DOCSLIB.ORG

Appendix D I-85 Widening (MM 80 to 96) Biological Assessment, I-85

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Appendix D I-85 Widening (MM 80 to 96) Biological Assessment, I-85 Appendix D I‐85 Widening (MM 80 to 96) Biological Assessment, I‐85 Project Submittal Form for NLEB, Protected Aquatic Species Survey Report; Cherokee and Spartanburg Counties; Interstate 85 Widening from Mile Marker 80 to 96, and FWS Correspondence regarding I‐85 Project Submittal Form for NLEB Biological Assessment Proposed Interstate 85 (I-85) Widening & Interchange Improvements Project From Mile Marker 80 to Mile Marker 96 Cherokee and Spartanburg Counties, South Carolina SCDOT PIN 27114 Biological Assessment Federally Threatened and Endangered Species Proposed Interstate 85 (I-85) Widening & Interchange Improvements Project From Mile Marker 80 to Mile Marker 96 Cherokee and Spartanburg Counties, South Carolina SCDOT PIN 27114 The South Carolina Department of Transportation (SCDOT) proposes to widen approximately 16 miles of Interstate 85 (I-85) in the counties of Cherokee and Spartanburg, South Carolina; please see Appendix A for a Site Location Map. The project also proposes to improve interchanges within the project limits. The project originates at approximate Mile Marker (MM) 80, just east of S-57 (Gossett Road), in Spartanburg County, and terminates at approximate MM 96, just west of the Broad River, in Cherokee County. The proposed project would involve the following: widen the existing four-lane interstate facility to a minimum of six lanes, three in each direction; improve the I-85 interchange with SC 110 (Battleground Road); improve the I-85 interchange with S-39 (Green River Road); improve the I-85 interchange with SC 105 (Hyatt Street); improve the I-85 interchange with S-82 (Pleasant School Road); improve the I-85 interchange with and SC 18 (Shelby Highway); and replace the existing I-85 overpass bridge on S-131 (Sunny Slope Drive). The Federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended, is the federal regulatory tool that serves to administer permits, implement recovery plans, and monitor federally protected (endangered and threatened) species. The ESA is administered and regulated by the USFWS and/or National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration-National Marine Fisheries Service (NOAA-NMFS). Species with the federal classification of Endangered (E) or Threatened (T), or Threatened due to Similarity of Appearance (T [S/A]) are protected under the ESA of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). The term “endangered species” is defined as “any species which is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range”, and the term “threatened species” is defined as “any species which is likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range” (16 U.S.C. 1532). The term “Proposed” (P) is defined as “any species proposed for official listing as endangered or threatened.” “Candidate” (C) species are taxons under consideration for which there is sufficient information to support listing but development of a proposed listing regulation is precluded by other higher priority listing activities. “At-Risk Species” (ARS) is an informal term that refers to those species which may be in need of concentrated conservation actions, and have been petitioned for listing as threatened or endangered. The USFWS designations P, C, and ARS do not provide federal protection and require no Section 7 consultation under the ESA. Biological Assessment Proposed Interstate 85 (I-85) Widening & Interchange Improvements Project From Mile Marker 80 to Mile Marker 96 Cherokee and Spartanburg Counties, South Carolina SCDOT PIN 27114 Because of the federal nexus of the project, consultation with the USFWS is required under Section 7 of the ESA, as amended (16 USC 1531-1534), for proposed projects that “may affect” federally endangered and threatened species. This Biological Assessment (BA) analyzes potential impacts to federally endangered and threatened species associated with the proposed project, and is intended to initiate informal consultation, as needed. The following list (Table 1) of federally protected [endangered (E) and threatened (T)] species for Spartanburg and Cherokee Counties was obtained from the USFWS protected species database (updated April 29, 2015). Additional information regarding state protection status was obtained from the South Carolina Department of Natural Resources (SCDNR) Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Species Inventory (updated June 11, 2014). Table 1 also includes five At-Risk Species and the Carolina heelsplitter (Lasmigona decorata). The Carolina heelsplitter is not currently listed as a threatened or endangered species by USFWS in Spartanburg or Cherokee County; however, the species is listed as endangered elsewhere in South Carolina. TABLE 1 FEDERALLY PROTECTED SPECIES IN CHEROKEE AND SPARTANBURG COUNTIES, SOUTH CAROLINA Protected Species County Protection Common Name Scientific Name Listed Federal State Crustacean Species Broad River spiny crayfish Cambarus spicatus Spartanburg ARS - Fish Species Cherokee & American eel Anguilla rostrata ARS - Spartanburg Mammal Species Cherokee & Northern long-eared bat Myotis septentrionalis T - Spartanburg Cherokee & Rafinesque’s big-eared bat Corynorthinus rafinesquii ARS Spartanburg Cherokee & Tri-colored bat Perimyotis subflavus ARS - Spartanburg Mollusk Species Carolina heelsplitter Lasmigona decorata Statewide E,CH E Plant Species Cherokee & Dwarf-flowered heartleaf Hexastylis naniflora T - Spartanburg Georgia aster Symphyotrichum georgianum Cherokee ARS - T = Threatened, E = Endangered, CH = Critical Habitat, ARS = At Risk Species 2 Biological Assessment Proposed Interstate 85 (I-85) Widening & Interchange Improvements Project From Mile Marker 80 to Mile Marker 96 Cherokee and Spartanburg Counties, South Carolina SCDOT PIN 27114 State and/or federally-listed threatened and endangered species and their respective habitats are briefly described below: Northern long-eared bat (Myotis septentrionalis) – Federal Threatened The northern long-eared bat is a medium-sized bat with a body length of 3 to 3.7 inches and a wingspan of 9 to 10 inches. Their fur color can be medium to dark brown on the back and tawny to pale-brown on the underside. The species is distinguished by its long ears, which when pushed forward extend at least 4 millimeters past its nose. During the winter months, the northern long- eared bat can be found hibernating in caves and mines. They use areas in various sized caves or mines with constant temperatures, high humidity, and no air currents. During the summer, northern long-eared bats roost underneath bark, in cavities or in crevices of both live trees and dead trees. Individuals of the species have also been found rarely roosting in structures, like barns and sheds. Overall, the northern long-eared bat is not considered to be a long-distance migrant (typically 40 to 50 miles) although known migratory distances vary greatly between 5 and 168 miles. Carolina heelsplitter (Lasmigona decorata) - Federal/State Endangered The Carolina heelsplitter is a federally and state listed endangered mussel with an ovate, trapezoid shaped shell. The surface of this species is yellowish, greenish, or brownish with greenish, blackish rays. The inner shell ranges from iridescent to mottled pale orange. The average size of the Carolina heelsplitter is 78 millimeters (mm). The Carolina heelsplitter is found in small to large streams and rivers as well as ponds over a variety of substrates usually near stable, well-shaded stream banks. Most individuals are found in undercuts and along shaded banks stabilized with extensive tree roots, a buried log, or rocks. The Carolina heelsplitter requires waterways with well oxygenated clean water. Six populations of this mussel are presently known to exist, four of which occur within South Carolina. Dwarf-flowered heartleaf (Hexastylis naniflora) – Federal Threatened Dwarf-flowered heartleaf is a low-growing spicey-smelling, evergreen perennial herb that spreads via rhizomes. Leaves are heart-shaped, alternate, leathery, lacking teeth, and 1.6 to 2.4 inches in length and width. Each leaf is supported by a long, thin stem. The solitary flowers are fleshy, firm, grow at the end of short stalks, and often under forest litter and leaves near the base of the leaf stems. The flowers are jug-shaped, less than one-half inch long, and range in color from brown to greenish or purple. Flowering occurs from mid-March to early June; fruiting begins in late May. Adults are rhizomatous and seedling growth has been observed in clumps of mature plants. The dwarf-flowered heartleaf is typically found along bluffs and north-facing slopes, boggy areas along streams, and adjacent hillsides and ravines with acidic, sandy loam soils in deciduous forests. Individuals are typically found on Pacolet or Madison gravelly sandy loam, or Musella fine sandy loam. This species is also commonly associated with mountain laurel (Kalmia latifolia). 3 Biological Assessment Proposed Interstate 85 (I-85) Widening & Interchange Improvements Project From Mile Marker 80 to Mile Marker 96 Cherokee and Spartanburg Counties, South Carolina SCDOT PIN 27114 Terrestrial Plant Communities Based on field reviews of the Project Study Area (PSA), eight terrestrial habitat community/land use types are present within the PSA, including Maintained and Disturbed Roadside, Agricultural Fields, Mixed Pine/Hardwood Forest, Bottomland Hardwood Forest, Successional Forest, Pine Forest, Commercial and Residential Development, and Maintained Lawn. A brief summary of the terrestrial habitat
Load more

Recommended publications
  • North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission Gordon Myers, Executive Director
    North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission Gordon Myers, Executive Director March 1, 2016 Honorable Jimmy Dixon Honorable Chuck McGrady N.C. House of Representatives N.C. House of Representatives 300 N. Salisbury Street, Room 416B 300 N. Salisbury Street, Room 304 Raleigh, NC 27603-5925 Raleigh, NC 27603-5925 Senator Trudy Wade N.C. Senate 300 N. Salisbury Street, Room 521 Raleigh, NC 27603-5925 Dear Honorables: I am submitting this report to the Environmental Review Committee in fulfillment of the requirements of Section 4.33 of Session Law 2015-286 (H765). As directed, this report includes a review of methods and criteria used by the NC Wildlife Resources Commission on the State protected animal list as defined in G.S. 113-331 and compares them to federal and state agencies in the region. This report also reviews North Carolina policies specific to introduced species along with determining recommendations for improvements to these policies among state and federally listed species as well as nonlisted animals. If you have questions or need additional information, please contact me by phone at (919) 707-0151 or via email at [email protected]. Sincerely, Gordon Myers Executive Director North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission Report on Study Conducted Pursuant to S.L. 2015-286 To the Environmental Review Commission March 1, 2016 Section 4.33 of Session Law 2015-286 (H765) directed the N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission (WRC) to “review the methods and criteria by which it adds, removes, or changes the status of animals on the state protected animal list as defined in G.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Carolina Heelsplitter (Lasmigona Decorata)
    Carolina Heelsplitter (Lasmigona decorata) 5-Year Review: Summary and Evaluation 2012 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Southeast Region Asheville Ecological Services Field Office Asheville, North Carolina 5-YEAR REVIEW Carolina heelsplitter (Lasmigona decorata) I. GENERAL INFORMATION. A. Methodology Used to Complete the Review: This 5-year review was accomplished using pertinent status data obtained from the recovery plan, peer-reviewed scientific publications, unpublished research reports, and experts on this species. Once all known and pertinent data were collected for this species, the status information was compiled and the review was completed by the species’ lead recovery biologist John Fridell in the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s (Service) Ecological Services Field Office in Asheville, North Carolina, with assistance from biologist Lora Zimmerman, formerly with the Service’s Ecological Services Field Office in Charleston, South Carolina. The Service published a notice in the Federal Register (FR [71 FR 42871]) announcing the 5-year review of the Carolina heelsplitter and requesting new information on the species. A 60-day public comment period was opened. No information about this species was received from the public. A draft of the 5-year review was peer-reviewed by six experts familiar with the Carolina heelsplitter. Comments received were evaluated and incorporated as appropriate. B. Reviewers. Lead Region: Southeast Region, Atlanta, Georgia - Kelly Bibb, 404/679-7132. Lead Field Office: Ecological Services Field Office, Asheville, North Carolina - John Fridell, 828/258-3939, Ext. 225. Cooperating Field Office: Ecological Services Field Office, Charleston, South Carolina - Morgan Wolf, 843/727-4707, Ext. 219. C. Background. 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Monticello Reservoir Mussel Survey Report
    Freshwater Mussel Survey Report In Monticello Reservoir Parr Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. 1894) Fairfield and Newberry Counties, South Carolina Monticello Reservoir Shoreline Habitat Prepared For: South Carolina Electric & Gas Company & Kleinschmidt Associates 204 Caughman Farm Lane, Suite 301 Lexington, SC 29072 April 14, 2016 Prepared by: Three Oaks Engineering 1000 Corporate Drive, Suite 101 Hillsborough, NC 27278 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................... 1 2.0 TARGET FEDERALLY PROTECTED SPECIES DESCRIPTION: Carolina Heelsplitter (Lasmigona decorata) .................................................................................. 1 2.1 Species Characteristics ..................................................................................................... 1 2.2 Distribution and Habitat Requirements ............................................................................ 3 2.3 Threats to Species............................................................................................................. 4 2.4 Designated Critical Habitat .............................................................................................. 4 3.0 TARGET PETITIONED FEDERALLY PROTECTED SPECIES DESCRIPTION: Savannah Lilliput (Toxolasma pullus) ............................................................................................ 8 3.1 Species Characteristics ....................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • List of the Freshwater Bivalve Species of North Carolina
    List of the Freshwater Bivalve species of North Carolina - printed 2021-09-24 This is a listing of the bivalve mollusk species that have been documented or reported to occur in the freshwater systems of the state. Because bivalves can be very difficult to identify to genus and to species, and because there are a number of historical (often over 100 years ago) and poorly documented reports of many species, it is impossible to state the number of freshwater bivalve species that have been documented in the state. The scientific and common names used in this list are from Williams et al. (2017) for the taxa in the family Unionidae, and from NatureServe Explorer for the taxa in Corbiculidae and Sphaeriidae. The list also includes the State Rank, Global Rank, State Status, and U.S. Status (if it has such statuses) for each species. The ranks are those of the Biotics database of the N. C. Natural Heritage Program and NatureServe, October 2016. Ranks in parentheses are provided by the N.C. Biodiversity Project, based on data in Williams et al. (2017). Status information is given on Page 3. Unionidae: Freshwater Mussels [48] [Rank: State Global] [Status: State US] Range (by river basins) 1 Alasmidonta heterodon ................ Dwarf Wedgemussel ................... [S1 G1G2] [E E] NS, TP 2 Alasmidonta raveneliana .............. Appalachian Elktoe ...................... [S1 G1] [E E] FB, LT 3 Alasmidonta undulata ................... Triangle Floater ........................... [S3 G4] [T] CF, CH, NS, RO, TP, YP 4 Alasmidonta varicosa ................... Brook Floater ............................... [S2 G3] [E] CA, CF, NS, YP 5 Alasmidonta viridis ....................... Slippershell Mussel ..................... [S1 G4G5] [E] FB, LT 6 Cyclonaias tuberculata ................
    [Show full text]
  • Field Guide to the Freshwater Mussels of South Carolina
    Field Guide to the Freshwater Mussels of South Carolina South Carolina Department of Natural Resources About this Guide Citation for this publication: Bogan, A. E.1, J. Alderman2, and J. Price. 2008. Field guide to the freshwater mussels of South Carolina. South Carolina Department of Natural Resources, Columbia. 43 pages This guide is intended to assist scientists and amateur naturalists with the identification of freshwater mussels in the field. For a more detailed key assisting in the identification of freshwater mussels, see Bogan, A.E. and J. Alderman. 2008. Workbook and key to the freshwater bivalves of South Carolina. Revised Second Edition. The conservation status listed for each mussel species is based upon recommendations listed in Williams, J.D., M.L. Warren Jr., K.S. Cummings, J.L. Harris and R.J. Neves. 1993. Conservation status of the freshwater mussels of the United States and Canada. Fisheries. 18(9):6-22. A note is also made where there is an official state or federal status for the species. Cover Photograph by Ron Ahle Funding for this project was provided by the US Fish and Wildlife Service. 1 North Carolina State Museum of Natural Sciences 2 Alderman Environmental Services 1 Diversity and Classification Mussels belong to the class Bivalvia within the phylum Mollusca. North American freshwater mussels are members of two families, Unionidae and Margaritiferidae within the order Unionoida. Approximately 300 species of freshwater mussels occur in North America with the vast majority concentrated in the Southeastern United States. Twenty-nine species, all in the family Unionidae, occur in South Carolina.
    [Show full text]
  • Freshwater Bivalves of North Carolina
    List of the Freshwater Bivalve species of North Carolina - compiled 2017-11-03 This is a listing of the bivalve mollusk species that have been documented or reported to occur in the freshwater systems of the state. Because bivalves can be very difficult to identify to genus and to species, and because there are a number of historical (often over 100 years ago) and poorly documented reports of many species, it is impossible to state the number of freshwater bivalve species that have been documented in the state. The scientific and common names used in this list are from Williams et al. (2017) for the taxa in the family Unionidae, and from NatureServe Explorer for the taxa in Corbiculidae and Sphaeriidae. The list also includes the State Rank, Global Rank, State Status, and U.S. Status (if it has such statuses) for each species. The ranks are those of the Biotics database of the N. C. Natural Heritage Program and NatureServe, October 2016. Ranks in parentheses are provided by the N.C. Biodiversity Project, based on data in Williams et al. (2017). Status information is given on Page 3. Unionidae: Freshwater Mussels [48] [Rank: State Global] [Status: State US] Range (by river basins) 1 Alasmidonta heterodon ................ Dwarf Wedgemussel ................... [S1 G1G2] [E E] NS, TP 2 Alasmidonta raveneliana .............. Appalachian Elktoe ...................... [S1 G1] [E E] FB, LT 3 Alasmidonta undulata ................... Triangle Floater ........................... [S3 G4] [T FSC] CF, CH, NS, RO, TP, YP 4 Alasmidonta varicosa ................... Brook Floater ............................... [S2 G3] [E FSC] CA, CF, NS, YP 5 Alasmidonta viridis ....................... Slippershell Mussel ..................... [S1 G4G5] [E FSC] FB, LT 6 Cyclonaias tuberculata ................
    [Show full text]
  • Using Environmental DNA and Macroinvertebrate Biotic Integrity to Inform Conservation Efforts for the Carolina Heelsplitter
    Clemson University TigerPrints All Theses Theses December 2020 Using Environmental DNA and Macroinvertebrate Biotic Integrity to Inform Conservation Efforts for the Carolina Heelsplitter Benjamin Schmidt Clemson University, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://tigerprints.clemson.edu/all_theses Recommended Citation Schmidt, Benjamin, "Using Environmental DNA and Macroinvertebrate Biotic Integrity to Inform Conservation Efforts for the Carolina Heelsplitter" (2020). All Theses. 3441. https://tigerprints.clemson.edu/all_theses/3441 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Theses at TigerPrints. It has been accepted for inclusion in All Theses by an authorized administrator of TigerPrints. For more information, please contact [email protected]. USING ENVIRONMENTAL DNA AND MACROINVERTEBRATE BIOTIC INTEGRITY TO INFORM CONSERVATION EFFORTS FOR THE CAROLINA HEELSPLITTER A Thesis Presented to the Graduate School of Clemson University In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Master of Science Wildlife and Fisheries Biology by Benjamin Schmidt December 2020 Accepted by: Dr. Catherine M. Bodinof Jachowski, Committee Chair Dr. Stephen F. Spear Dr. Robert F. Baldwin ABSTRACT The Carolina Heelsplitter (Lasmigona decorata) is a federally endangered freshwater mussel endemic to North and South Carolina, USA. The species has experienced dramatic range-wide declines as a result of habitat fragmentation and water quality deterioration, and the remaining populations are isolated and extremely small. Conservation efforts for the Carolina Heelsplitter have been limited by a lack of knowledge regarding distribution, life history traits, and habitat requirements. Our objectives during this project were to 1. Evaluate the efficacy of an environmental DNA (eDNA) assay to detect the Carolina Heelsplitter and a known host fish, the Bluehead Chub, from stream water samples and 2.
    [Show full text]
  • A Revised List of the Freshwater Mussels (Mollusca: Bivalvia: Unionida) of the United States and Canada
    Freshwater Mollusk Biology and Conservation 20:33–58, 2017 Ó Freshwater Mollusk Conservation Society 2017 REGULAR ARTICLE A REVISED LIST OF THE FRESHWATER MUSSELS (MOLLUSCA: BIVALVIA: UNIONIDA) OF THE UNITED STATES AND CANADA James D. Williams1*, Arthur E. Bogan2, Robert S. Butler3,4,KevinS.Cummings5, Jeffrey T. Garner6,JohnL.Harris7,NathanA.Johnson8, and G. Thomas Watters9 1 Florida Museum of Natural History, Museum Road and Newell Drive, Gainesville, FL 32611 USA 2 North Carolina Museum of Natural Sciences, MSC 1626, Raleigh, NC 27699 USA 3 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 212 Mills Gap Road, Asheville, NC 28803 USA 4 Retired. 5 Illinois Natural History Survey, 607 East Peabody Drive, Champaign, IL 61820 USA 6 Alabama Division of Wildlife and Freshwater Fisheries, 350 County Road 275, Florence, AL 35633 USA 7 Department of Biological Sciences, Arkansas State University, State University, AR 71753 USA 8 U.S. Geological Survey, Wetland and Aquatic Research Center, 7920 NW 71st Street, Gainesville, FL 32653 USA 9 Museum of Biological Diversity, The Ohio State University, 1315 Kinnear Road, Columbus, OH 43212 USA ABSTRACT We present a revised list of freshwater mussels (order Unionida, families Margaritiferidae and Unionidae) of the United States and Canada, incorporating changes in nomenclature and systematic taxonomy since publication of the most recent checklist in 1998. We recognize a total of 298 species in 55 genera in the families Margaritiferidae (one genus, five species) and Unionidae (54 genera, 293 species). We propose one change in the Margaritiferidae: the placement of the formerly monotypic genus Cumberlandia in the synonymy of Margaritifera. In the Unionidae, we recognize three new genera, elevate four genera from synonymy, and place three previously recognized genera in synonymy.
    [Show full text]
  • Assessing Impacts of Habitat Loss on Freshwater Mussel
    Clemson University TigerPrints All Dissertations Dissertations 5-2018 Water-Electricity Nexus: Assessing Impacts of Habitat Loss on Freshwater Mussel Assemblages in the Savannah Basin, South Carolina Snehal Subhash Mhatre Clemson University, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://tigerprints.clemson.edu/all_dissertations Recommended Citation Mhatre, Snehal Subhash, "Water-Electricity Nexus: Assessing Impacts of Habitat Loss on Freshwater Mussel Assemblages in the Savannah Basin, South Carolina" (2018). All Dissertations. 2120. https://tigerprints.clemson.edu/all_dissertations/2120 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Dissertations at TigerPrints. It has been accepted for inclusion in All Dissertations by an authorized administrator of TigerPrints. For more information, please contact [email protected]. WATER-ELECTRICITY NEXUS: ASSESSING IMPACTS OF HABITAT LOSS ON FRESHWATER MUSSEL ASSEMBLAGES IN THE SAVANNAH BASIN, SOUTH CAROLINA A Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School of Clemson University In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy Wildlife and Fisheries Biology by Snehal Subhash Mhatre May 2018 Accepted by: Dr. Alan R. Johnson, Committee Chair Dr. Kyle Barrett Dr. John Hains Dr. John Rodgers, Jr. ABSTRACT The environmental effects of energy production are well known, yet its exact impacts on freshwater resources are often difficult to recognize and measure. Freshwater mussels are extremely imperiled organisms which act as sentinels of freshwater streams and are greatly understudied in context of their drastic decline caused in part due to large water demands by the energy sector. I sought to estimate historic, current and forecasted water use by electricity generation at national, regional and local- scale.
    [Show full text]
  • GREEN FLOATER (Lasmigona Subviridis)
    GREEN FLOATER (Lasmigona subviridis) Green Floater, credit USGS The green floater is a freshwater mussel that has declined precipitously in population size and distribution over the last 100 years, and is now vulnerable to extinction. Land use changes have increased erosion and sediment runoff, reducing water quality, and harming mussels. The green floater was petitioned for Federal listing under the Endangered Species Act in 2010 and the American Fisheries Society classified it as threatened in 1993. Historically, they were present in 10 states (New York, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Maryland, West Virginia, Virginia, Tennessee, North Carolina, Georgia, and Alabama) and the District of Columbia (Figure 1). They are now extirpated in two states and the District of Columbia and have had significant declines in abundance and presence in other states (NatureServe 2020). In Maryland, this species is present in only a few watersheds. The green floater is small, typically less than 55 millimeters (mm) in length. It has a subovate or trapezoidal shape and a thin yellowish-brown shell covered in varying amounts of green rays. Younger specimens are typically greener (PNHP 2012). The green floater is also distinct for its interior shell color of whitish to blue, and an interdental tooth. The small size and low abundance of this species can make it more difficult to find during surveys. More research is needed to obtain additional information regarding ecology, genetics, and life history (USGS 2019). 1 Figure 1. This 2020 map demonstrates the distribution of the green floater mussel from Alabama to New York (NatureServe 2020). LIFE HISTORY Like other freshwater mussels, sexual reproduction occurs through the water column.
    [Show full text]
  • 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]
  • Lasmigona Decorata) Lea
    Recovery Plan For Carolina Heelsplitter (Lasmisgona decorata) Lea U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Southeast Region Atlanta, Georgia RECOVERY PLAN for Carolina Heelsplitter (Lasmigona decorata) Lea Prepared by John A. Fridell Asheville Field Office U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Asheville, North Carolina for U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Southeast Region Atlanta, Georgia Approved: Noreen K. Clough, Regional D outheast Region U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Date: ________ Recovery plans delineate reasonable actions that are believed to be required to recoverand/or protect species. Plans published by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service are sometimes prepared with the assistance ofrecovery teams, contractors, State agencies, and other affected and interested parties. Plans are reviewed by the public and submitted to additional peer review before they are adopted by the Service. Objectives ofthe plan will be attained and any necessary funds made available subject to budgetary and other constraints affecting the parties involved, as well as the need to address other priorities. Recovery plans do not obligate otherparties to undertake specific tasks and may not represent the views nor the official positions or approval of any individuals or agencies involved in developing the plan, other than the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Recovery plans represent the official position of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service only after they have been signed by the Director or a Regional Director as approved. Approved recovery plans are subject to modification as dictated by new findings, changes in species status, and the completion ofrecoverytasks. By approving this document, the Regional Director certifies that the dataused in its development represent the best scientific and commercial data available at the time it was written.
    [Show full text]