field Office in Asheville, North Carolina, with assistance from biologist Lora Zimmerman, formerly with the Service’s Ecological Services Field Office in Charleston, South Carolina. The Service published a notice in the Federal Register (FR [71 FR 42871]) announcing the 5-year review of the Carolina heelsplitter and requesting new information on the species. A 60-day public comment period was opened. No information about this species was received from the public. A draft of the 5-year review was peer-reviewed by six experts familiar with the Carolina heelsplitter. Comments received were evaluated and incorporated as appropriate. B. Reviewers. Lead Region: Southeast Region, Atlanta, Georgia - Kelly Bibb, 404/679-7132. Lead Field Office: Ecological Services Field Office, Asheville, North Carolina - John Fridell, 828/258-3939, Ext. 225. Cooperating Field Office: Ecological Services Field Office, Charleston, South Carolina - Morgan Wolf, 843/727-4707, Ext. 219. C. Background. 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Monticello Reservoir Mussel Survey Report
    Freshwater Mussel Survey Report In Monticello Reservoir Parr Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. 1894) Fairfield and Newberry Counties, South Carolina Monticello Reservoir Shoreline Habitat Prepared For: South Carolina Electric & Gas Company & Kleinschmidt Associates 204 Caughman Farm Lane, Suite 301 Lexington, SC 29072 April 14, 2016 Prepared by: Three Oaks Engineering 1000 Corporate Drive, Suite 101 Hillsborough, NC 27278 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................... 1 2.0 TARGET FEDERALLY PROTECTED SPECIES DESCRIPTION: Carolina Heelsplitter (Lasmigona decorata) .................................................................................. 1 2.1 Species Characteristics ..................................................................................................... 1 2.2 Distribution and Habitat Requirements ............................................................................ 3 2.3 Threats to Species............................................................................................................. 4 2.4 Designated Critical Habitat .............................................................................................. 4 3.0 TARGET PETITIONED FEDERALLY PROTECTED SPECIES DESCRIPTION: Savannah Lilliput (Toxolasma pullus) ............................................................................................ 8 3.1 Species Characteristics ....................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • List of the Freshwater Bivalve Species of North Carolina
    List of the Freshwater Bivalve species of North Carolina - printed 2021-09-24 This is a listing of the bivalve mollusk species that have been documented or reported to occur in the freshwater systems of the state. Because bivalves can be very difficult to identify to genus and to species, and because there are a number of historical (often over 100 years ago) and poorly documented reports of many species, it is impossible to state the number of freshwater bivalve species that have been documented in the state. The scientific and common names used in this list are from Williams et al. (2017) for the taxa in the family Unionidae, and from NatureServe Explorer for the taxa in Corbiculidae and Sphaeriidae. The list also includes the State Rank, Global Rank, State Status, and U.S. Status (if it has such statuses) for each species. The ranks are those of the Biotics database of the N. C. Natural Heritage Program and NatureServe, October 2016. Ranks in parentheses are provided by the N.C. Biodiversity Project, based on data in Williams et al. (2017). Status information is given on Page 3. Unionidae: Freshwater Mussels [48] [Rank: State Global] [Status: State US] Range (by river basins) 1 Alasmidonta heterodon ................ Dwarf Wedgemussel ................... [S1 G1G2] [E E] NS, TP 2 Alasmidonta raveneliana .............. Appalachian Elktoe ...................... [S1 G1] [E E] FB, LT 3 Alasmidonta undulata ................... Triangle Floater ........................... [S3 G4] [T] CF, CH, NS, RO, TP, YP 4 Alasmidonta varicosa ................... Brook Floater ............................... [S2 G3] [E] CA, CF, NS, YP 5 Alasmidonta viridis ....................... Slippershell Mussel ..................... [S1 G4G5] [E] FB, LT 6 Cyclonaias tuberculata ................
    [Show full text]
  • Field Guide to the Freshwater Mussels of South Carolina
    Field Guide to the Freshwater Mussels of South Carolina South Carolina Department of Natural Resources About this Guide Citation for this publication: Bogan, A. E.1, J. Alderman2, and J. Price. 2008. Field guide to the freshwater mussels of South Carolina. South Carolina Department of Natural Resources, Columbia. 43 pages This guide is intended to assist scientists and amateur naturalists with the identification of freshwater mussels in the field. For a more detailed key assisting in the identification of freshwater mussels, see Bogan, A.E. and J. Alderman. 2008. Workbook and key to the freshwater bivalves of South Carolina. Revised Second Edition. The conservation status listed for each mussel species is based upon recommendations listed in Williams, J.D., M.L. Warren Jr., K.S. Cummings, J.L. Harris and R.J. Neves. 1993. Conservation status of the freshwater mussels of the United States and Canada. Fisheries. 18(9):6-22. A note is also made where there is an official state or federal status for the species. Cover Photograph by Ron Ahle Funding for this project was provided by the US Fish and Wildlife Service. 1 North Carolina State Museum of Natural Sciences 2 Alderman Environmental Services 1 Diversity and Classification Mussels belong to the class Bivalvia within the phylum Mollusca. North American freshwater mussels are members of two families, Unionidae and Margaritiferidae within the order Unionoida. Approximately 300 species of freshwater mussels occur in North America with the vast majority concentrated in the Southeastern United States. Twenty-nine species, all in the family Unionidae, occur in South Carolina.
    [Show full text]
  • Freshwater Bivalves of North Carolina
    List of the Freshwater Bivalve species of North Carolina - compiled 2017-11-03 This is a listing of the bivalve mollusk species that have been documented or reported to occur in the freshwater systems of the state. Because bivalves can be very difficult to identify to genus and to species, and because there are a number of historical (often over 100 years ago) and poorly documented reports of many species, it is impossible to state the number of freshwater bivalve species that have been documented in the state. The scientific and common names used in this list are from Williams et al. (2017) for the taxa in the family Unionidae, and from NatureServe Explorer for the taxa in Corbiculidae and Sphaeriidae. The list also includes the State Rank, Global Rank, State Status, and U.S. Status (if it has such statuses) for each species. The ranks are those of the Biotics database of the N. C. Natural Heritage Program and NatureServe, October 2016. Ranks in parentheses are provided by the N.C. Biodiversity Project, based on data in Williams et al. (2017). Status information is given on Page 3. Unionidae: Freshwater Mussels [48] [Rank: State Global] [Status: State US] Range (by river basins) 1 Alasmidonta heterodon ................ Dwarf Wedgemussel ................... [S1 G1G2] [E E] NS, TP 2 Alasmidonta raveneliana .............. Appalachian Elktoe ...................... [S1 G1] [E E] FB, LT 3 Alasmidonta undulata ................... Triangle Floater ........................... [S3 G4] [T FSC] CF, CH, NS, RO, TP, YP 4 Alasmidonta varicosa ................... Brook Floater ............................... [S2 G3] [E FSC] CA, CF, NS, YP 5 Alasmidonta viridis ....................... Slippershell Mussel ..................... [S1 G4G5] [E FSC] FB, LT 6 Cyclonaias tuberculata ................
    [Show full text]
  • Using Environmental DNA and Macroinvertebrate Biotic Integrity to Inform Conservation Efforts for the Carolina Heelsplitter
    Clemson University TigerPrints All Theses Theses December 2020 Using Environmental DNA and Macroinvertebrate Biotic Integrity to Inform Conservation Efforts for the Carolina Heelsplitter Benjamin Schmidt Clemson University, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://tigerprints.clemson.edu/all_theses Recommended Citation Schmidt, Benjamin, "Using Environmental DNA and Macroinvertebrate Biotic Integrity to Inform Conservation Efforts for the Carolina Heelsplitter" (2020). All Theses. 3441. https://tigerprints.clemson.edu/all_theses/3441 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Theses at TigerPrints. It has been accepted for inclusion in All Theses by an authorized administrator of TigerPrints. For more information, please contact [email protected]. USING ENVIRONMENTAL DNA AND MACROINVERTEBRATE BIOTIC INTEGRITY TO INFORM CONSERVATION EFFORTS FOR THE CAROLINA HEELSPLITTER A Thesis Presented to the Graduate School of Clemson University In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Master of Science Wildlife and Fisheries Biology by Benjamin Schmidt December 2020 Accepted by: Dr. Catherine M. Bodinof Jachowski, Committee Chair Dr. Stephen F. Spear Dr. Robert F. Baldwin ABSTRACT The Carolina Heelsplitter (Lasmigona decorata) is a federally endangered freshwater mussel endemic to North and South Carolina, USA. The species has experienced dramatic range-wide declines as a result of habitat fragmentation and water quality deterioration, and the remaining populations are isolated and extremely small. Conservation efforts for the Carolina Heelsplitter have been limited by a lack of knowledge regarding distribution, life history traits, and habitat requirements. Our objectives during this project were to 1. Evaluate the efficacy of an environmental DNA (eDNA) assay to detect the Carolina Heelsplitter and a known host fish, the Bluehead Chub, from stream water samples and 2.
    [Show full text]
  • A Revised List of the Freshwater Mussels (Mollusca: Bivalvia: Unionida) of the United States and Canada
    Freshwater Mollusk Biology and Conservation 20:33–58, 2017 Ó Freshwater Mollusk Conservation Society 2017 REGULAR ARTICLE A REVISED LIST OF THE FRESHWATER MUSSELS (MOLLUSCA: BIVALVIA: UNIONIDA) OF THE UNITED STATES AND CANADA James D. Williams1*, Arthur E. Bogan2, Robert S. Butler3,4,KevinS.Cummings5, Jeffrey T. Garner6,JohnL.Harris7,NathanA.Johnson8, and G. Thomas Watters9 1 Florida Museum of Natural History, Museum Road and Newell Drive, Gainesville, FL 32611 USA 2 North Carolina Museum of Natural Sciences, MSC 1626, Raleigh, NC 27699 USA 3 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 212 Mills Gap Road, Asheville, NC 28803 USA 4 Retired. 5 Illinois Natural History Survey, 607 East Peabody Drive, Champaign, IL 61820 USA 6 Alabama Division of Wildlife and Freshwater Fisheries, 350 County Road 275, Florence, AL 35633 USA 7 Department of Biological Sciences, Arkansas State University, State University, AR 71753 USA 8 U.S. Geological Survey, Wetland and Aquatic Research Center, 7920 NW 71st Street, Gainesville, FL 32653 USA 9 Museum of Biological Diversity, The Ohio State University, 1315 Kinnear Road, Columbus, OH 43212 USA ABSTRACT We present a revised list of freshwater mussels (order Unionida, families Margaritiferidae and Unionidae) of the United States and Canada, incorporating changes in nomenclature and systematic taxonomy since publication of the most recent checklist in 1998. We recognize a total of 298 species in 55 genera in the families Margaritiferidae (one genus, five species) and Unionidae (54 genera, 293 species). We propose one change in the Margaritiferidae: the placement of the formerly monotypic genus Cumberlandia in the synonymy of Margaritifera. In the Unionidae, we recognize three new genera, elevate four genera from synonymy, and place three previously recognized genera in synonymy.
    [Show full text]
  • Assessing Impacts of Habitat Loss on Freshwater Mussel
    Clemson University TigerPrints All Dissertations Dissertations 5-2018 Water-Electricity Nexus: Assessing Impacts of Habitat Loss on Freshwater Mussel Assemblages in the Savannah Basin, South Carolina Snehal Subhash Mhatre Clemson University, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://tigerprints.clemson.edu/all_dissertations Recommended Citation Mhatre, Snehal Subhash, "Water-Electricity Nexus: Assessing Impacts of Habitat Loss on Freshwater Mussel Assemblages in the Savannah Basin, South Carolina" (2018). All Dissertations. 2120. https://tigerprints.clemson.edu/all_dissertations/2120 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Dissertations at TigerPrints. It has been accepted for inclusion in All Dissertations by an authorized administrator of TigerPrints. For more information, please contact [email protected]. WATER-ELECTRICITY NEXUS: ASSESSING IMPACTS OF HABITAT LOSS ON FRESHWATER MUSSEL ASSEMBLAGES IN THE SAVANNAH BASIN, SOUTH CAROLINA A Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School of Clemson University In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy Wildlife and Fisheries Biology by Snehal Subhash Mhatre May 2018 Accepted by: Dr. Alan R. Johnson, Committee Chair Dr. Kyle Barrett Dr. John Hains Dr. John Rodgers, Jr. ABSTRACT The environmental effects of energy production are well known, yet its exact impacts on freshwater resources are often difficult to recognize and measure. Freshwater mussels are extremely imperiled organisms which act as sentinels of freshwater streams and are greatly understudied in context of their drastic decline caused in part due to large water demands by the energy sector. I sought to estimate historic, current and forecasted water use by electricity generation at national, regional and local- scale.
    [Show full text]
  • GREEN FLOATER (Lasmigona Subviridis)
    GREEN FLOATER (Lasmigona subviridis) Green Floater, credit USGS The green floater is a freshwater mussel that has declined precipitously in population size and distribution over the last 100 years, and is now vulnerable to extinction. Land use changes have increased erosion and sediment runoff, reducing water quality, and harming mussels. The green floater was petitioned for Federal listing under the Endangered Species Act in 2010 and the American Fisheries Society classified it as threatened in 1993. Historically, they were present in 10 states (New York, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Maryland, West Virginia, Virginia, Tennessee, North Carolina, Georgia, and Alabama) and the District of Columbia (Figure 1). They are now extirpated in two states and the District of Columbia and have had significant declines in abundance and presence in other states (NatureServe 2020). In Maryland, this species is present in only a few watersheds. The green floater is small, typically less than 55 millimeters (mm) in length. It has a subovate or trapezoidal shape and a thin yellowish-brown shell covered in varying amounts of green rays. Younger specimens are typically greener (PNHP 2012). The green floater is also distinct for its interior shell color of whitish to blue, and an interdental tooth. The small size and low abundance of this species can make it more difficult to find during surveys. More research is needed to obtain additional information regarding ecology, genetics, and life history (USGS 2019). 1 Figure 1. This 2020 map demonstrates the distribution of the green floater mussel from Alabama to New York (NatureServe 2020). LIFE HISTORY Like other freshwater mussels, sexual reproduction occurs through the water column.
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix D I-85 Widening (MM 80 to 96) Biological Assessment, I-85
    Appendix D I‐85 Widening (MM 80 to 96) Biological Assessment, I‐85 Project Submittal Form for NLEB, Protected Aquatic Species Survey Report; Cherokee and Spartanburg Counties; Interstate 85 Widening from Mile Marker 80 to 96, and FWS Correspondence regarding I‐85 Project Submittal Form for NLEB Biological Assessment Proposed Interstate 85 (I-85) Widening & Interchange Improvements Project From Mile Marker 80 to Mile Marker 96 Cherokee and Spartanburg Counties, South Carolina SCDOT PIN 27114 Biological Assessment Federally Threatened and Endangered Species Proposed Interstate 85 (I-85) Widening & Interchange Improvements Project From Mile Marker 80 to Mile Marker 96 Cherokee and Spartanburg Counties, South Carolina SCDOT PIN 27114 The South Carolina Department of Transportation (SCDOT) proposes to widen approximately 16 miles of Interstate 85 (I-85) in the counties of Cherokee and Spartanburg, South Carolina; please see Appendix A for a Site Location Map. The project also proposes to improve interchanges within the project limits. The project originates at approximate Mile Marker (MM) 80, just east of S-57 (Gossett Road), in Spartanburg County, and terminates at approximate MM 96, just west of the Broad River, in Cherokee County. The proposed project would involve the following: widen the existing four-lane interstate facility to a minimum of six lanes, three in each direction; improve the I-85 interchange with SC 110 (Battleground Road); improve the I-85 interchange with S-39 (Green River Road); improve the I-85 interchange with SC 105 (Hyatt Street); improve the I-85 interchange with S-82 (Pleasant School Road); improve the I-85 interchange with and SC 18 (Shelby Highway); and replace the existing I-85 overpass bridge on S-131 (Sunny Slope Drive).
    [Show full text]
  • Volume 20 Number 2 October 2017
    FRESHWATER MOLLUSK BIOLOGY AND CONSERVATION THE JOURNAL OF THE FRESHWATER MOLLUSK CONSERVATION SOCIETY VOLUME 20 NUMBER 2 OCTOBER 2017 Pages 33-58 oregonensis/kennerlyi clade, Gonidea angulata, and A Revised List of the Freshwater Mussels (Mollusca: Margaritifera falcata Bivalvia: Unionida) of the United States and Canada Emilie Blevins, Sarina Jepsen, Jayne Brim Box, James D. Williams, Arthur E. Bogan, Robert S. Butler, Donna Nez, Jeanette Howard, Alexa Maine, and Kevin S. Cummings, Jeffrey T. Garner, John L. Harris, Christine O’Brien Nathan A. Johnson, and G. Thomas Watters Pages 89-102 Pages 59-64 Survival of Translocated Clubshell and Northern Mussel Species Richness Estimation and Rarefaction in Riffleshell in Illinois Choctawhatchee River Watershed Streams Kirk W. Stodola, Alison P. Stodola, and Jeremy S. Jonathan M. Miller, J. Murray Hyde, Bijay B. Niraula, Tiemann and Paul M. Stewart Pages 103-113 Pages 65-70 What are Freshwater Mussels Worth? Verification of Two Cyprinid Host Fishes for the Texas David L. Strayer Pigtoe, Fusconaia askewi Erin P. Bertram, John S. Placyk, Jr., Marsha G. Pages 114-122 Williams, and Lance R. Williams Evaluation of Costs Associated with Externally Affixing PIT Tags to Freshwater Mussels using Three Commonly Pages 71-88 Employed Adhesives Extinction Risk of Western North American Freshwater Matthew J. Ashton, Jeremy S. Tiemann, and Dan Hua Mussels: Anodonta nuttalliana, the Anodonta Freshwater Mollusk Biology and Conservation ©2017 ISSN 2472-2944 Editorial Board CO-EDITORS Gregory Cope, North Carolina State University Wendell Haag, U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service Tom Watters, The Ohio State University EDITORIAL REVIEW BOARD Conservation Jess Jones, U.S.
    [Show full text]