U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE

Draft Post-Delisting Monitoring Plan

for the

Nashville Crayfish (Faxonius shoupi)

Photo by: Michelle Barbero, Metro Water Services

Photo courtesy of Ron Caldwell, Lincoln Memorial University

Prepared by:

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Tennessee Ecological Services Field Office Cookeville, Tennessee

XX 2019 Draft Post-Delisting Monitoring Plan for the Nashville Crayfish (Faxonius shoupi)

XX 2019

Acknowledgements: The Draft Post-delisting Monitoring Plan for the Nashville crayfish was prepared by biologists of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Steve Alexander, Tennessee Ecological Services Field Office). We wish to acknowledge assistance that we received in preparing this plan from the Nashville Zoo and Tennessee Division of Natural Areas.

Recommended Citation

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2019. Draft Post-delisting Monitoring Plan for the Nashville Crayfish (Faxonius shoupi). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Tennessee Ecological Services Field Office, Cookeville, Tennessee. 19 pp. Table of Contents

I. Summary of Cooperators Roles in the Post-Delisting Monitoring Planning Effort ...... 3

II. Summary of Species Status at Time of Delisting ...... 3 A. Demographic Parameters ...... 3

B. Discussion of Populations ...... 4

C. Residual Threats ...... 7

D. Legal and/or Management Commitments for Post-delisting Conservation ...... 7

III. Monitoring Methods and Locations ...... 7 A. Definitions of Terms ...... 7

B. Procedures for Selecting and Locating Samples ...... 8

C. Sampling and Data Recording Procedures ...... 9

D. Practices to Assure Consistency of Data Collection ...... 12

E. Frequency and Duration of Monitoring ...... 12

IV. Definition of Response Triggers for Potential Monitoring Outcomes ...... 12 A. Category I ...... 13

B. Category II ...... 13

C. Category III ...... 14

V. Data Compilation and Reporting Procedures ...... 14

VI. Estimated Funding Requirements and Sources ...... 14

VII. PDM Implementation Schedule ...... 15

VIII. Literature Cited ...... 16

Appendix. Nashville Zoo Faxonius shoupi Field Data Sheet ...... 18

i List of Figures

Figure 1. Nashville Crayfish Distribution ...... 5 Figure 2. Nashville Crayfish PDM Sites ...... 10

List of Tables

Table 1. Long-Term Population Monitoring Sites ...... 8 Table 2. PDM Plan Monitoring Sites ...... 9

ii I. Summary of All Cooperators’ Roles in the Post-Delisting Monitoring Planning Effort

Post-delisting monitoring is a requirement of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). Section 4(g)(1) requires the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) to:

implement a system in cooperation with the States to monitor effectively, for not less than five years, the status of all species which have recovered to the point at which the measures provided pursuant to this Act are no longer necessary.

The purpose of post-delisting monitoring is to verify that Nashville crayfish (Faxonius shoupi) remains secure from the risk of extinction after it has been removed from the protections of the Act. The Service prepared this draft post-delisting monitoring (PDM) plan (Plan), in coordination with the Nashville Zoo, Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency, and Tennessee Division of Natural Areas (TDNA). This draft Plan is designed to detect substantial declines in the Nashville crayfish population with reasonable certainty and precision. It meets the minimum requirement set forth by the Act by effectively monitoring the status of Nashville crayfish using annual sampling events.

II. Summary of Species Status at Time of Delisting

A. Demographic Parameters

Many authors have addressed the particular characteristics that distinguish the Nashville crayfish from others in Mill Creek and the region (Hobbs 1948; O’Bara et al. 1985; Service 1989; Williams 2001). The most distinguishing features include elongate pincers with red tips and adjacent narrow black banding, a usually light-colored “saddle” on the carapace extending from the posterior to the anterior and terminating as lateral stripes on either side, and distinctive gonopods markedly different from any of its congeners. Larger females can be identified easily by the sigmoidal cleft of the annulus ventralis (AV or sperm receptacle) under minimal magnification, and occasionally by the naked eye. Such identification presumes that the AV is not occluded by debris or is particularly melanic.

The Nashville crayfish (F. shoupi) can be a rather large crayfish, ranging from young-of- the-year (YOY) at ~0.6 cm total length (TL) to adults ~17.8 cm (TDNA 2009, O’Bara et al., 1985). Other Faxonius reported from the Mill Creek watershed, including F. rhoadesi and F. durelli, easily can be distinguished from F. shoupi by gonopod structure and body coloration. As noted by Bouchard (1984), F. placidus, a Central Basin species strongly resembling F. shoupi, never has been reported from the Mill Creek watershed. As such, even YOY crayfish from the Mill Creek drainage often can be identified comfortably as F. shoupi, as no other saddle-bearing species are present in the system. That idea was borne out during a contemporary distributional survey (TDNA 2009), as the only adult Faxonius from the Mill Creek system with the characteristic saddle was F. shoupi. Saddled YOY

3 observed in the Mill Creek drainage, by inference, are likely F. shoupi as well (TDNA 2009).

B. Discussion of Populations

Despite heavy development that has occurred in Metropolitan Nashville and surrounding areas in Davidson and Williamson counties, Tennessee, the Nashville crayfish persists in Mill Creek and its tributaries (Figure 1). Mill Creek originates in Williamson County, Tennessee, and flows in a northerly direction for approximately 27 mi. It crosses into Davidson County at approximately Mill Creek river mile (RM) 20.8 and continues to flow north for approximately 20.8 mi before joining the Cumberland River at Cumberland RM 194.5. The drainage area is 172 mi2 and it is located within the Central Basin Physiographic Region, an area of approximately 7,000 mi2, which is comprised predominately of Ordovician limestones and shales (Jones 2006).

Research and project-specific surveys for the Nashville crayfish have been routinely conducted in the Mill Creek watershed since before the species was listed in 1986, providing data to delimit the species’ range. The species is not found in the lower 0.8- mile reach of Mill Creek, which is influenced by water level fluctuations in the Cumberland River, and in the upper 2.5-mile reach which undergoes seasonal dewatering (O’Bara 1999). Available data indicate that the species is evenly distributed in the remaining 23.5 miles of Mill Creek and in eight of the 15 tributaries to Mill Creek. The Nashville crayfish has been found in a wide range of environments including gravel and cobble runs, pools with intermittent flow, and under slab rocks and other cover (Walton 2008). The species has also been found in other unique areas, such as storm water detention ponds, indicating the species may be more of a generalist than previously thought (USFWS 2017).

Carpenter (2002) was the first to estimate population densities and delineate the distribution of the Nashville crayfish, by sampling Mill Creek at regular intervals from its confluence with the Cumberland River to its source. Tributaries in which the species was found were also surveyed at regular intervals, and the length of tributary reaches occupied were identified. Data were recorded from all Nashville crayfish collected, and individuals were marked. Using results of mark/recapture sampling, Carpenter (2002) estimated population densities of Nashville crayfish ranged from 404 to 1,425 individuals per 100 linear meters of stream in Sevenmile Creek and ranged from 1,854 to 3,217 individuals per 100 linear meters in Mill Creek.

Long-term population monitoring for the Nashville crayfish was implemented in 2012. From 2012 – 2016, population estimates at three mainstem sites ranged from 658 – 1,916 individuals per 100-m sampling site. Densities increased from the downstream site to the upstream site; however, these estimates were likely biased low due to the fact that only slab rocks measuring larger than 0.10 m2 were sampled. Although a general trend of slightly increasing densities was observed at the lower two mainstem sites over the five years of monitoring, it was hypothesized that the increased percentage of impervious surface and the catastrophic flooding in the Mill Creek watershed that occurred in 2010

4 may have potentially contributed to the lower numbers of individuals observed (McGinnity 2016).

Analyses of element occurrence data dating back to 1985 were utilized in characterizing current population status in the mainstem and tributaries (TDEC 2014). There has been no change in the distribution of the species within its historical range. The species is currently known to occur in Mill Creek and its tributaries, including Collins Creek, Owl Creek, Edmonson Branch, Sims Branch, Sevenmile Creek, Sorghum Branch, Whittemore Branch, Turkey Creek, Indian Creek, Holt Creek, four unnamed tributaries to Mill Creek, and one unnamed tributary to Owl Creek.

5

6 C. Residual Threats

The recovery plan (Service 1988) and final rule to list Nashville crayfish as endangered (51 FR 34410) identified degraded water quality and continuing development in the Mill Creek watershed as the primary threats to the species recovery. The Nashville crayfish faces risks from degraded water quality and catastrophic spills associated with increasing human populations and urbanization. However, the species has been in found in large numbers at several locations that are already heavily developed, and the species has been found in several additional tributaries to Mill Creek since its original listing under the Act.

Although the Metropolitan Nashville area is experiencing significant growth, with numerous residential, commercial, utility, and other infrastructure developments occurring in the watershed, Nashville crayfish populations have been documented to be stable or increasing in size. Additionally, there have been consistent stormwater and sediment inputs to the Mill Creek watershed, as well as frequent spills/releases of raw sewage and hazardous substances, yet the Nashville crayfish persists in high numbers. The species exhibits a high degree of resistance to disturbance, indicating the species has a low susceptibility to threats and a high degree of stability (USFWS 2017). Although these threats have not totally been abated and/or alleviated through consultation with the Service, we believe that on-going conservation efforts, including riparian zone restoration, barrier removal, and development of green space in the watershed will benefit the species. Current stormwater management programs will also lessen potential adverse effects from development projects in the watershed.

D. Legal and/or Management Commitments for Post-delisting Conservation

The Service will continue to coordinate with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation (TDEC), Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency (TWRA), and Metro Water Services to ensure appropriate construction and stormwater best management practices are implemented for development projects in the watershed. Water quality and biological data are routinely collected and analyzed by the regulatory agencies to ensure that water quality standards are being met and that no biological impairments are occurring.

The Service will closely coordinate with TWRA on potential recovery expenditures for the species. The Service will also engage non-governmental organizations to encourage proposal development and implementation of conservation projects in the Mill Creek watershed.

III. Monitoring Methods and Locations

A. Definitions of Terms

Chelae - a pincerlike claw, especially of a crab or other crustacean.

7 Ovigerous - bearing or carrying eggs.

Transect - a straight line or narrow section through an object or natural feature or across the earth's surface, along which observations are made or measurements taken.

B. Procedures for Selecting and Locating Samples

In 2012, the Service entered into a cooperative agreement (#F10AC00502) with the Nashville Zoo to develop long-term population monitoring protocols for the Nashville crayfish (McGinnity 2012). The protocols followed modified survey techniques based primarily on a study of the European white-clawed crayfish (Peay 2003). As noted in the design of the Peay study, these survey methods are constrained by water shallow enough for manual survey (<0.5 m), reasonably clear water, and potential refuges (i.e., slabrock) that can be searched.

The Nashville Zoo initiated long-term population monitoring for the species in the Mill Creek watershed in 2012. Five potential monitoring sites were identified (Table 1), including 3 mainstem Mill Creek sites and 2 tributary sites (i.e., Indian Creek and Sims Branch). Habitat and water quality parameters were evaluated at all 5 monitoring sites so that habitat perturbations at any site which might affect those parameters in the future could be detected.

Table 1. Long-Term Monitoring Sites Mill Creek Mile 5.5: Wimpole Drive Davidson County (N 36.12335 W 86.72446) Mill Creek Mile 13.6: Antioch Middle Davidson County (N 36.05727 W School 86.67019) Mill Creek Mile 22.6: Brittain Lane Williamson County (N 35.97173 W 86.68131) Indian Creek Mile 1.1: Pettus Road Davidson County (N 36.00877 W 86.66960) Sims Branch Mile 1.1: Century City Davidson County (N 36.15024 W 86.68254)

The monitoring protocols were not sensitive enough at the Indian Creek and Sims Branch sites to detect statistically significant low numbers of the Nashville crayfish when there were large numbers of other crayfish species present. The tributary sites were discontinued and two additional sites, downstream and upstream of the Concord Road bridge construction project on the mainstem, were added in 2014. Monitoring continued through 2016 at the mainstem Mill Creek sites (McGinnity 2016).

Continued monitoring following these methods will provide data for evaluating trends in population densities at the Mill Creek mainstem sites (Table 2) where the Nashville crayfish is the predominant species. Four monitoring sites in the main stem Mill Creek have been selected as permanent PDM stations (Figure 2). Opportunistic qualitative sampling may be conducted at other mainstem and select tributary sites.

8

Table 2. PDM Plan Monitoring Sites Mill Creek Mile 5.5: Wimpole Drive Davidson County (N 36.12335 W 86.72446) Mill Creek Mile 13.6: Antioch Middle Davidson County (N 36.05727 W School 86.67019) Mill Creek Mile 20.8: Concord Road Williamson County (N 35.99524 W 86.69012) Mill Creek Mile 22.6: Brittain Lane Williamson County (N 35.97173 W 86.68131)

C. Sampling and Data Recording Procedures

For each monitoring station, a 500 m stretch of stream will define the upstream and downstream limits of potential survey activity. Based on the best perceived habitat for sampling, a 100 m core area will be selected and designated as the sampling site. Each habitat patch will be thoroughly examined prior to initiation of sampling to determine qualitative occupancy by F. shoupi and other crayfish species. A physical site description will include an evaluation of habitat suitability, presence of aquatic vegetation, percent canopy and prevalent woody vegetation, bank stability and erosion, sediment levels, and any obvious human perturbations. A Habitat Assessment Field Data Sheet-High Gradient Streams, Physical Characterization/Water Quality Data Sheet, and a TDEC Field Survey Sheet are filled out for each sampling event.

The upstream and downstream limits of the 100 m sampling site will be demarcated by two transects established at right angles to the channel, and will be permanently marked with iron rebar outside the wetted channel. Broad scale habitat characteristics will be documented within the core area and for a distance of 200 m upstream and downstream of the limits of the selected 100 m sampling site. Identifying habitat characteristics upstream and downstream from the sampling site for each monitoring station will allow for changes to be noted in the system over time near the core area. In addition, the extra 400 meters of documented stream habitat will allow for a larger area for potential future sampling if changes in habitat (e.g. from a major flood event) occur within the limits of the sampling site that make it unsuitable for this survey technique (McGinnity and Rohrbach 2016).

Inside this 100 m sampling site, five habitat patches containing good representative habitat will be selected. Each habitat patch will consist of five appropriately sized cover rocks consisting of native limestone in a particular habitat type (e.g. riffle, run, pool, etc.). Each habitat patch will be documented spatially within the sampling site and measured in square meters. Data will be collected on fine-scale habitat parameters for each habitat patch, including water depth, substrate type, water quality and temperature, spatial relationships of the sampled rocks within the habitat patch, etc.

A total of 25 cover rocks will be surveyed across all five habitat patches at each sampling site. At least twenty of these will be suitable for manual sampling, while five others will

9

10 require the use of pry bars and multiple surveyors. This will allow for documentation of a variety of crayfish sizes or age classes. No two cover objects will abut or touch one another. Rocks will at a minimum measure approximately 12” x 18” (~216 in2). The surface area of all cover rocks will be determined by measuring length and width and utilizing scaled waterproof graph paper as needed. The distance from previously sampled rock to the next available cover rock will be documented.

Log Peavey Utilized on Large Slabrock Nashville Zoo

Quantitative sampling events will be conducted from June through July at each habitat patch. Surveys will be conducted at least one day after any storm events, during low flow conditions if possible. Surveys will begin on the downstream side of the sampling site. Each selected rock will be carefully lifted and placed aside, and all crayfish will be collected by hand or dip net and held in buckets pending examination. Ovigerous females will be isolated from other animals. All rocks selected for monitoring will be unobstructed, minimally embedded surface rocks. The percent embeddedness will be documented and calculated by turning each rock on edge and estimating the percent of rock buried in substrate as indicated by the water mark. Temperature, pH, dissolved oxygen, flow, and conductivity data as measured from mid-channel at the toe of each 100 m sampling site are collected during all site visits, and weather conditions noted.

Species identification, sex, reproductive state, and carapace length (rostrum to base of tail) of each individual will be recorded. The presence of regenerated chelae or physical abnormalities will be noted. Each cover rock will be returned as closely as possible to its native position and crayfish released on upstream side of rock before moving to the next selected rock upstream. If present, obvious burrow entrances will be documented for each cover rock examined.

11

Data from comprehensive site evaluations/descriptions and measured water quality parameters at each site will be recorded on the Nashville Zoo Faxonius shoupi Field Data Sheet (Appendix). The data will be transposed to Excel spreadsheets and grouped by sampling site, habitat patch, and cover rock identifier (for marked rocks). Narrative summary data and spreadsheets will be supplied to the Service annually. Summary statistics of field data collected at the monitoring sites will also be completed for relevant water quality and habitat parameters. These analyses will determine correlations between occupancy and cover rock size, distance to next cover object, percent embeddedness, and the other parameters measured. Additional analyses will determine if significant differences exist between years, sample events, cover objects, habitat patches, and sample sites (McGinnity and Rohrbach 2016).

D. Practices to Assure Consistency of Data Collection

The following practices will be followed in order to minimize variability that could be introduced by inconsistent sampling practices: (a) The Nashville Zoo will be the primary organization conducting the PDM. Staff biologists/scientists have conducted recovery monitoring and are familiar with locations and sampling procedures.

(b) Biologists and technicians must be properly trained to identify Nashville crayfish and its habitat, must have a thorough knowledge of its ecology, and be able to accurately identify other crayfish species.

(c) Population monitoring will be conducted utilizing developed protocols and under similar temporal and hydrological conditions.

(d) Annual reports will be submitted to the Service’s Tennessee Ecological Services Field Office for review.

E. Frequency and Duration of Monitoring

The PDM period will be initiated during the first spring/summer following the publication of a final rule to delist Nashville crayfish and will extend, at a minimum, through the fifth year following delisting. Specific monitoring requirements are specified in Section IIIB – C above. The Nashville Zoo will be the primary organization responsible for PDM.

IV. Definition of Response Triggers for Potential Monitoring Outcomes

Effective PDM requires timely evaluation of data and responsiveness to observed trends. In order to assure timely response to observed trends, it is necessary to identify possible outcomes from monitoring that could be anticipated and general approaches for

12 responding to these scenarios. In order to identify thresholds that would trigger alternative responses in the case of Nashville crayfish, it will be necessary to analyze data from the recovery monitoring period to identify the range of variability that has been observed with respect to each of the variables that will be monitored during the PDM period. From this analysis, it will be possible to categorize observations into one of the following three possible PDM outcomes.

A. Category I

Nashville crayfish remains secure without ESA protections. This would be true if:

1. The estimated mean number of individuals at each monitoring site remain at or above 50% of mean values observed during long-term population monitoring conducted from 2012 - 2016;

2. Water quality and available habitat remains stable; and

3. No new or increasing threats to the species are observed that are considered to be of a magnitude and imminence that may threaten the continued existence of Nashville crayfish within the foreseeable future.

In this case, PDM would be concluded at the end of the timeframe specified in this Plan.

B. Category II

Nashville crayfish may be less demographically stable than anticipated at the time of delisting, but information does not indicate that the species meets the definition of threatened or endangered. This would be true if:

1. The estimated mean number of individuals at the two upstream monitoring sites decreases in a given year below 50% of the mean values observed during long- term population monitoring conducted from 2012 - 2016;

2. Water quality and available habitat remain stable; and

3. There are no new or increasing threats that are considered to be of a magnitude and imminence that may threaten the continued existence of Nashville crayfish within the foreseeable future.

In this case, the PDM period should be extended for an additional five years, and if necessary, sampling intensity could be increased to provide greater precision in detecting trends. Existing data will be analyzed to determine if any management interventions are available that would be expected to reverse declines and stabilize or improve trends.

13 C. Category III

PDM yields substantial information indicating that threats are causing a decline in the status of Nashville crayfish since the time of delisting, such that listing the species as threatened or endangered may be warranted. This would be true if:

1. The estimated mean number of individuals at each monitoring site during two consecutive years of monitoring are below 25% of the mean values observed during long-term population monitoring conducted from 2012 - 2016;

2. Water quality has degraded with impairments noted and available habitat has declined; or

3. There are new or increasing threats that are considered to be of a magnitude and imminence that they could threaten the continued existence of Nashville crayfish within the foreseeable future.

If only the first of these conditions is true, then the Service should initiate a formal status review to assess changes in threats to the species, its abundance, population structure, and distribution to determine whether a proposal for relisting is appropriate. If all of these conditions are true, then the Service should promptly propose that Nashville crayfish be relisted under the Act in accordance with procedures in section 4.

V. Data Compilation and Reporting Procedures

Annual reports summarizing the PDM activities accomplished, data collected and analyzed, and results will be submitted to the Service’s Tennessee Ecological Services Field Office. These reports should be prepared in a timely manner in accordance with this Plan to ensure that adequate data are being collected, to allow evaluation of the efficacy of the monitoring program, and to provide a periodic assessment of the status of Nashville crayfish. Each annual report will synthesize all monitoring data and comment on observed trends and status of Nashville crayfish with respect to the PDM outcome categories presented in Section IV of this Plan. The Service will review these data annually within the context of the response triggers outlined above to determine whether additional action is necessary. Annual reports are due by December 31 of each calendar year and will include all data collected that year.

After five years of data have been analyzed, the results will be reviewed to determine overall population change and status with respect to threats. We will compile this annual report data into a final monitoring report that will be made available to the public. The final monitoring report will summarize the data in the annual reports. It will include a description of the geographic areas surveyed, the survey protocol, and updated population density estimates for each monitoring site surveyed.

14 If the response triggers in Section IV above are met or exceeded, the Service will consult with TWRA, TDEC, and other partners to determine whether to conclude the PDM process or to pursue alternative actions as described in Section IV. Our determination also will include, if necessary, an evaluation of the threats to Nashville crayfish using the five factors required under the Act to list a species on the Federal List of Threatened and Endangered Wildlife and Plants.

VI. Estimated Funding Requirements and Sources

Post-delisting monitoring is a cooperative effort among the Service; state, tribal, and foreign governments; other Federal agencies; and other non-governmental partners under the Act. Although the Act authorizes expenditures of both recovery funds and section 6 grants to the states to plan and implement PDM, Congress has not allocated or earmarked any special funds for this purpose. To the extent feasible, the Service intends to provide funding for PDM efforts from annual Endangered Species general Recovery Program appropriations. Nonetheless, nothing in this Plan should be construed as a commitment or requirement that any Federal agency obligate or pay funds in contravention of the Anti- Deficiency Act (31 U.S.C. 1341) or any other law or regulation.

The primary entity conducting the PDM and preparing reports will be the Nashville Zoo, who has accomplished most of the recent recovery monitoring for Nashville crayfish. Based on costs associated with recovery monitoring efforts, annual PDM expenditures should not exceed $10,000.

The Service will provide assistance as needed and as resources permit, especially during the analysis that is planned for the fifth year after delisting. Annual in-kind contributions from the Service should not exceed $2,500 in each of the first four years and should not exceed $4,000 during year five.

VII. PDM Implementation Schedule

This schedule will be developed in coordination with the Nashville Zoo, TDEC, and TWRA in order to ensure that it is feasible to accomplish PDM activities at all sites scheduled for a given year. The schedule will appear in the final Post-Delisting Monitoring Plan for the Nashville crayfish (Faxonius shoupi) when it is published.

15 VIII. Literature Cited

Bouchard, Raymond W. 1984. Distribution and status of the endangered crayfish Orconectes shoupi (Decapoda: Cambaridae). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Tennessee Cooperative Fishery Research Unit, Tennessee Tech University, Cookeville, Tennessee. 27 pp.

Carpenter, Jim. 2002. Density and Distribution Estimates of the Nashville Crayfish in the Mill Creek Drainage Basin. David Lipscomb University, Nashville, 44 pp.

Crandall, K. A., and S. De Grave. 2017. An updated classification of the freshwater crayfishes (Decapoda: Astacidea) of the world, with a complete species list. Journal of Crustacean Biology 37(5):615-653.

Hobbs, H.H., Jr. 1948. On the crayfishes of the Limosus section of the genus Orconectes (Decapoda, Astacidae). Journal of the Washington Academy of Sciences. 38(1):14-21, figures 1-28.

Jones, V. 2006. Land use contributions to phosphorus loading in an impaired stream, Mill Creek, Tennessee. Masters Thesis, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN. 73pp with appendices.

McGinnity, D. and G. Rohrbach. 2016. Long-Term Monitoring Program for the Nashville Crayfish (Orconectes shoupi). Report to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Cookeville, TN.

McGinnity, Dale. 2016. Project Overview Report for: Long Term Population Monitoring for the Endangered Nashville Crayfish (Orconectes shoupi). Report to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Cookeville, TN.

O’Bara, C.J. 1999. The distribution and current status of the Nashville crayfish Orconectes shoupi. Unpublished report submitted to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Tennessee Technological University, Cookeville, TN.

O’Bara, C.J., A.J. Korgi, and G.J. Stark. 1985. Final report, status survey of the Nashville crayfish (Orconectes shoupi). Report to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Asheville, North Carolina.

Peay S. 2003. Monitoring the White-clawed Crayfish Austropotamobius pallipes. Conserving Natura 2000 Rivers Monitoring Series NF. 1, English Nature, Peterborough.

TDNA. 2009. Distributional surveys for the Nashville crayfish, Faxonius shoupi, and endangered crayfish in Tennessee, Final Report. Tennessee Division of Natural Heritage, Nashville, 11 pp + appendix.

16 Tennessee Natural Heritage Inventory Database. 2014. Element Occurrence Data for Orconectes shoupi (Nashville crayfish). Unpublished GIS data from Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1988. Nashville crayfish Recovery Plan (1st revision). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Atlanta, Georgia, 16 pp.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2017. Draft Species Status Assessment for the Nashville crayfish (Orconectes shoupi). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Atlanta, Georgia, 78 pp.

Walton, Charles F. Jr. 2008. Habitat Characterization of the Nashville Crayfish (Orconectes shoupi) in Mill Creek Watershed, Tennessee. M.S. Thesis, TN Tech University, 88 pp.

Williams. C.E., and R.D. Bivens. 2001. Key to the Crayfishes of Tennessee, abstracted from H.H. Hobbs Jr. 1976, H.H. Hobbs Jr. 1981, and Bouchard 1978, and an Annotated List of the Crayfishes of Tennessee by Carl E. Williams and Rick D. Bivens. Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency, 72 pp.

17 Appendix

18 Cover rock #3 Grid size: Rock size: PE: Total Number of crayfish: WD of rock: Species, size, sex, form 1or 2: Substrate:

Cover rock # 4 Grid size: Rock size: PE: Total Number of crayfish: WD of rock: Species, size, sex, form 1or 2: Substrate:

Cover rock # 5 Grid size: Rock size: PE: Total Number of crayfish: WD of rock: Species, size, sex, form 1or 2: Substrate:

Surveyor names: Additional notes as needed:

19