DOCSLIB.ORG

Appendix K-1 – Endangered Species Habitat and Wildlife Technical Report

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

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 ........................................................................................ 1-7 CHAPTER 2 – SPECIES ACCOUNTS ...................................................................... 2-1 Mammals ............................................................................................................ 2-1 Freshwater Mussels .......................................................................................... 2-6 Birds .................................................................................................................. 2-17 Mammals .......................................................................................................... 2-18 Freshwater Mussels ........................................................................................ 2-20 Fish .................................................................................................................. 2-23 Amphibians ...................................................................................................... 2-23 Reptiles ............................................................................................................. 2-24 Birds .................................................................................................................. 2-24 State-Listed Plants ........................................................................................... 2-31 CHAPTER 3 – METHODS .......................................................................................... 3-1 CHAPTER 4 – RESULTS ............................................................................................. 4-1 Bottomland Hardwood Forest ........................................................................ 4-2 Mixed Deciduous Forest .................................................................................. 4-3 Upland Scrub-Shrub ......................................................................................... 4-5 Table of Contents i I-69 Ohio River Crossing Project ETR Species Habitat Assessment and Wildlife Technical Report Wetland Scrub-Shrub ....................................................................................... 4-5 Old Field ............................................................................................................. 4-6 Open Water ........................................................................................................ 4-7 Riverine............................................................................................................... 4-7 Residential .......................................................................................................... 4-8 Mowed and Maintained Areas ....................................................................... 4-8 Agricultural Row Crops ................................................................................... 4-9 Additional Wildlife Species Expected ............................................................ 4-9 Specialized Species and Habitat Associations ............................................ 4-10 Bats and Bridges .............................................................................................. 4-22 CHAPTER 5 – DISCUSSION ..................................................................................... 5-1 Kentucky Natural Heritage Records .............................................................. 5-3 Indiana Natural Heritage Records ................................................................. 5-3 Kentucky Department of Fish and Wildlife Resources Records ................ 5-4 2017 Field Observations ................................................................................... 5-4 CHAPTER 6 – LITERATURE CITED ....................................................................... 6-1 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1.2-1. DEIS Study Area DEIS Project Area ................................................................ 1-3 Figure 1.2-2. DEIS Alternatives ............................................................................................... 1-5 LIST OF TABLES Table 1.4-1. State and Federally Listed Species Potentially Occurring within the Study Area ......................................................................................................... 1-9 Table 4.1-1. Potential Habitat Impacts. .................................................................................. 4-2 Table 4.1-2. List of birds occurring within Vanderburgh County, IN, and Henderson County, KY, and near the I-69 ORX study area. .................... 4-13 Table 4.1-3. List of freshwater mussels documented from Ohio River in Henderson County, KY .................................................................................. 4-18 Table of Contents ii I-69 Ohio River Crossing Project ETR Species Habitat Assessment and Wildlife Technical Report Table 4.1-4. Federally and state listed freshwater mussel species potentially occurring within the I-69 ORX study area and their associated habitat use. ....................................................................................................... 4-20 Table 4.1-5. Side scan sonar and sediment sampling results within the Ohio River for the project alternatives. ............................................................................ 4-22 Table 4.2-1. Acres of potential habitat for ETR species within the project alternatives. ...................................................................................................... 4-24 Table 5.1-1. State and federally listed species within occurring in Kentucky and Indiana within the 1-, 5-, and 10-mile buffers of the project alternatives. ........................................................................................................ 5-1 APPENDIX A – NATURAL HERITAGE DATA APPENDIX B – HABITAT MAPS APPENDIX C – TABLE C-1. ETR SPECIES ASSIGNED HABITATS APPENDIX D – KNOWN SPECIES RECORDS MAPS APPENDIX E – INDIANA BAT MAP Table of Contents iii I-69 Ohio River Crossing Project ETR Species Habitat Assessment and Wildlife Technical Report CHAPTER 1 – INTRODUCTION PURPOSE OF TECHNICAL REPORT This technical report is being prepared to document the existing habitat conditions for the I-69 Ohio River Crossing (ORX) project with emphasis on state and federal listed endangered, threatened, and rare (ETR) wildlife species. The information will supplement previously collected data and will be used to help support National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) compliance for the project. Information concerning federally listed ETR species will also be used to help satisfy the requirements of the Endangered Species Act (ESA). PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Indiana Department of Transportation (INDOT), and Kentucky Transportation Cabinet (KYTC) issued a revised Notice of Intent (NOI) in the Federal Register on February 13, 2017 for the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the I-69 ORX project in the Evansville, IN and Henderson, KY area, which is part of the National I-69 Corridor that extends between Mexico and Canada. An NOI was previously issued for the project on May 10, 2001. Under that NOI, a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) was completed in 2004, but the project was subsequently suspended in 2005. In this report, the term “study area” is used to describe properties included in the three alternatives being examined for selection for the I-69 ORX project. For the new DEIS that is being prepared for the I-69 ORX project, the study area extends from I-69 (formerly I-164) in Indiana on the south side of Evansville (i.e., northern terminus) across the Ohio River to I-69 (formerly Edward T. Breathitt Pennyrile Parkway) at the KY 425 interchange southeast of Henderson, KY (i.e., southern terminus) (Figure 1.2-1). The section of Edward T. Breathitt Pennyrile Parkway between KY 351 and KY 425 that was not re-designated as I-69 was recently re-designated as US 41. The western limit of the study area is parallel to and extends
Recommended publications
  • Federal Register/Vol. 70, No. 57/Friday, March 25, 2005/Rules

    Federal Register/Vol. 70, No. 57/Friday, March 25, 2005/Rules

    15228 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 57 / Friday, March 25, 2005 / Rules and Regulations DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Impact Statement is not required. The David B. Olson, Headquarters EA may be reviewed by contacting the Department of the Army; Corps of Regulatory Branch, Washington, DC at District office listed at the end of the Engineers (202) 761–4922, or Ms. Amy S. Babey, FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT Corps of Engineers, Louisville District, section, above. 33 CFR Part 334 at (502) 315–6691. d. Unfunded Mandates Act SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant United States Army Danger Zone; Salt This rule does not impose an River, Rolling Fork River, and Otter to its authorities in Section 7 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1917 (40 Stat enforceable duty among the private Creek; U.S. Army Garrison, Fort Knox sector and, therefore, is not a Federal Military Reservation; Fort Knox, KY 266; 33 U.S.C. 1) and Chapter XIX, of the Army Appropriations Act of 1919 private sector mandate and is not AGENCY: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, (40 Stat 892; 33 U.S.C. 3) the Corps is subject to the requirements of Section DoD. amending the danger zone regulations 202 or 205 of the Unfunded Mandates ACTION: Final rule. in 33 CFR part 334 by adding Section Act. We have also found under Section 334.855, which establishes a danger 203 of the Act, that small governments SUMMARY: The Corps of Engineers is zone in the navigable portions of Salt would not be significantly and uniquely amending its regulations to establish a River and Rolling Fork River, and non- affected by this rulemaking.
  • Abstract ARCHAMBAULT, JENNIFER

    Abstract ARCHAMBAULT, JENNIFER

    Abstract ARCHAMBAULT, JENNIFER MICHELE. Thermal Sensitivity of Freshwater Mussels: Incorporating Benthic Ecology into Laboratory Mesocosm Experiments. (Under the direction of W. Gregory Cope and Thomas J. Kwak). The consequences of global climate change on aquatic ecosystems are predicted to result from altered intensity, variability, and distribution of precipitation, and more frequent flooding and droughts. In freshwater systems, these changes may result in degradation or loss of habitat due to dry stream beds or low flows, and increased water temperatures, pollution, and erosion. Freshwater mussels (Order Unionida) are especially vulnerable to disturbance because they are incapable of escaping detrimental changes at any practical temporal scale. Quantitative information on lethal temperatures (LT) to native freshwater mussels is currently limited to fewer than 10 species, and these few studies have been restricted to the water-only standard method for toxicity testing. The results of these prior studies indicate that some species may be living near their upper thermal tolerances; however, evaluation of the thermal sensitivity of these benthic organisms has never been conducted in sediment. Thus, I sought to increase the complexity and ecological realism of laboratory exposures of freshwater mussels to acute thermal stress by including factors that affect mussels in natural systems, including sediment, flow regime, and a vertical thermal gradient. I developed a method for assessing thermal sensitivity of freshwater mussels in sediment, and, using these testing protocols, I evaluated the relative sensitivities of juveniles of four species (Amblema plicata, Lampsilis abrupta, Lampsilis cariosa, and Lampsilis siliquoidea) and adults of one species (Lampsilis fasciola) to a range of temperatures common during summer in streams with low flow and drought conditions, using two temperature acclimation (22 and 27°C) and surrogate flow regimes (low water and dewatered treatments).
  • A Preliminary Ecological Study of Areas to Be Impounded in the Salt River Basin of Kentucky Digital Object Identifier

    A Preliminary Ecological Study of Areas to Be Impounded in the Salt River Basin of Kentucky Digital Object Identifier

    University of Kentucky UKnowledge KWRRI Research Reports Kentucky Water Resources Research Institute 9-1971 A Preliminary Ecological Study of Areas to be Impounded in the Salt River Basin of Kentucky Digital Object Identifier: https://doi.org/10.13023/kwrri.rr.43 Louis A. Krumholz University of Louisville Click here to let us know how access to this document benefits oy u. Follow this and additional works at: https://uknowledge.uky.edu/kwrri_reports Part of the Environmental Indicators and Impact Assessment Commons, Terrestrial and Aquatic Ecology Commons, and the Water Resource Management Commons Repository Citation Krumholz, Louis A., "A Preliminary Ecological Study of Areas to be Impounded in the Salt River Basin of Kentucky" (1971). KWRRI Research Reports. 152. https://uknowledge.uky.edu/kwrri_reports/152 This Report is brought to you for free and open access by the Kentucky Water Resources Research Institute at UKnowledge. It has been accepted for inclusion in KWRRI Research Reports by an authorized administrator of UKnowledge. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Research Report No. 43 A PRELIMINARY ECOLOGICAL STUDY OF AREAS TO BE IMPOUNDED IN THE SALT RIVER BASIN OF KENTUCKY Dr. Louis A. Krumholz Principal Investigator Project Number B-005-KY Agreement Number 14-01-0001-1908 Technical Research Project Completion Report University of Louisville Water Resources Laboratory Louisville, Kentucky 40208 Tbe work on which this report is based was supported in part by funds provided by the Office of Water Resources Research, United States Depart­ ment of the Interior, as authorized under the Water Resources Research Act of 1964. September 19 71 ABSTRACT This report covers work that is an extension of Project No.
  • Spring 2021 Magazine Insert

    Spring 2021 Magazine Insert

    KENTUCKY Spring 2021 • nature.org/kentucky Green River Lock and Dam #5 is slated for removal in fall 2021. © Mike Wilkinson Green River Lock and Dam #5 Biological assessment clears the way for dam removal Removing Green River Lock and Dam #5 mussel, to name just a few,” says Danna The assessment found that seven of at the Butler and Warren county line will Baxley, director of conservation for the the threatened and endangered species restore 200 miles of free-flowing con- Kentucky chapter. “Our consultants did will not be affected by the dam removal ditions to the river for the first time in a really deep assessment on where the process, while nine have the potential more than a century. Lock and Dam #5 species occurred and how the removal to be negatively impacted. The report is the linchpin in the largest river resto- process and changes in flow will affect outlines mitigation techniques needed to ration project in state history, and The those species.” protect those impacted species. Several Nature Conservancy, U.S. Army Corps The consultants evaluated conditions of the techniques focus on controlling of Engineers, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife both upstream and downstream of sediments and erosion. Service plan to commence removal efforts the dam and found that the 12.6 miles “The dam removal crew will be in the fall of 2021. Before moving forward upstream contained no habitat for any working during the lowest flows and with actual removal, however, TNC and of the mussel species. This is because building work paths that are not near its partners have to complete a myriad the water is pooled upstream of the dam, endangered species habitat,” Baxley says.
  • Louisiana's Animal Species of Greatest Conservation Need (SGCN)

    Louisiana's Animal Species of Greatest Conservation Need (SGCN)

    Louisiana's Animal Species of Greatest Conservation Need (SGCN) ‐ Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Animals ‐ 2020 MOLLUSKS Common Name Scientific Name G‐Rank S‐Rank Federal Status State Status Mucket Actinonaias ligamentina G5 S1 Rayed Creekshell Anodontoides radiatus G3 S2 Western Fanshell Cyprogenia aberti G2G3Q SH Butterfly Ellipsaria lineolata G4G5 S1 Elephant‐ear Elliptio crassidens G5 S3 Spike Elliptio dilatata G5 S2S3 Texas Pigtoe Fusconaia askewi G2G3 S3 Ebonyshell Fusconaia ebena G4G5 S3 Round Pearlshell Glebula rotundata G4G5 S4 Pink Mucket Lampsilis abrupta G2 S1 Endangered Endangered Plain Pocketbook Lampsilis cardium G5 S1 Southern Pocketbook Lampsilis ornata G5 S3 Sandbank Pocketbook Lampsilis satura G2 S2 Fatmucket Lampsilis siliquoidea G5 S2 White Heelsplitter Lasmigona complanata G5 S1 Black Sandshell Ligumia recta G4G5 S1 Louisiana Pearlshell Margaritifera hembeli G1 S1 Threatened Threatened Southern Hickorynut Obovaria jacksoniana G2 S1S2 Hickorynut Obovaria olivaria G4 S1 Alabama Hickorynut Obovaria unicolor G3 S1 Mississippi Pigtoe Pleurobema beadleianum G3 S2 Louisiana Pigtoe Pleurobema riddellii G1G2 S1S2 Pyramid Pigtoe Pleurobema rubrum G2G3 S2 Texas Heelsplitter Potamilus amphichaenus G1G2 SH Fat Pocketbook Potamilus capax G2 S1 Endangered Endangered Inflated Heelsplitter Potamilus inflatus G1G2Q S1 Threatened Threatened Ouachita Kidneyshell Ptychobranchus occidentalis G3G4 S1 Rabbitsfoot Quadrula cylindrica G3G4 S1 Threatened Threatened Monkeyface Quadrula metanevra G4 S1 Southern Creekmussel Strophitus subvexus
  • REPORT FOR: Preliminary Analysis for Identification, Distribution, And

    REPORT FOR: Preliminary Analysis for Identification, Distribution, And

    REPORT FOR: Preliminary Analysis for Identification, Distribution, and Conservation Status of Species of Fusconaia and Pleurobema in Arkansas Principle Investigators: Alan D. Christian Department of Biological Sciences, Arkansas State University, P.O. Box 599, State University, Arkansas 72467; [email protected]; Phone: (870)972-3082; Fax: (870)972-2638 John L. Harris Department of Biological Sciences, Arkansas State University, P.O. Box 599, State University, Arkansas 72467 Jeanne Serb Department of Ecology, Evolution, and Organismal Biology, Iowa State University, 251 Bessey Hall, Ames, Iowa 50011 Graduate Research Assistant: David M. Hayes, Department of Environmental Science, P.O. Box 847, State University, Arkansas 72467: [email protected] Kentaro Inoue, Department of Environmental Science, P.O. Box 847, State University, Arkansas 72467: [email protected] Submitted to: William R. Posey Malacologist and Commercial Fisheries Biologist, AGFC P.O. Box 6740 Perrytown, Arkansas 71801 April 2008 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY There are currently 13 species of Fusconaia and 32 species of Pleurobema recognized in the United States and Canada. Twelve species of Pleurobema and two species of Fusconaia are listed as Threatened or Endangered. There are 75 recognized species of Unionidae in Arkansas; however this number may be much higher due to the presence of cryptic species, many which may reside within the Fusconaia /Pleurobema complex. Currently, three species of Fusconaia and three species of Pleurobema are recognized from Arkansas. The true conservation status of species within these genera cannot be determined until the taxonomic identity of populations is confirmed. The purpose of this study was to begin preliminary analysis of the species composition of Fusconaia and Pleurobema in Arkansas and to determine the phylogeographic relationships within these genera through mitochondrial DNA sequencing and conchological analysis.
  • Freshwater Mussel Survey of Clinchport, Clinch River, Virginia: Augmentation Monitoring Site: 2006

    Freshwater Mussel Survey of Clinchport, Clinch River, Virginia: Augmentation Monitoring Site: 2006

    Freshwater Mussel Survey of Clinchport, Clinch River, Virginia: Augmentation Monitoring Site: 2006 By: Nathan L. Eckert, Joe J. Ferraro, Michael J. Pinder, and Brian T. Watson Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries Wildlife Diversity Division October 28th, 2008 Table of Contents Introduction....................................................................................................................... 4 Objective ............................................................................................................................ 5 Study Area ......................................................................................................................... 6 Methods.............................................................................................................................. 6 Results .............................................................................................................................. 10 Semi-quantitative .................................................................................................. 10 Quantitative........................................................................................................... 11 Qualitative............................................................................................................. 12 Incidental............................................................................................................... 12 Discussion........................................................................................................................
  • Final Summer LAW 7-9-08.Indd

    Final Summer LAW 7-9-08.Indd

    Kentucky Energy and Environment Cabinet Volume 19 Number 3 Summer 2008 Cabinet reorganized, Peters to head Energy and Environment Cabinet since 1988 In June, Gov. Steve Beshear an- nounced a reorganization of the Environ- Commonwealth of Kentucky mental and Public Protection Cabinet. The Steven L. Beshear, Governor reorganization is being done in order to provide better access to services for the people of Kentucky. Energy and Environment Cabinet Governor Beshear announced: Dr. Leonard Peters, Secretary • The Department of Labor is re- established as the Labor Cabinet and is Department for Environmental headed by Secretary J.R. Gray. Protection • The Department of Public Protec- R. Bruce Scott, Commissioner tion is re-established as the Public Protec- tion Cabinet, headed by Secretary Robert Department for Natural Resources D. Vance. Carl Campbell, Commissioner • The Energy and Environment Cabi- net is established. This cabinet will consist Department of Energy Development of the Department for Environmental and Independence Protection, the Department for Natural Resources and the Department of Energy Development and Independence and is headed by Dr. Len Peters. Dr. Peters is an internationally re- Dr. Len Peters Editor and Graphic Designer nowned chemical engineer with Cynthia Schafer demonstrated leadership in research, academia and management. He served for the past fi ve years at the Battelle Memorial Institute in Columbus, a leading nonprofi t applied sci- ence and technology development company. During his tenure at Battelle, Dr. Peters was senior vice president and director of Agency Coordinators the Pacifi c Northwest National Laboratory, where he oversaw a staff of 4,200. Under Martin Bess his leadership, he realigned the laboratory’s research priorities to meet the needs of its Lynn Brammer diverse customer base.
  • September 24, 2018

    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.
  • Inventory and Analysis of Plankton in Green River Within Mammoth Cave National Park

    Inventory and Analysis of Plankton in Green River Within Mammoth Cave National Park

    University of Tennessee, Knoxville TRACE: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange Masters Theses Graduate School 8-2003 Inventory and Analysis of Plankton in Green River within Mammoth Cave National Park Justin H. Laughlin University of Tennessee - Knoxville Follow this and additional works at: https://trace.tennessee.edu/utk_gradthes Part of the Other Animal Sciences Commons Recommended Citation Laughlin, Justin H., "Inventory and Analysis of Plankton in Green River within Mammoth Cave National Park. " Master's Thesis, University of Tennessee, 2003. https://trace.tennessee.edu/utk_gradthes/2051 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at TRACE: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange. It has been accepted for inclusion in Masters Theses by an authorized administrator of TRACE: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange. For more information, please contact [email protected]. To the Graduate Council: I am submitting herewith a thesis written by Justin H. Laughlin entitled "Inventory and Analysis of Plankton in Green River within Mammoth Cave National Park." I have examined the final electronic copy of this thesis for form and content and recommend that it be accepted in partial fulfillment of the equirr ements for the degree of Master of Science, with a major in Wildlife and Fisheries Science. J. Larry Wilson, Major Professor We have read this thesis and recommend its acceptance: Richard Strange, Sammy King Accepted for the Council: Carolyn R. Hodges Vice Provost and Dean of the Graduate School (Original signatures are on file with official studentecor r ds.) To the Graduate Council: I am submitting herewith a thesis written by Justin H.
  • Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service

    Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service

    Thursday, September 13, 2007 Part II Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service 50 CFR Part 17 Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Establishment of Nonessential Experimental Population Status for 15 Freshwater Mussels, 1 Freshwater Snail, and 5 Fishes in the Lower French Broad River and in the Lower Holston River, Tennessee; Final Rule VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:04 Sep 12, 2007 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4717 Sfmt 4717 E:\FR\FM\13SER2.SGM 13SER2 gechino on PROD1PC76 with RULES 52434 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 177 / Thursday, September 13, 2007 / Rules and Regulations DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR their tributaries. These species are being Regulatory restrictions are considerably reintroduced under the authority of reduced under a Non-essential Fish and Wildlife Service section 10(j) of the Act and would be Experimental Population (NEP) classified as a nonessential designation. 50 CFR Part 17 experimental population (NEP). Without the NEP designation, the Act RIN 1018–AU01 The geographic boundaries of the NEP provides that species listed as would extend from the base of Douglas endangered or threatened are afforded Endangered and Threatened Wildlife Dam (river mile (RM) 32.3 (51.7 protection primarily through the and Plants; Establishment of kilometers (km)) down the French Broad prohibitions of section 9 and the Nonessential Experimental Population River, Knox and Sevier Counties, requirements of section 7. Section 9 of Status for 15 Freshwater Mussels, 1 Tennessee, to its confluence with the the Act prohibits the take of an Freshwater Snail, and 5 Fishes in the Holston River and then up the Holston endangered species.
  • A Review of the Interactions Between Catfishes and Freshwater Mollusks

    A Review of the Interactions Between Catfishes and Freshwater Mollusks

    American Fisheries Society Symposium 77:733–743, 2011 © 2011 by the American Fisheries Society A Review of the Interactions between Catfi shes and Freshwater Mollusks in North America JEREMY S. TIEMANN* Illinois Natural History Survey Institute of Natural Resource Sustainability at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign 1816 South Oak Street, Champaign, Illinois 61820, USA STEPHEN E. MCMURRAY Missouri Department of Conservation, Resource Science Division 1110 South College Avenue, Columbia, Missouri 65201, USA M. CHRISTOPHER BARNHART Missouri State University, Department of Biology 901 South National, Springfi eld, Missouri 65897, USA G. THOMAS WATTERS The Ohio State University, Department of Evolution, Ecology, and Organismal Biology 1315 Kinnear Road, Columbus, Ohio 43212, USA Abstract.—Catfi shes are important in freshwater ecosystems not only as consumers, but also as essential partners in symbiotic relationships with other organisms. Freshwater mol- lusks are among the many organisms that have interactions with catfi shes. For example, icta- lurids are hosts for larvae of several native freshwater mussel species. The larvae, which attach briefl y to gills or fi ns of fi sh to complete their development to the free-living juvenile stage, disperse via upstream and downstream movement of host fi sh. In turn, freshwater mussels serve as a food source for some catfi sh species while other catfi sh species may use spent mus- sel shells for habitat. Ictalurids also benefi t from the conservation status of many freshwater mussel species. Federal and state laws protecting these invertebrates can preserve water qual- ity and habitat and, at times, provide incentives and funding for conservation and restoration of stream and riparian habitats.