DOCSLIB.ORG

Proceedings of the Indiana Academy of Science 1 15(2): 103- 109

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

2006. Proceedings of the Indiana Academy of Science 1 15(2): 103- 109 CURRENT STATUS OF FRESHWATER MUSSELS (ORDER UNIONOIDA) IN THE WABASH RIVER DRAINAGE OF INDIANA Brant E. Fisher: Indiana Department of Natural Resources, Atterbury Fish & Wildlife Area, 7970 South Rowe Street, P.O. Box 3000, Edinburgh, Indiana 46124 USA ABSTRACT. Seventy-five species of freshwater mussels (Order Unionoida) have historically inhabited the Wabash River drainage of Indiana. Nine of these species have always been restricted to Wabash River tributaries and never maintained reproducing populations in the mainstem Wabash River. Of the 66 re- maining species, 18 are currently considered extirpated from the entire drainage and 18 maintain repro- ducing populations only in Wabash River tributaries. Currently, 30 species maintain reproducing popula- tions in the mainstem Wabash River, which represents a 55% reduction in its freshwater mussel fauna. To date, the entire Wabash River drainage of Indiana has seen a 24% reduction in its freshwater mussel fauna. Keywords: Freshwater mussels, Wabash River The freshwater mussel (Order Unionoida) mussels in the Wabash River drainage of Il- fauna of the Wabash River drainage has been linois. well documented historically. Stein (1881) at- Many of the larger tributaries of the Wa- tempted the first complete list of the 'mollus- bash River have also had recent survey work cous fauna of Indiana,' and referenced many completed (from upstream to downstream): species as inhabiting the Wabash River and its Salamonie River (Ecological Specialists. Inc. tributaries. Call (1894, 1896, 1897, 1900), 1995), Mississinewa River (Ecological Spe- cialists, Inc. River (upper Blatchley & Daniels (1903), Daniels (1903, 1995), Eel Wabash River) (Henschen 1987). Tippecanoe River 1915), and Goodrich & van der Schalie (1944) (Cummings Berlocher 1990: Cummings et continued to add to the knowledge of Indi- & al. 1992; Ecological Specialists. Inc. 1993, ana's mollusca fauna and provided invaluable 1998; Ball & Schoenung 1996: Common- information on those species found in the Wa- wealth Biomonitoring 2005: EnviroScience bash River drainage. 2006), Middle Fork Wildcat (Henschen 1990). Three important Wabash River studies were small streams of Tippecanoe Count) (Mvers- completed during the 1960s and 1970s. Meyer Kinzie et al. 2001). Jordan Creek (Szafoni et (1968) and Krumholz et al. (1970) studied the al. 2000), Sugar Creek (middle Wabash River commercially valuable species of the Wabash tributary) (Lewis 1991). Brouilletts Creek and White rivers. Clark (1976) inventoried (Tiemann 2005). East Fork White River drain- mussels from the lower Wabash River. age (Cummings et al. 1992: Ball & Schoen- Between 1987 and 1991, Cummings et al. ung 1996; Harmon 1998: Clarke et al. L999; (1992) sampled 100 sites in the Wabash River EnviroScience 2006). West Fork White River drainage, including 53 sites on the mainstem drainage (Cummings et al. 1992; Henschen Wabash River. Several of the lower Wabash 1993. 1995; L. Bow ley. Muncie Bureau of River sites sampled by Cummings et al. Water Quality pers. comm.). and Patoka River (1992) were re-sampled in 1996 by Frankland (Ecological Specialists. Inc. 2001). Figure 1 (1996). Ball & Schoenung (1996) and illustrates the recent collections cited here. EnviroScience intensively L (2006) sampled which include samples from l )S~"-2004. freshwater mussels at several locations in the In addition to this information, the Wildlife upper mainstem Wabash River. Page et al. Diversity Section. Division of Fish and Wild- (1992) and Cummings & Mayer (1997) pro- life. Indiana Department of Natural Resourc- vide information on the status of freshwater es, collected freshwater mussel information 1 03 104 PROCEEDINGS OF THE INDIANA ACADEMY OF SCIENCE . 2. Figure 1 —Freshwater mussel sample locations Figure —Freshwater mussel sample locations reported from cited literature for the Wabash River reported from cited literature and collected by the drainage, Indiana (1987-2004). Wildlife Diversity Section, Indiana Department of Natural Resources, for the Wabash River drainage, Indiana (1987-2006). from nearly 900 sites within the Wabash River drainage between 1995-2006 (Fig. 2). This in- formation, along with the previously cited sur- veys, was used to determine the current status the stream bottom was searched with hands or of freshwater mussel species within the Wa- shoed-feet. bash River drainage of Indiana. Live freshwater mussels were identified on- METHODS site and returned; representative dead shell material was retained from most locations. Several different collecting methods were Species lists indicating the best condition of used in the previously cited surveys; the in- shell material (live, fresh dead, weathered dividual reports should be reviewed to deter- dead, or subfossil) encountered were prepared mine the specific methods used by those re- for all sampled locations. All shell material searchers. retained from our sampling efforts is currently An informal sampling design (Strayer & vouchered at the Atterbury Fish and Wildlife Smith 2003) was utilized for most of our sur- Area, Edinburgh, Indiana. veys within the Wabash River drainage. Sam- specific pling locations were chosen to provide infor- Besides the freshwater mussel sam- mation from watersheds where few or no pling described, additional information was previous freshwater mussel surveys had been obtained incidentally while completing survey completed. Locations were waded and visu- work for fishes. Notes were made on live ally (if possible) and physically searched for freshwater mussels and shell material encoun- live freshwater mussels and dead shell mate- tered, although no formal surveys were com- rial. At locations where visibility was limited. pleted. FISHER—MUSSELS OF THE WABASH RIVER 105 . 1. Table 1 —Current status of freshwater mussels Table —Continued. (Order Unionoida) in the Wabash River drainage of Indiana. Scientific and common names follow Tur- Species Statu 1 geon et al. (1998). L = reproducing populations of Lasmigona costata (flutedshellj I. species still found in mainstem Wabash River and Leptodea fragilis (fragile papershell) L its tributaries; XT = reproducing populations of Leptodea leptodon (scaleshell) X species historically found in mainstem Wabash Riv- Ligumia recta (black sandshell) L er but now restricted to its tributaries; T = repro- Ligumia subrostrata (pondmussel) T ducing populations of species always restricted to Megalonaias nervosa (washboard) XT Wabash River tributaries; X = species extirpated Obliquaria reflexa (threehorn warty back) L from entire Wabash River drainage. Obovaria olivaria (hickorynut) L Obovaria retusa (ring pink) X Species Status Obovaria subrotunda (round hickorynut) XT Family Margaritiferidae Plethobasus cicatricosus (white warty- Cumberlandia monodonta (spectaclecase) X back) X Plethobasus cooperianus (orangefoot Family Unionidae pimpleback) X Actinonaias ligamentina (mucket) L Plethobasus cyphyus (sheepnose) XT Alasmidonta marginata (elktoe) L Pleurobema clava (clubshell) XT Alasmidonta viridis (slippershell mussel) T Pleurobema cordatum (Ohio pigtoe) XT Amblema plicata (threeridge) L Pleurobema plenum (rough pigtoe) X Anodonta suborbiculata (flat floater) T Pleurobema rubrum (pyramid pigtoe) X Andontoides ferussacianus (cylindrical Pleurobema sintoxia (round pigtoe) L papershell) T Potamilus alatus (pink heelsplitter) L Arcidens confragosus (rock pocketbook) XT Potamilus capax (fat pocketbook) L Cyclonaias tuberculata (purple warty- Potamilus ohiensis (pink papershell) L back) L Ptychobranchus fasciolaris (kidneyshell) XT Cyprogenia stegaria (fanshell) XT Pyganodon grandis (giant floater) L Ellipsaria lineolata (butterfly) XT Quadrula cylindrica cylindrica (rabbits- Elliptic* crassidens (elephantear) XT foot) XT Elliptic) dilatata (spike) XT Quadrula fragosa (winged mapleleaf) X Epioblasma flexuosa (leafshell) X Quadrula metanevra (monkeyface) L Epioblasma obliquata perobliqua (white Quadrula nodulata (wartyback) L catspaw) X Quadrula pustulosa pustulosa (pimple- Epioblasma personata (round combshell) X back) L rif- Epioblasma propinqua (Tennessee Quadrula quadrula (mapleleaf) I. fleshell) X Simpsonaias ambigua (salamander mus- Epioblasma sampsonii (Wabash riffle- sel) XT shell) X Strophitus undulatus (creeper) L Epioblasma torulosa rangiana (northern Toxolasma lividus (purple lilliput) XT riffleshell) X Toxolasma parvus (lilliput) T Epioblasma torulosa torulosa (tubercled Toxolasma texasiensis (Texas lilliput) T blossom) X Tritogonia verrucosa (pistolgrip) L Epioblasma triquetra (snuffbox) XT Truncilla donaciformis (fawnsfoot) L Fusconaia ebena (ebonyshell) XT Truncilla truncata (deertoe) 1 Fusconaia flava (Wabash pigtoe) L Uniomcrus tetralasmus (pondhorn) T Fusconaia subrotunda (longsolid) X Utterbackia imbecillis (paper pondshell) 1 Hemistena lata (cracking pearlymussel) X Villosa fabalis (rayed bean) XT LampsHis abrupta (pink mucket) X Villosa iris (rainbow) XT Lampsilis cardium (plain pocketbook) L Villosa lienosa (little spectaclecase) T Lampsilis fasciola (wavyrayed lampmus- sel) L Lampsilis ovata (pocketbook) L Lampsilis siliquoidea (fatmucket) L RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Lampsilis teres (yellow sandshell) L For the purpose o( this paper, Lasmigona complanata (white heelsplit- freshwater ter) L mussel species are considered extirpated if Lasmigona compressa (creek heelsplitter) T they no longer maintain a reproducing popu- lation. It is possible remnant live individuals 8 106 PROCEEDINGS OF
Recommended publications
  • Tennessee's Extinct Species

    Tennessee's Extinct Species

    Tennessee's Extinct Species The following species Birds: once occurred in Carolina parakeet Conuropsis carolinensis Ectopistes migratorius Tennessee and are now Passenger pigeon believed to be extinct. Mammals: Following this list are two Eastern elk species descriptions-one Fishes: describing the Carolina Harelip sucker parakeet and another describing the extinct Mussels: Acornshell Epioblasma haysiana freshwater mussels Angled riffleshell Epioblasma biemarginata of Tennessee. Cumberland leafshell Epioblasma stewardsoni Leafshell Epioblasma flexuosa Narrowcat's paw Epioblasma lenoir Rough rockshell Quadrula tuberosa Round combshell Epioblasma personata Sugarspoon Epioblasma arcaeformis Tennessee riffleshell Epioblasma propinqua Carolina Parakeet Status Habitat The Carolina parakeet is an The Carolina parakeet was found Learn rrwreabout extinct species. in riverine forests, cypress swamps, Tennessee's diverse and other woodlands over much of Description the Eastern and Midwest Regions of ecosyster.n3.Su~ort The Carolina parakeet was a the United States. It was the only conservation in your small parrot, about 12inches in parrot native to the United States. community and state! length. Its head was lemon yellow, The parakeets rested at night in with an orange forehead and cheeks. groups, with as many as 30 birds The rest of its body was green. Its sleeping inside one hollowtree, while legs and beak were pale pinkish- others would hang on the outside. white. These curious birds lived and Nests were placed in hollowtrees, traveled in flocks. and three to five white eggs were laid. Up to 50 nests were often crowded into one tree. Role in the Ecosystem Carolina parakeets enjoyed a variety of different foods-apples, peaches, mulberries, pecans, grapes, dogwood fruit, and grains.
  • Checklist of Fish and Invertebrates Listed in the CITES Appendices

    Checklist of Fish and Invertebrates Listed in the CITES Appendices

    JOINTS NATURE \=^ CONSERVATION COMMITTEE Checklist of fish and mvertebrates Usted in the CITES appendices JNCC REPORT (SSN0963-«OStl JOINT NATURE CONSERVATION COMMITTEE Report distribution Report Number: No. 238 Contract Number/JNCC project number: F7 1-12-332 Date received: 9 June 1995 Report tide: Checklist of fish and invertebrates listed in the CITES appendices Contract tide: Revised Checklists of CITES species database Contractor: World Conservation Monitoring Centre 219 Huntingdon Road, Cambridge, CB3 ODL Comments: A further fish and invertebrate edition in the Checklist series begun by NCC in 1979, revised and brought up to date with current CITES listings Restrictions: Distribution: JNCC report collection 2 copies Nature Conservancy Council for England, HQ, Library 1 copy Scottish Natural Heritage, HQ, Library 1 copy Countryside Council for Wales, HQ, Library 1 copy A T Smail, Copyright Libraries Agent, 100 Euston Road, London, NWl 2HQ 5 copies British Library, Legal Deposit Office, Boston Spa, Wetherby, West Yorkshire, LS23 7BQ 1 copy Chadwick-Healey Ltd, Cambridge Place, Cambridge, CB2 INR 1 copy BIOSIS UK, Garforth House, 54 Michlegate, York, YOl ILF 1 copy CITES Management and Scientific Authorities of EC Member States total 30 copies CITES Authorities, UK Dependencies total 13 copies CITES Secretariat 5 copies CITES Animals Committee chairman 1 copy European Commission DG Xl/D/2 1 copy World Conservation Monitoring Centre 20 copies TRAFFIC International 5 copies Animal Quarantine Station, Heathrow 1 copy Department of the Environment (GWD) 5 copies Foreign & Commonwealth Office (ESED) 1 copy HM Customs & Excise 3 copies M Bradley Taylor (ACPO) 1 copy ^\(\\ Joint Nature Conservation Committee Report No.
  • Survey of the Freshwater Mussels

    Survey of the Freshwater Mussels

    ILLINO S UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT URBANA-CHAMPAIGN PRODUCTION NOTE University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Library Large-scale Digitization Project, 2007. bO&C Natural History Survey TLf94S Library I l' 13) SURVEY OF THE FRESHWATER MUSSELS (MOLLUSCA: UNIONIDAE) OF THE WABASH RIVER DRAINAGE PHASE III: WHITE RIVER AND SELECTED TRIBUTARIES Kevin S. Cummings, Christine A. Mayer, and Lawrence M. Page Center for Biodiversity Technical Report 1991 (3) Illinois Natural History Survey 607 E. Peabody Drive Champaign, Illinois 61820 Prepared for Indiana Department of Natural Resources Division of Fish and Wildlife 607 State Office Building Indianapolis, Indiana 46204 Study Funded by a Grant from the Indiana Department of Natural Resources Nongame & Endangered Wildlife Program Endangered Species Act Project E- 1, Study 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE LIST OF FIGURES..................................................................................................... i LIST OF TABLES ..................................................................................................... iii INTRODUCTION.............................................................................................................2 STUDY AREA AND METHODS.............................................................................. 3 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION.............................................. .................................. 9 SPECIES ACCOUNTS............................... ...............................................................21 RECOMMENDATIONS..........................
  • MUSCLE SHOALS SOLAR PROJECT DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Colbert County, Alabama

    MUSCLE SHOALS SOLAR PROJECT DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Colbert County, Alabama

    Document Type: EA-Administrative Record Index Field: Environmental Assessment Project Name: Muscle Shoals Solar Project Project Number: 2019-7 MUSCLE SHOALS SOLAR PROJECT DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Colbert County, Alabama Prepared for: Tennessee Valley Authority Knoxville, Tennessee Submitted By: Muscle Shoals Solar, LLC. Prepared By: AECOM July 2019 For Information, contact: Elizabeth Smith NEPA Programs Tennessee Valley Authority 400 West Summit Hill Drive Knoxville, Tennessee 37902 Phone: 865-632-3053 Email: [email protected] Muscle Shoals Solar Project Table of Contents TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................... 1-1 1.1 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION ............................................................. 1-3 1.2 SCOPE OF THIS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ..................................... 1-3 1.3 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT ................................................................................. 1-5 1.4 REQUIRED PERMITS AND LICENSES .......................................................... 1-5 1.4.1 Solar Facility ......................................................................................... 1-5 1.4.2 Transmission Interconnection ............................................................... 1-6 2.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED SOLAR PROJECT AND ALTERNATIVES ............................................................................................... 2-1 2.1 NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE ...........................................................................
  • Indiana's State Endangered and Special Concern Species

    Indiana's State Endangered and Special Concern Species

    Indiana Division of Fish & Wildlife Endangered and Special Concern Species STATE ENDANGERED: Any animal species whose prospects for survival or recruitment within the state are in immediate jeopardy and are in danger of disappearing from the state. This includes all species classified as endangered by the federal government that occur in Indiana. STATE SPECIAL CONCERN: Any animal species requiring monitoring because of known/suspected limited abundance or distribution or because of a recent change in legal status or required habitat. FEDERALLY ENDANGERED: Any species that is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range. Designated with “(FE)”. FEDERALLY THREATENED: Any species that is likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range. Designated with “(FT)”. FEDERAL FEDERAL CANDIDATE: Species for which there is sufficient information to propose as endangered or threatened, but the development of a proposed listing regulation is precluded by other higher priority listing activities. Designated with “(FC)”. M A M M A L S State Endangered Special Concern Gray Myotis (FE) Myotis grisescens Smoky Shrew Sorex fumeus Indiana Myotis (FE) Myotis sodalis Pygmy Shrew Sorex hoyi Evening Bat Nycticeius humeralis Star-nosed Mole Condylura cristata Swamp Rabbit Sylvilagus aquaticus Southeastern Myotis Myotis austroriparius Franklin’s Ground Squirrel Spermophilus franklinii Eastern small-footed Myotis Myotis leibii Allegheny Woodrat Neotoma magister Little Brown
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • The Hoosier- Shawnee Ecological Assessment Area

    The Hoosier- Shawnee Ecological Assessment Area

    United States Department of Agriculture The Hoosier- Forest Service Shawnee Ecological North Central Assessment Research Station General Frank R. Thompson, III, Editor Technical Report NC-244 Thompson, Frank R., III, ed 2004. The Hoosier-Shawnee Ecological Assessment. Gen. Tech. Rep. NC-244. St. Paul, MN: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, North Central Research Station. 267 p. This report is a scientific assessment of the characteristic composition, structure, and processes of ecosystems in the southern one-third of Illinois and Indiana and a small part of western Kentucky. It includes chapters on ecological sections and soils, water resources, forest, plants and communities, aquatic animals, terrestrial animals, forest diseases and pests, and exotic animals. The information presented provides a context for land and resource management planning on the Hoosier and Shawnee National Forests. ––––––––––––––––––––––––––– Key Words: crayfish, current conditions, communities, exotics, fish, forests, Hoosier National Forest, mussels, plants, Shawnee National Forest, soils, water resources, wildlife. Cover photograph: Camel Rock in Garden of the Gods Recreation Area, with Shawnee Hills and Garden of the Gods Wilderness in the back- ground, Shawnee National Forest, Illinois. Contents Preface....................................................................................................................... II North Central Research Station USDA Forest Service Acknowledgments ...................................................................................................
  • Summary of Issues to Be Discussed at the Sixteenth

    Summary of Issues to Be Discussed at the Sixteenth

    SUMMARY OF ISSUES TO BE DISCUSSED AT THE TWENTY-EIGHTH MEETING OF THE CITES ANIMALS COMMITTEE TEL AVIV, ISRAEL • 30 AUGUST-3 SEPTEMBER 2015 AC = Animals Committee ● PC = Plants Committee ● SC = Standing Committee ● RC = Resolution Conf. ● Dec. = Decision ● CoP = Conference of the Parties All meeting documents prepared by the CITES Secretariat unless otherwise indicated. All trade data from the CITES Trade Database. ISSUE PROPOSED ACTIONS SSN RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Opening of the Meeting No document. No comment. No Document 2. Rules of Procedure Contains Rules of Procedure (RoP) adopted at AC27 Regarding Rule 13, SSN recommends that AC adopt the first option: to (April-May 2014) with two recommended changes. elect the Chair and Vice-Chair following the CoP via postal procedure. AC28 Doc. 2 Proposes Rule 13 be changed to either: While SSN agrees that it is helpful to elect Chair and Vice-Chair as soon That regional representatives or their alternates as possible after the CoP, all representatives should be provided the present at the CoP elect a Chair and Vice-Chair opportunity to stand for these positions and participate in any vote. immediately following the CoP and in case no Regarding Rule 20, SSN urges the AC to reject the proposed changes. quorum is attained, by the postal procedure Documents should be required to be submitted by a firm deadline so that contained in Rules 32 to 34, in which case the duties Parties and Committee Members are provided sufficient time to review and of the Chair shall be discharged by the previous consider all documents fully in advance of the meetings.
  • Tables Related to Indiana's 2020 303(D) List Review

    Tables Related to Indiana's 2020 303(D) List Review

    Enclosure 3 Tables Related to Indiana’s 2020 303(d) List Review Table 1 (1 of 249) Section 1: Waterbody AUs and Impairment Listings under Category 5 TABLE 1: IN's Waterbody AUs and Impairments Listed in Category 5 (303d list) of Partial Approval.A PRIORITY WATERBODY AU ID WATERBODY AU NAME AU SIZE UNITS CAUSE OF IMPAIRMENT USE_NAME RANKING INA0341_01 FISH CREEK, WEST BRANCH 3.32 Miles BIOLOGICAL INTEGRITY Medium Warm Water Aquatic Life INA0341_02 FISH CREEK, WEST BRANCH 2.36 Miles BIOLOGICAL INTEGRITY Medium Warm Water Aquatic Life INA0344_01 HIRAM SWEET DITCH 1.32 Miles NUTRIENTS Medium Warm Water Aquatic Life BIOLOGICAL INTEGRITY Medium Warm Water Aquatic Life INA0345_T1001 FISH CREEK - UNNAMED TRIBUTARY 3.09 Miles ESCHERICHIA COLI (E. COLI) Medium Full Body Contact BIOLOGICAL INTEGRITY Medium Warm Water Aquatic Life INA0346_02 FISH CREEK 7.3 Miles ESCHERICHIA COLI (E. COLI) Medium Full Body Contact INA0352_03 BIG RUN 10.33 Miles ESCHERICHIA COLI (E. COLI) Medium Full Body Contact INA0352_04 BIG RUN 2.46 Miles BIOLOGICAL INTEGRITY Medium Warm Water Aquatic Life INA0352_05 BIG RUN 5.91 Miles BIOLOGICAL INTEGRITY Medium Warm Water Aquatic Life INA0355_01 ST. JOSEPH RIVER 2.5 Miles PCBS IN FISH TISSUE Low Human Health and Wildlife INA0356_03 ST. JOSEPH RIVER 3.53 Miles PCBS IN FISH TISSUE Low Human Health and Wildlife INA0362_05 CEDAR CREEK 0.83 Miles BIOLOGICAL INTEGRITY Medium Warm Water Aquatic Life INA0363_T1001 MATSON DITCH - UNNAMED TRIBUTARY 2.15 Miles ESCHERICHIA COLI (E. COLI) Medium Full Body Contact INA0364_01 CEDAR CREEK 4.24
  • Manual to the Freshwater Mussels of MD

    Manual to the Freshwater Mussels of MD

    MMAANNUUAALL OOFF TTHHEE FFRREESSHHWWAATTEERR BBIIVVAALLVVEESS OOFF MMAARRYYLLAANNDD CHESAPEAKE BAY AND WATERSHED PROGRAMS MONITORING AND NON-TIDAL ASSESSMENT CBWP-MANTA- EA-96-03 MANUAL OF THE FRESHWATER BIVALVES OF MARYLAND Prepared By: Arthur Bogan1 and Matthew Ashton2 1North Carolina Museum of Natural Science 11 West Jones Street Raleigh, NC 27601 2 Maryland Department of Natural Resources 580 Taylor Avenue, C-2 Annapolis, Maryland 21401 Prepared For: Maryland Department of Natural Resources Resource Assessment Service Monitoring and Non-Tidal Assessment Division Aquatic Inventory and Monitoring Program 580 Taylor Avenue, C-2 Annapolis, Maryland 21401 February 2016 Table of Contents I. List of maps .................................................................................................................................... 1 Il. List of figures ................................................................................................................................. 1 III. Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 3 IV. Acknowledgments ............................................................................................................................ 4 V. Figure of bivalve shell landmarks (fig. 1) .......................................................................................... 5 VI. Glossary of bivalve terms ................................................................................................................
  • Changes in Freshwater Mussel Populations of the Ohio River: 1,000 BP to Recent Times1

    Changes in Freshwater Mussel Populations of the Ohio River: 1,000 BP to Recent Times1

    Changes in Freshwater Mussel Populations of the Ohio River: 1,000 BP to Recent Times1 RALPH W. TAYLOR, Department of Biological Sciences, Marshall University, Huntington, WV 25701 ABSTRACT. Through the use of literature records and new data, it was possible to compile a list of species of freshwater mussels that inhabited the upper Ohio River (Ohio River Mile [ORM] 0-300) around a thou- sand years ago. This information was derived from specimens found associated with Indian middens lo- cated along the banks of the Ohio. Analysis of these data indicates that at least 31 species of mussels were present in the river. Arnold Ort- mann recorded 37 species from the same area as a result of his many years of collecting around the turn of the 20th century. Thirty-three species have been collectively documented as currently residing in limited numbers in the river. The number of species present has remained essentially unchanged through time. There have been, however, significant changes in species composition and total numbers of individual mus- sels present. Occasionally, healthy populations can be found presently but much of the upper Ohio River is devoid of mussel life. Several large-river species have become established in this reach of the river as a con- sequence of damming and the resulting increase in depth, greater siltation and slowed rate of flow. Seven- teen species known to have previously inhabited the upper Ohio River are listed as presumed to no longer survive there. OHIO J. SCI. 89 (5): 188-191, 1989 INTRODUCTION and Dam in 1976, coupled with the current expansion For thousands of years, the Ohio River flowed freely of Gallipolis Locks and Dam, it appears that the present for nearly 1,000 mi — from its origin at the junction of series of high-rise dams (12 ft [3 m] navigation channel) the Allegheny and Monongahela Rivers to its conflu- will meet the barge traffic needs well into the 21st cen- ence with the Mississippi River.