DOCSLIB.ORG

Habitat Management Plan Template

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Habitat Management Plan Template CLARKS RIVER NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE Big Game, Migratory Birds, Upland Game, Amphibians/Reptiles, and Invasive/Feral Species Draft Sport Hunt Plan, Environmental Assessment, and Draft Compatibility Determination Clarks River National Wildlife Refuge 91 U.S. Highway 641 N Benton, KY 42025 March 2020 Table of Contents Section A. Draft Sport Hunt Plan Introduction ...............................................................................................................................4 Statement of Objectives ...........................................................................................................7 Description of Hunting Program ............................................................................................ 10 Areas to be Opened to Hunting ............................................................................................. 10 Species to be Taken, Hunting periods, Hunting Access ......................................................... 12 Hunter Permit Requirements ................................................................................................. 16 Consultation and Coordination with the State ........................................................................ 16 Law Enforcement .................................................................................................................. 16 Funding and Staffing Requirements ...................................................................................... 16 Conduct of the Hunting Program ...........................................................................................18 Hunter Permit Application, Selection, and/or Registration Procedures ................................... 18 Refuge-Specific Hunting Regulations .................................................................................... 19 Relevant State Regulations ................................................................................................... 19 Other Refuge Rules and Regulations for Hunting .................................................................. 20 Public Engagement .................................................................................................................21 Outreach for Announcing and Publicizing the Hunting Program ............................................ 21 Anticipated Public Reaction to the Hunting Program ............................................................. 21 How Hunters will be Informed of Relevant Rules and Regulations ........................................ 22 Literature Cited .......................................................................................................................23 Section B. Environmental Assessment Introduction .............................................................................................................................24 Proposed Action .................................................................................................................... 24 Background ........................................................................................................................... 24 Purpose and Need ................................................................................................................ 26 Alternatives Considered .........................................................................................................27 Alternative A – Increase Hunting Season Structure and Alignment – [Proposed Action Alternative] ............................................................................................................................ 27 Alternative B – Current Management – [No Action Alternative] .............................................. 31 Affected Environment .............................................................................................................33 Environmental Consequences ...............................................................................................34 Impact Analysis ..................................................................................................................... 35 Clarks River NWR Draft Sport Hunt Plan 2 Cumulative Impact Analysis................................................................................................... 62 Mitigation Measures and Conditions ...................................................................................... 72 Monitoring ............................................................................................................................. 72 Summary of Analysis ............................................................................................................. 73 Alternative A – Proposed Action Alternative ............................................................... 73 Alternative B – No Action Alternative ......................................................................... 73 Coordination ...........................................................................................................................73 List of Sources, Agencies and Persons Consulted ................................................................ 74 List of Preparers .................................................................................................................... 74 State Coordination ................................................................................................................. 74 Tribal Consultation ................................................................................................................ 74 Public Outreach ..................................................................................................................... 75 Appendix A. Literature Cited ..................................................................................................76 Appendix B. Clarks River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Compatibility Determination .... 86 Appendix C. US Fish and Wildlife Service Intra-Service Section 7 Biological Evaluation Form ............................................................................................................................................... 102 LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Overview of the Proposed Action Alternative. ............................................................... 28 Table 2. Overview of the Current Management Alternative. ........................................................ 31 Table 3. Socioeconomic summary (2017) for Marshall, McCracken, Graves Counties, KY. ...... 33 Table 4. Affected Natural Resources and Anticipated Impacts ................................................... 35 Table 5. Affected Visitor Use and Experience and Anticipated Impacts ..................................... 57 Table 6. Affected Cultural Resources and Anticipated ................................................................ 58 Table 7. Affected Refuge Management and Operations and Anticipated Impacts ..................... 58 Table 8. Affected Socioeconomics and Anticipated Impacts ...................................................... 61 Table 9. Anticipated Cumulative Impacts ...................................................................................... 63 LIST OF FIGURES Section A. Draft Sport Hunt Plan Figure 1. Clarks River NWR Location Map ..................................................................................... 5 Figure 2. Clarks River NWR with restricted hunting locations ................................................... 11 Figure 3. Clarks River NWR with Hunting Access and Locations .............................................. 15 Section B. Environmental Assessment Figure 1. Location Map of Clarks River NWR ............................................................................... 34 Clarks River NWR Draft Sport Hunt Plan 3 Clarks River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Sport Hunt Plan For Big Game, Migratory Birds, Upland Game, Amphibians/Reptiles, and Invasive/Feral Species INTRODUCTION National Wildlife Refuges are guided by the mission and goals of the National Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS), the purposes of an individual refuge, Service policy, and laws and international treaties. Relevant guidance includes the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, as amended by the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, Refuge Recreation Act of 1962, and selected portions of the Code of Federal Regulations and Fish and Wildlife Service Manual. Clarks River National Wildlife Refuge (NWR or refuge) was established pursuant to the Federal Property and Administrative Service Act of 1949 (40 U.S.C. 471-535), as amended; Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1934 (16 U.S.C. 661-666c) as amended; Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 (16 U.S.C. 742a-742j Stat. 1119) as amended; the Act of May 19, 1948, Public Law 80-537 (16 U.S.C. 667b- 667d; 62 Stat. 240) as amended; and The National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 668dd-668ee), as amended. Clarks River NWR was established in 1998 under the Emergency Wetlands Resources Act of 1986 (16 U.S.C. 3901(b); 100 Stat. 3582-91). For the first time since the establishment of Kentucky Woodlands NWR in 1938, and its disposal in 1969, the Commonwealth of Kentucky had a national wildlife refuge located entirely within its borders. The primary purpose of the refuge is "...for the development, advancement, management, conservation, and protection of fish and wildlife resources ..." 16 U.S.C. 742f (a) (4) and "... for the benefit of the United States Fish and
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • Proceedings of the Indiana Academy of Science 1 15(2): 103- 109
    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).
    [Show full text]
  • Mussels Only)
    MUSSEL CWCS SPECIES (46 SPECIES) Common name Scientific name Bleufer Potamilus purpuratus Butterfly Ellipsaria lineolata Catspaw Epioblasma obliquata obliquata Clubshell Pleurobema clava Cracking Pearlymussel Hemistena lata Creek Heelsplitter Lasmigona compressa Cumberland Bean Villosa trabalis Cumberland Elktoe Alasmidonta atropurpurea Cumberland Moccasinshell Medionidus conradicus Cumberland Papershell Anodontoides denigratus Cumberlandian Combshell Epioblasma brevidens Dromedary Pearlymussel Dromus dromas Elephantear Elliptio crassidens Elktoe Alasmidonta marginata Fanshell Cyprogenia stegaria Fat Pocketbook Potamilus capax Fluted Kidneyshell Ptychobranchus subtentum Green Floater Lasmigona subviridis Kentucky Creekshell Villosa ortmanni Little Spectaclecase Villosa lienosa Littlewing Pearlymussel Pegias fabula Longsolid Fusconaia subrotunda Mountain Creekshell Villosa vanuxemensis vanuxemensis Northern Riffleshell Epioblasma torulosa rangiana Orangefoot Pimpleback Plethobasus cooperianus Oyster Mussel Epioblasma capsaeformis Pink Mucket Lampsilis abrupta Pocketbook Lampsilis ovata Purple Lilliput Toxolasma lividus Pyramid Pigtoe Pleurobema rubrum Rabbitsfoot Quadrula cylindrica cylindrica Rayed Bean Villosa fabalis Ring Pink Obovaria retusa Rough Pigtoe Pleurobema plenum Round Hickorynut Obovaria subrotunda Salamander Mussel Simpsonaias ambigua Scaleshell Leptodea leptodon Sheepnose Plethobasus cyphyus Slabside Pearlymussel Lexingtonia dolabelloides Slippershell Mussel Alasmidonta viridis Snuffbox Epioblasma triquetra Spectaclecase
    [Show full text]
  • Tennessee Natural Heritage Program Rare Species Observations for Tennessee Counties 2009
    Tennessee Natural Heritage Program Rare Species Observations For Tennessee Counties This document provides lists of rare species known to occur within each of Tennessee's counties. If you are viewing the list in its original digital format and you have an internet connection, you may click the scientific names to search the NatureServe Explorer Encyclopedia of Life for more detailed species information. The following lists were last updated in July 2009 and are based on rare species observations stored in the Tennessee Natural Heritage Biotics Database maintained by the TDEC Natural Heritage Program. For definitions of ranks and protective status, or for instructions on obtaining a site specific project review, please visit our website: http://state.tn.us/environment/na/data.shtml If you need assistance using the lists or interpreting data, feel free to contact us: Natural Heritage Program Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation 7th Floor L&C Annex 401 Church Street Nashville, Tennessee 37243 (615) 532-0431 The lists provided are intended for use as planning tools. Because many areas of the state have not been searched for rare species, the lists should not be used to determine the absence of rare species. The lists are best used in conjunction with field visits to identify the types of rare species habitat that may be present at a given location. For projects that are located near county boundaries or are in areas of the state that have been under-surveyed (particularly in western Tennessee), we recommend that you check rare species lists for adjacent counties or watersheds as well.
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix K – Threatened and Endagered Species Reports
    Appendix K – Threatened and Endagered Species Reports Report of Endangered, Threatened, and Special Concern Plants, Animals, and Natural Communities for Jefferson County, Kentucky Kentucky State Nature Preserves Commission 801 Schenkel Lane Frankfort, KY 40601 (502) 573-2886 (phone) (502) 573-2355 (fax) www.naturepreserves.ky.gov Kentucky State Nature Preserves Commission Key for County List Report Within a county, elements are arranged first by taxonomic complexity (plants first, natural communities last), and second by scientific name. A key to status, ranks, and count data fields follows. STATUS KSNPC: Kentucky State Nature Preserves Commission status: N or blank = none E = endangered T = threatened S = special concern H = historic X = extirpated USESA: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service status: blank = none C = candidate LT = listed as threatened LE = listed as endangered SOMC = Species of Management Concern RANKS GRANK: Estimate of element abundance on a global scale: G1 = Critically imperiled GU = Unrankable G2 = Imperiled G#? = Inexact rank (e.g. G2?) G3 = Vulnerable G#Q = Questionable taxonomy G4 = Apparently secure G#T# = Infraspecific taxa (Subspecies and variety abundances are coded with a 'T' suffix; the 'G' G5 = Secure portion of the rank then refers to the entire species) GH = Historic, possibly extinct GNR = Unranked GX = Presumed extinct GNA = Not applicable SRANK: Estimate of element abundance in Kentucky: S1 = Critically imperiled SU = Unrankable Migratory species may have separate ranks for different S2 = Imperiled S#? = Inexact rank (e.g. G2?) population segments (e.g. S1B, S2N, S4M): S3 = Vulnerable S#Q = Questionable taxonomy S#B = Rank of breeding population S4 = Apparently secure S#T# = Infraspecific taxa S#N = Rank of non-breeding population S5 = Secure SNR = Unranked S#M = Rank of transient population SH = Historic, possibly extirpated SNA = Not applicable SX = Presumed extirpated COUNT DATA FIELDS # OF OCCURRENCES: Number of occurrences of a particular element from a county.
    [Show full text]
  • A Revised List of the Freshwater Mussels (Mollusca: Bivalvia: Unionida) of the United States and Canada
    Freshwater Mollusk Biology and Conservation 20:33–58, 2017 Ó Freshwater Mollusk Conservation Society 2017 REGULAR ARTICLE A REVISED LIST OF THE FRESHWATER MUSSELS (MOLLUSCA: BIVALVIA: UNIONIDA) OF THE UNITED STATES AND CANADA James D. Williams1*, Arthur E. Bogan2, Robert S. Butler3,4,KevinS.Cummings5, Jeffrey T. Garner6,JohnL.Harris7,NathanA.Johnson8, and G. Thomas Watters9 1 Florida Museum of Natural History, Museum Road and Newell Drive, Gainesville, FL 32611 USA 2 North Carolina Museum of Natural Sciences, MSC 1626, Raleigh, NC 27699 USA 3 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 212 Mills Gap Road, Asheville, NC 28803 USA 4 Retired. 5 Illinois Natural History Survey, 607 East Peabody Drive, Champaign, IL 61820 USA 6 Alabama Division of Wildlife and Freshwater Fisheries, 350 County Road 275, Florence, AL 35633 USA 7 Department of Biological Sciences, Arkansas State University, State University, AR 71753 USA 8 U.S. Geological Survey, Wetland and Aquatic Research Center, 7920 NW 71st Street, Gainesville, FL 32653 USA 9 Museum of Biological Diversity, The Ohio State University, 1315 Kinnear Road, Columbus, OH 43212 USA ABSTRACT We present a revised list of freshwater mussels (order Unionida, families Margaritiferidae and Unionidae) of the United States and Canada, incorporating changes in nomenclature and systematic taxonomy since publication of the most recent checklist in 1998. We recognize a total of 298 species in 55 genera in the families Margaritiferidae (one genus, five species) and Unionidae (54 genera, 293 species). We propose one change in the Margaritiferidae: the placement of the formerly monotypic genus Cumberlandia in the synonymy of Margaritifera. In the Unionidae, we recognize three new genera, elevate four genera from synonymy, and place three previously recognized genera in synonymy.
    [Show full text]
  • Volume 20 Number 2 October 2017
    FRESHWATER MOLLUSK BIOLOGY AND CONSERVATION THE JOURNAL OF THE FRESHWATER MOLLUSK CONSERVATION SOCIETY VOLUME 20 NUMBER 2 OCTOBER 2017 Pages 33-58 oregonensis/kennerlyi clade, Gonidea angulata, and A Revised List of the Freshwater Mussels (Mollusca: Margaritifera falcata Bivalvia: Unionida) of the United States and Canada Emilie Blevins, Sarina Jepsen, Jayne Brim Box, James D. Williams, Arthur E. Bogan, Robert S. Butler, Donna Nez, Jeanette Howard, Alexa Maine, and Kevin S. Cummings, Jeffrey T. Garner, John L. Harris, Christine O’Brien Nathan A. Johnson, and G. Thomas Watters Pages 89-102 Pages 59-64 Survival of Translocated Clubshell and Northern Mussel Species Richness Estimation and Rarefaction in Riffleshell in Illinois Choctawhatchee River Watershed Streams Kirk W. Stodola, Alison P. Stodola, and Jeremy S. Jonathan M. Miller, J. Murray Hyde, Bijay B. Niraula, Tiemann and Paul M. Stewart Pages 103-113 Pages 65-70 What are Freshwater Mussels Worth? Verification of Two Cyprinid Host Fishes for the Texas David L. Strayer Pigtoe, Fusconaia askewi Erin P. Bertram, John S. Placyk, Jr., Marsha G. Pages 114-122 Williams, and Lance R. Williams Evaluation of Costs Associated with Externally Affixing PIT Tags to Freshwater Mussels using Three Commonly Pages 71-88 Employed Adhesives Extinction Risk of Western North American Freshwater Matthew J. Ashton, Jeremy S. Tiemann, and Dan Hua Mussels: Anodonta nuttalliana, the Anodonta Freshwater Mollusk Biology and Conservation ©2017 ISSN 2472-2944 Editorial Board CO-EDITORS Gregory Cope, North Carolina State University Wendell Haag, U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service Tom Watters, The Ohio State University EDITORIAL REVIEW BOARD Conservation Jess Jones, U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • COA Supplement No. 1 a Review of National and International Regulations Concerned with Collection, Importation
    Page 2 COA Supplement No. 1 In 1972, a group of shell collectors saw the need for a national organization devoted to the interests of shell collec- tors; to the beauty of shells, to their scientific aspects, and to the collecting and preservation of mollusks. This was the start of COA. Our member- AMERICAN CONCHOLOGIST, the official publication of the Conchol- ship includes novices, advanced collectors, scientists, and shell dealers ogists of America, Inc., and issued as part of membership dues, is published from around the world. In 1995, COA adopted a conservation resolution: quarterly in March, June, September, and December, printed by JOHNSON Whereas there are an estimated 100,000 species of living mollusks, many PRESS OF AMERICA, INC. (JPA), 800 N. Court St., P.O. Box 592, Pontiac, IL 61764. All correspondence should go to the Editor. ISSN 1072-2440. of great economic, ecological, and cultural importance to humans and Articles in AMERICAN CONCHOLOGIST may be reproduced with whereas habitat destruction and commercial fisheries have had serious ef- proper credit. We solicit comments, letters, and articles of interest to shell fects on mollusk populations worldwide, and whereas modern conchology collectors, subject to editing. Opinions expressed in “signed” articles are continues the tradition of amateur naturalists exploring and documenting those of the authors, and are not necessarily the opinions of Conchologists the natural world, be it resolved that the Conchologists of America endors- of America. All correspondence pertaining to articles published herein es responsible scientific collecting as a means of monitoring the status of or generated by reproduction of said articles should be directed to the Edi- mollusk species and populations and promoting informed decision making tor.
    [Show full text]
  • Biological Assessment First Marine Properties, LLC, Paducah, KY
    BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMEN T First Marine Properties, LLC Port of Calvert City Calvert City, Kentucky Prepared for: First Marine Properties, LLC -and - ICA Engineering Prepared by: Principal Authors: ______________________________ Charles A. Morgan ______________________________ D. Craig Fortenbery May 2014 Biological Assessment First Marine Properties, LLC, Paducah, KY Principal Author: Charles Morgan (270) 753-9654 Mainstream Commercial Divers, Inc. 322 C.C. Lowry Drive, Murray, KY 42071 Craig Fortenbery (270) 753-9654 Mainstream Commercial Divers, Inc. 322 C.C. Lowry Drive, Murray, KY 42071 Contributors: Matt Brawley (270) 444-9691 ICA Engineering 2550 Irvin Cobb Drive, Paducah, KY 42003 Prepared by: Mainstream Commercial Divers, Inc., May 2014 For: First Marine Properties, LLC Biological Assessment First Marine Properties, LLC, Paducah, KY TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .......................................................................................................................... 4 I. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................ 5 A. Background........................................................................................................................................ 5 B. Purpose .............................................................................................................................................. 8 II. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT .............................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Inf. AC.16.15 (English and Spanish Only / Solamente En Español E Ingles/ Seulement En Anglais Et Espagnol)
    Inf. AC.16.15 (English and Spanish only / Solamente en español e ingles/ Seulement en anglais et espagnol) SUMMARY OF THE STATUS OF WILD POPULATIONS OF SPECIES LISTED ON CITES APPENDIX I AND THE DIFFICULTY OF KEEPING OR BREEDING SPECIMENS OF THESE SPECIES IN CAPTIVITY September 2000 Prepared in response to CITES Secretariat Notification to the Parties No. 2000/044 By: The Species Survival Network Primary Contributors: Animal Welfare Institute (USA) Born Free Foundation (UK) Humane Society International Humane Society International-Australia Humane Society of the United States (USA) Pro Wildlife (Germany) Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (UK) Whale and Dolphin Conservation Society (UK) World Society for the Protection of Animals (UK) Inf. AC.16.15 – p. 1 IMPORTANT NOTES ABOUT THIS TABLE This document was prepared in response to CITES Secretariat Notification No. 2000/044 (31 July 2000) which requested nominations of Appendix I species that are critically endangered in the wild and/or known to be difficult to breed or keep in captivity. In accordance with Resolution Conf. 11.14, such species will appear on a list and operations breeding listed species for commercial purposes must become registered with the CITES Secretariat; all Parties have an opportunity to influence whether or not these operations are registered. Operations breeding Appendix I species not on the list may do so without registration with the CITES Secretariat and without the approval of all the Parties. • Species: Each species or subspecies that appears on CITES Appendix I is listed in the table. Species listed as higher taxa on CITES Appendix I are addressed species by species.
    [Show full text]
  • Clinch River, Environmental Report References in Support of Early Site
    L98 160205 002 THE TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY Clinch River Small Modular Reactor and Barge/ Traffic Site Evaluation of Aquatic Habitats and Protected Aquatic Animals Technical Report Charles S. Howard, Andrew R. Henderson, Craig L. Phillips. 02/13/2013 Revision 1 – 10/23/2013 Revision 2 – 5/26/2015 Revision 3 – 7/31/2015 Revision 4 – 11/20/2015 Revision 5 - 12/22/2015 This report has been prepared as a supporting document for the Clinch River Small Modular Reactor Site (CRSMR) Early Site Permit Application Project and is being distributed for project use. The report provides a summary of documented aquatic habitats and protected aquatic animals potentially present in CRSMR study area including the adjacent barge/ traffic study area and the adjacent Clinch River, Roane County, TN. Evaluation of Aquatic Habitats and Protected Aquatic Animals Technical Report TVA Clinch River Site INTRODUCTION TVA is evaluating a site in Roane County, Tennessee along the lower Clinch River (right bank near river miles 15 - 19) to construct and operate up to six small nuclear reactors and barge loading/ unloading area, as well as reconfiguring roads for traffic on an adjacent TVA tract (=Project Site). TVA proposed an environmental evaluation of aquatic habitats at the site and the freshwater mollusk community of the Clinch River adjacent the site (Clinch River miles [CRM] 15 - 19]; Figure 1). TVA previously surveyed mussels and habitat near the CSMR site (CRM 14 - 20) in 1982 (Jenkinson 1982), as did others (Ahlstedt 1991, UCC 2005). These studies indicated that the lower Clinch River recently supported a mussel community with relatively low abundance and species richness.
    [Show full text]
  • Sickel Et Al.: Potential for Kentucky Dam Tailwater As a Mussel Refuge 215
    Potential for the Kentucky Dam Tailwater of the Tennessee River to Serve as a Mussel Refuge from Invading Zebra Mussels James B. SickeP, Jeffrey J. Herod\ and Holly N. Blalock^ ^Murray State University, Department of Biological Sciences, Murray, Kentucky ^U.S. Geological Survey, Florida Caribbean Science Center, Gainesville, Florida Abstract. The lower Tennessee River, especially between the tailwater reach of Kentucky Dam (mile 22.4) and the Ohio River, continues to support a diverse unionid fauna. Although no endangered species have been reported in over 8 years, earlier surveys reported Plethobasus cooperianus, Lampsilis abrupta, Cyprogenia stegaria, and Obovaria relusa. The recent invasion and rapid colonization of the Ohio River by zebra mussels has threatened its unionids. Few zebra mussels, however, occur in the Tennessee River. Data from European studies and our recent studies suggest that the Ca"^"^ concentration in the Tennessee River is below that required for successful zebra mussel reproduction and colonization. The zebra mussels living in the Tennessee River probably have fallen from vessels traveling from the Ohio River and may not be reproduc ing. If zebra mussels are not successful in the Tennessee River, it could be used as a refugia for endangered or rare unionids from the Ohio River and other rivers colonized by zebra mussels until populations of zebra mussels in those rivers decline and stabilize. To determine if unionids could be relocated and monitored in the Kentucky Dam tailwater and to determine if methods of placement by divers affected survival and recovery, on 12 Jime 1993 we tagged 71 Amblema plicata and relocated them into a 1 x 15-m area marked with iron bars driven into the sediment at river mile 20.8.
    [Show full text]