DOCSLIB.ORG

United States Department of the Interior

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
United States Department of the Interior United States Department of the Interior FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 110 South Amity Road, Suite 300 Conway, Arkansas 72032 IN REPLY REFER TO: Tel.: 501/513-4470 Fax: 501/513-4480 March 10, 2015 Mr. John Fleming Division Head, Environmental Division c/o Mr. Josh Seagraves Arkansas State Highway and Transportation Department P.O. Box 2261 Little Rock, Arkansas 72203-2261 Dear Mr. Fleming: This document transmits the United States Fish and Wildlife Service’s (Service) biological opinion (BO) based on our review of: 1) the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the Arkansas State Highway and Transportation Department (AHTD) proposal and Biological Assessment (BA) regarding plans to replace the bridge at the Highway 41 crossing of the Little River in Sevier and Little River Counties, Arkansas; 2) its effects to the potential adverse effects to the Ouachita Rock Pocketbook (ORP; Arkansia wheeleri), Rabbitsfoot (Quadrula cylindrica cylindrica); and 3) its effects to proposed critical habitat for Rabbitsfoot. This BO has been prepared pursuant to section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (Act), as amended (16 U.S.C 1531 et seq.), and implementing regulations (50 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) §402). Section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires federal agencies to consult with the Service to ensure any action authorized, funded, or carried out is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any federally listed species nor destroy or adversely modify critical habitat. This BO is based on the best available scientific and commercial data including meetings, electronic mail and telephone correspondence with FHWA and AHTD officials, Service files, pertinent scientific literature, discussions with recognized species authorities, and other scientific sources. A complete administrative record is on file at the Arkansas Ecological Services Field Office in Conway, Arkansas. CONSULTATION HISTORY In a letter dated January 14, 2015, FHWA and the AHTD provided the Biological Assessment of potential impacts to the ORP as a result of the proposed project. The letter stated that the proposed project may adversely affect ORP, therefore the Federal Highway Administration and the Arkansas State Highway and Transportation Department wish to enter into formal consultation under Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act. 1 On February 3, 2015, the Service received AHTD’s amendment to the Biological Assessment requesting the inclusion of Rabbitsfoot within the consultation. On March 2, 2015, the Service provided to the AHTD a copy of the draft BO for its review and comment. The AHTD provided comments on the draft BO on March 4, 2015. The Service issued its final BO on March 10, 2015, concluding formal consultation. BIOLOGICAL OPINION DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION As defined in the Service’s section 7 regulations (50 CFR 402.02), “action” means “all activities or programs of any kind authorized, funded, or carried out, in whole or in part, by Federal agencies in the United States or upon the high seas.” The “action area” is defined as “all areas to be affected directly or indirectly by the Federal action and not merely the immediate area involved in the action.” The direct and indirect effects of the actions and activities must be considered in conjunction with the effects of other past and present Federal, State, or private activities, as well as the cumulative effects of reasonably certain future State or private activities within the action area. The AHTD plans to replace the bridge at the Highway 41 crossing of the Little River in Sevier and Little River Counties, Arkansas. This bridge has been deemed structurally deficient. The new bridge will consist of 23 trestle bents constructed of 18’ square pre- stressed concrete piers. The total project length is 0.91 miles. This project is located in the flood plains and low terraces of the South Central Plains Ecoregion (Woods et al. 2004) and in the 10-digit HUC 1114010901 headwaters of the Little River (reference watersheds.cast.uark.edu). According to the 2006 Land Use Land Cover data, forest is the predominant land use at 70.1% followed by herbaceous and pasture at 12.7% and 12.2% respectively. Alterations to the Little River include the impoundment of a major tributary, Mountain Fork River, to create Broken Bow Lake in the 1960’s. Hydroelectric generation release creates fluctuating river levels of 1-3 feet daily. Downstream, Millwood Lake impounds as much as 95,200 acres for flood control purposes. Millwood Lake was constructed between 1961 and 1966 and was authorized by the Flood Control Acts of 1946 and 1958. Figure 1 illustrates the limits of the proposed project. The project area includes replacement of a 1980’ bridge and approaches on Highway 41 approximately 2.5 miles southwest of Horatio in Little River and Sevier Counties, Arkansas (Figure 2). The project will be constructed on new rights- of-way (The new construction will be placed in a new ROW directly adjacent to the existing ROW). An initial time constrained (qualitative) survey on July 23, 2013, found a relict shell of a Rabbitsfoot. This initial find prompted USFWS to request further quantitative sampling. Quantitative sampling took place on August 12-13, 2014, which resulted in the collection of a single ORP. FHWA requested that the Service begin the formal consultation process 2 under the ESA for potential impacts to the endangered ORP and the threatened Rabbitsfoot. Construction and Best Management Practices (BMPs) The project is scheduled to be let in 2016. Work orders are typically issued the month following the letting date. It has been estimated that this project will take 2.5 years to complete. The proposed work is on a new location which will involve clearing new rights-of-way. This will involve removal of trees and vegetation along with grading and compacting surface. Clearing, grubbing, or any other disturbance of vegetation on the stream banks shall be limited to the minimum necessary for the completion of the project. Petroleum products from improperly maintained construction equipment and storage areas can make its way into receiving streams if preventative measures are not properly followed. Staging areas will be sited to minimize the potential for such contamination. In-stream work includes the construction of bridge piers and footing, as well as, the demolition and removal of the existing bridge and piers. Four temporary work roads will be constructed on either side of the river to facilitate construction and demolition (Figure 4). A total of 2,658 cubic yards of fill will be temporary placed below the ordinary high water mark for construction of these roads. Temporary culverts to sufficiently maintain low stream flows and assist the passage of aquatic life will also be provided. Following bridge construction, a layer of rip-rap will be placed between the bridge ends and the bridge piers located within the channel to prevent scour. Temporary impacts to water quality are common during highway construction activities. These impacts can be lessened with the proper implementation of erosion control BMPs. All efforts to reduce and limit adverse effects to water quality will be implemented. All disturbed areas will be permanently seeded. All areas must meet coverage requirements outlined in the NPDES permit. No changes are expected to the operation of the highway following the construction. The project is designed to replace the bridge with a modern structure; therefore, routine maintenance activities to the infrastructure should decrease. Maintenance activities, such as mowing, herbicide application, de-icing etcetera should not change. 3 Figure 1 Design 4 Figure 2 Project Location 5 ACTION AREA Informal consultation led to the determination that the directly affected action area affecting ORP and Rabbitsfoot will include an area within the Little River 100 feet upstream from limits of construction to an area 300 feet downstream from the limits of construction. Figure 3 illustrates the extent of the mussel “bed” within the directly affected Action Area and dive locations. Figure 1 illustrates the construction limits and new bridge placement center line. The Service further assesses the indirectly affected action area related to ORP and Rabbitsfoot to include the Little River from the end of the directly affected action area to 500 ft. upstream and downstream to the confluence with Millwood Lake. This additional action area allows the Service to take into consideration the fact that the effects associated with the proposed action are likely to occur in the area shown in Figure 3, but may extend downstream further than anticipated due to a lack of information pertaining to potential alterations to stream geomorphology and/or downstream sediment transport. Assessment of the complete action area will provide meaningful analysis of any other direct, indirect, or cumulative effects that could result from the proposed action. 6 Figure 3 Dive Locations 7 8 STATUS OF THE SPECIES/CRITICAL HABITAT Species/ habitat description Endangered Species – Ouachita Rock Pocketbook (ORP; Arkansia wheeleri) The ORP is a freshwater mussel endemic to the Red River basin (Little, Kiamichi, and Ouachita rivers) in Arkansas, Oklahoma, and Texas. The Service listed the ORP as endangered in 1991 (Federal Register 56:54950-54957), without critical habitat. Status and distribution in Arkansas Gordon and Harris (1983) collected relict shells of ORP from the Little River in Arkansas, just west of Arkansas Highway 41 and 6.4 km (4.0 miles) northwest of U.S. Highway 59/71, both sites located along the boundary between Little River and Sevier Counties. Clarke (1987) found a small number of live individuals in a 1 km (0.7 river mile) reach of the Little River running east from the Oklahoma-Arkansas state line, Little River and Sevier Counties. He believed the species might exist through a defined section of about 8 km (5 river miles) extending east from the state line.
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]
  • Scaleshell Mussel Recovery Plan
    U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Scaleshell Mussel Recovery Plan (Leptodea leptodon) February 2010 Department of the Interior United States Fish and Wildlife Service Great Lakes – Big Rivers Region (Region 3) Fort Snelling, MN Cover photo: Female scaleshell mussel (Leptodea leptodon), taken by Dr. M.C. Barnhart, Missouri State University Disclaimer This is the final scaleshell mussel (Leptodea leptodon) recovery plan. Recovery plans delineate reasonable actions believed required to recover and/or protect listed species. Plans are published by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and sometimes prepared with the assistance of recovery teams, contractors, state agencies, and others. Objectives 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 necessarily represent the views or the official positions or approval of any individuals or agencies involved in plan formulation, other than the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. They represent the official position of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service only after being signed by the Regional Director. Approved recovery plans are subject to modifications as dictated by new findings, changes in species status, and the completion of recovery actions. The plan will be revised as necessary, when more information on the species, its life history ecology, and management requirements are obtained. Literature citation: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2010. Scaleshell Mussel Recovery Plan (Leptodea leptodon). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Fort Snelling, Minnesota. 118 pp. Recovery plans can be downloaded from the FWS website: http://endangered.fws.gov i ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Many individuals and organizations have contributed to our knowledge of the scaleshell mussel and work cooperatively to recover the species.
    [Show full text]
  • Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service
    Monday, November 9, 2009 Part III Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service 50 CFR Part 17 Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Review of Native Species That Are Candidates for Listing as Endangered or Threatened; Annual Notice of Findings on Resubmitted Petitions; Annual Description of Progress on Listing Actions; Proposed Rule VerDate Nov<24>2008 17:08 Nov 06, 2009 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4717 Sfmt 4717 E:\FR\FM\09NOP3.SGM 09NOP3 jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3 57804 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 215 / Monday, November 9, 2009 / Proposed Rules DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR October 1, 2008, through September 30, for public inspection by appointment, 2009. during normal business hours, at the Fish and Wildlife Service We request additional status appropriate Regional Office listed below information that may be available for in under Request for Information in 50 CFR Part 17 the 249 candidate species identified in SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION. General [Docket No. FWS-R9-ES-2009-0075; MO- this CNOR. information we receive will be available 9221050083–B2] DATES: We will accept information on at the Branch of Candidate this Candidate Notice of Review at any Conservation, Arlington, VA (see Endangered and Threatened Wildlife time. address above). and Plants; Review of Native Species ADDRESSES: This notice is available on Candidate Notice of Review That Are Candidates for Listing as the Internet at http:// Endangered or Threatened; Annual www.regulations.gov, and http:// Background Notice of Findings on Resubmitted endangered.fws.gov/candidates/ The Endangered Species Act of 1973, Petitions; Annual Description of index.html.
    [Show full text]
  • Reproductive Biology and Host Requirement Differences
    REPRODUCTIVE BIOLOGY AND HOST REQUIREMENT DIFFERENCES AMONG ISOLATED POPULATIONS OF CYPROGENIA ABERTI (CONRAD, 1850) A Thesis Presented to The Graduate College of Southwest Missouri State University In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Master of Science, Biology By Nathan L. Eckert August 2003 REPRODUCTIVE BIOLOGY AND HOST REQUIREMENT DIFFERENCES AMONG ISOLATED POPULATIONS OF CYPROGENIA ABERTI (CONRAD, 1850) Biology Department Southwest Missouri State University, August 2003 Master of Science Nathan L. Eckert ABSTRACT Cyprogenia aberti, the Western fanshell, is a rare and threatened pearly mussel endemic to the Interior Highlands of Eastern North America. Previous genetic analysis suggested that multiple species are present within this taxon. The present study sought phenotypic differences among genetically distinct populations in the upper Arkansas River system (Verdigris and Spring rivers), the St. Francis River, and the Ouachita River. Like other native mussels, the glochidia larvae of Cyprogenia are obligate parasites on particular species of host fish. Transformation success of glochidia was compared among 8 species of Percina and Etheostoma. The percentage of attached glochidia that transformed on individual fish ranged between 0 and 86%. Effective hosts (those that transformed a large proportion of attached glochidia) were always sympatric with the mussel population, and species with narrow geographic range were effective hosts only for sympatric mussel populations. However, two populations of a geographically widespread host species, the logperch, were effective hosts for each mussel population tested. The timing of glochidia and juvenile drop-off appeared to be related to the age or maturity of the glochidia. Glochidia size and shape differed among mussel populations. Conglutinate color, which is determined by the color of undeveloped eggs, varied within and among populations.
    [Show full text]
  • Population Structure of Selected Freshwater Mussel (Bivalvia: Unionoida) Beds in the Little River, Pond Creek National Wildlife Refuge – Phase I
    Final Report U.S. Department of the Interior – Fish and Wildlife Service Arkansas Ecological Services Field Office POPULATION STRUCTURE OF SELECTED FRESHWATER MUSSEL (BIVALVIA: UNIONOIDA) BEDS IN THE LITTLE RIVER, POND CREEK NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE – PHASE I Principal Investigator: Chris L. Davidson U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Arkansas Ecological Services Field Office Conway, AR 72032 [email protected] April 11, 2017 INTRODUCTION The Little River in southeastern Oklahoma and southwestern Arkansas has a diverse mussel assemblage, including the federally protected Ouachita Rock Pocketbook (Arcidens wheeleri), Rabbitsfoot (Quadrula cylindrica cylindrica), Winged Mapleleaf (Quadrula fragosa), and Pink Mucket (Lampsilis abrupta). Several researchers over the past several decades have sampled mussels in much of the river (Ecosearch 1987; Harris and Gordon 1987; Galbraith et al. 2005, Vaughn 1994, 2012; Vaughn et al. 1995; Vaughn and Taylor 1999; Seagraves 2006; URS 2007; Arkansas Game and Fish Commission (AGFC) Mussel Database 2014; Galbraith and Vaughn 2011; Atkinson et al. 2012, 2014; Allen et al. 2013; Davidson et al. 2014). Mussel declines in the Little River largely have been attributed to impoundments (Vaughn and Taylor 1999; Galbraith and Vaughn 2011; Vaughn et al. 2015; Gates et al. 2015), drought (Atkinson et al. 2014; Vaughn et al. 2015), and degraded water quality from point source effluents (Ecosearch 1987). The factors limiting recruitment also include threats affecting their fish hosts (Haag and Warren 1997; Vaughn and Taylor 2000; Irmscher and Vaughn 2015). Freshwater mussel species richness and community composition are influenced by numerous variables affecting habitat (e.g., land use, land cover, hydrology, etc.) at differing spatial scales (e.g., local to catchment) (Atkinson et al.
    [Show full text]
  • Kansas Freshwater Mussels ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
    APOCKET GUIDE TO Kansas Freshwater Mussels ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ By Edwin J. Miller, Karen J. Couch and Jim Mason Funded by Westar Energy Green Team and the Chickadee Checkoff Published by the Friends of the Great Plains Nature Center Table of Contents Introduction • 2 Buttons and Pearls • 4 Freshwater Mussel Reproduction • 7 Reproduction of the Ouachita Kidneyshell • 8 Reproduction of the Plain Pocketbook • 10 Parts of a Mussel Shell • 12 Internal Anatomy of a Freshwater Mussel • 13 Subfamily Anodontinae • 14 ■ Elktoe • 15 ■ Flat Floater • 16 ■ Cylindrical Papershell • 17 ■ Rock Pocketbook • 18 ■ White Heelsplitter • 19 ■ Flutedshell • 20 ■ Floater • 21 ■ Creeper • 22 ■ Paper Pondshell • 23 Rock Pocketbook Subfamily Ambleminae • 24 Cover Photo: Western Fanshell ■ Threeridge • 25 ■ Purple Wartyback • 26 © Edwin Miller ■ Spike • 27 ■ Wabash Pigtoe • 28 ■ Washboard • 29 ■ Round Pigtoe • 30 ■ Rabbitsfoot • 31 ■ Monkeyface • 32 ■ Wartyback • 33 ■ Pimpleback • 34 ■ Mapleleaf • 35 Purple Wartyback ■ Pistolgrip • 36 ■ Pondhorn • 37 Subfamily Lampsilinae • 38 ■ Mucket • 39 ■ Western Fanshell • 40 ■ Butterfly • 41 ■ Plain Pocketbook • 42 ■ Neosho Mucket • 43 ■ Fatmucket • 44 ■ Yellow Sandshell • 45 ■ Fragile Papershell • 46 ■ Pondmussel • 47 ■ Threehorn Wartyback • 48 ■ Pink Heelsplitter • 49 ■ Pink Papershell • 50 Bleufer ■ Bleufer • 51 ■ Ouachita Kidneyshell • 52 ■ Lilliput • 53 ■ Fawnsfoot • 54 ■ Deertoe • 55 ■ Ellipse • 56 Extirpated Species ■ Spectaclecase • 57 ■ Slippershell • 58 ■ Snuffbox • 59 ■ Creek Heelsplitter • 60 ■ Black Sandshell • 61 ■ Hickorynut • 62 ■ Winged Mapleleaf • 63 ■ Pyramid Pigtoe • 64 Exotic Invasive Mussels ■ Asiatic Clam • 65 ■ Zebra Mussel • 66 Glossary • 67 References & Acknowledgements • 68 Pocket Guides • 69 1 Introduction Freshwater mussels (Mollusca: Unionacea) are a fascinating group of animals that reside in our streams and lakes. They are front- line indicators of environmental quality and have ecological ties with fish to complete their life cycle and colonize new habitats.
    [Show full text]
  • Rare Animals Tracking List
    Louisiana's Animal Species of Greatest Conservation Need (SGCN) ‐ Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Animals ‐ 2020 MOLLUSKS Common Name Scientific Name G‐Rank S‐Rank Federal Status State Status Mucket Actinonaias ligamentina G5 S1 Rayed Creekshell Anodontoides radiatus G3 S2 Western Fanshell Cyprogenia aberti G2G3Q SH Butterfly Ellipsaria lineolata G4G5 S1 Elephant‐ear Elliptio crassidens G5 S3 Spike Elliptio dilatata G5 S2S3 Texas Pigtoe Fusconaia askewi G2G3 S3 Ebonyshell Fusconaia ebena G4G5 S3 Round Pearlshell Glebula rotundata G4G5 S4 Pink Mucket Lampsilis abrupta G2 S1 Endangered Endangered Plain Pocketbook Lampsilis cardium G5 S1 Southern Pocketbook Lampsilis ornata G5 S3 Sandbank Pocketbook Lampsilis satura G2 S2 Fatmucket Lampsilis siliquoidea G5 S2 White Heelsplitter Lasmigona complanata G5 S1 Black Sandshell Ligumia recta G4G5 S1 Louisiana Pearlshell Margaritifera hembeli G1 S1 Threatened Threatened Southern Hickorynut Obovaria jacksoniana G2 S1S2 Hickorynut Obovaria olivaria G4 S1 Alabama Hickorynut Obovaria unicolor G3 S1 Mississippi Pigtoe Pleurobema beadleianum G3 S2 Louisiana Pigtoe Pleurobema riddellii G1G2 S1S2 Pyramid Pigtoe Pleurobema rubrum G2G3 S2 Texas Heelsplitter Potamilus amphichaenus G1G2 SH Fat Pocketbook Potamilus capax G2 S1 Endangered Endangered Inflated Heelsplitter Potamilus inflatus G1G2Q S1 Threatened Threatened Ouachita Kidneyshell Ptychobranchus occidentalis G3G4 S1 Rabbitsfoot Quadrula cylindrica G3G4 S1 Threatened Threatened Monkeyface Quadrula metanevra G4 S1 Southern Creekmussel Strophitus subvexus
    [Show full text]
  • Freshwater Mussels (Mollusca: Bivalvia: Unionida) of Indiana
    Freshwater Mussels (Mollusca: Bivalvia: Unionida) of Indiana This list of Indiana's freshwater mussel species was compiled by the state's Nongame Aquatic Biologist based on accepted taxonomic standards and other relevant data. It is periodically reviewed and updated. References used for scientific names are included at the bottom of this list. FAMILY SUBFAMILY GENUS SPECIES COMMON NAME STATUS* Margaritiferidae Cumberlandia monodonta Spectaclecase EX, FE Unionidae Anodontinae Alasmidonta marginata Elktoe Alasmidonta viridis Slippershell Mussel SC Anodontoides ferussacianus Cylindrical Papershell Arcidens confragosus Rock Pocketbook Lasmigona complanata White Heelsplitter Lasmigona compressa Creek Heelsplitter Lasmigona costata Flutedshell Pyganodon grandis Giant Floater Simpsonaias ambigua Salamander Mussel SC Strophitus undulatus Creeper Utterbackia imbecillis Paper Pondshell Utterbackiana suborbiculata Flat Floater Ambleminae Actinonaias ligamentina Mucket Amblema plicata Threeridge Cyclonaias nodulata Wartyback Cyclonaias pustulosa Pimpleback Cyclonaias tuberculata Purple Wartyback Cyprogenia stegaria Fanshell SE, FE Ellipsaria lineolata Butterfly Elliptio crassidens Elephantear SC Epioblasma cincinnatiensis Ohio Riffleshell EX Epioblasma flexuosa Leafshell EX Epioblasma obliquata Catspaw EX, FE Epioblasma perobliqua White Catspaw SE, FE Epioblasma personata Round Combshell EX Epioblasma propinqua Tennessee Riffleshell EX Epioblasma rangiana Northern Riffleshell SE, FE Epioblasma sampsonii Wabash Riffleshell EX Epioblasma torulosa Tubercled
    [Show full text]
  • Final Copy of 4 Mussels Recovery Plan
    Recovery plan for freshwater mussels in southeast Kansas PREFACE The Kansas Department of Wildlife and Parks (KDWP) is required to develop recovery plans for all state-listed threatened and endangered species under the authority of K.S.A. 32- 960(a). The concept of developing state recovery plans for Kansas' endangered, threatened, and SINC species (species in need of conservation) was conceived by the Kansas Nongame and Endangered Species Task Force, which was created by passage of substitute Senate bill No. 473 during the 1996 Legislative Session. The Task Force, which consisted of 17 members1, met six times during the summer and fall of 1996. Issues and concerns addressed by the Task Force included listing procedures for endangered, threatened, and SINC species, incentives for affected property owners, recovery and conservation plans, and funding. After receiving the Task Force's report, the 1997 legislature enacted into law the Task Force’s recommendations by amending existing state laws and by enacting new laws (H.B. No. 2361). As part of that legislation, KDWP was required to implement several of the measures through regulation. Regulatory language addressing these measures was drafted by Department staff and presented to the KDWP Commission and the public. These recommendations were approved by the Commission in the fall of 1997. A new regulation, K.A.R. 115-15-4, outlined procedures to establish recovery plans 2. These procedures included the appointment of an advisory group to evaluate recovery plan development priority. The advisory group determined that the highest priority was the immediate development of a joint recovery plan for four threatened and endangered mussel species that occur in southeast Kansas.
    [Show full text]
  • Status Survey of the Western Fanshell and the Neosho Mucket in Oklahoma
    1990 c.3 OKLAHOMA <) PROJECT TITLE: STATUS SURVEY OF THE WESTERN FANSHELL AND THE NEOSHO MUCKET IN OKLAHOMA To determine the distribution and abundance of the freshwater mussels Cyprogenia aberti (Conrad) and Lampsilis rafinesqueana Frierson in Oklahoma. A survey to determine the status of the freshwater mussels, Cyprogenia aberti (Conrad) and Lampsilis rafinesqueana Frierson, in Oklahoma was completed during August and September, 1989. These species are also known by the common names of Western Fanshell and Neosho Mucket, respectively. The western fanshell is probably extinct in the state. It is known that the species formerly occurred in the Verdigris River in Oklahoma and as a result of this study, was determined that it had also existed in the Caney River. However, no evidence of living or fresh specimens was found in any river system in northeastern Oklahoma. The Neosho mucket has also disappeared from most of its former range within the state and presently only occurs in a segment of the Illinois River system extending from the Lake Frances dam near the Arkansas border to Lake Tenkiller. Protection for this species is recommended. This report describes efforts to determine the status of two species of freshwater mussels (Mollusca: Bivalvia: Unionidae) in Oklahoma. Both species are generally considered to be rare and have rather limited geographical distributions. Both species may meet the criteria of endangered species and thus it was considered important to gain some information as to their current status. Both species have been recorded in Oklahoma but their current abundance and distribution in the state were unknown. The western fanshell, Cyprogenia aberti (Conrad) was described in 1850 from specimens collected on the rapids of the Verdigris River, Chambers' Ford, Oklahoma (Johnson, 1980).
    [Show full text]
  • Life History and Propagation of the Endangered Fanshell Pearlymussel, Cyprogenia Stegaria Rafinesque (Bivalvia:Unionidae)
    J. N. Am. Benthol. Soc., 2002, 21(1):76±88 q 2002 by The North American Benthological Society Life history and propagation of the endangered fanshell pearlymussel, Cyprogenia stegaria Ra®nesque (Bivalvia:Unionidae) JESS W. J ONES1 AND RICHARD J. NEVES Virginia Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit2, US Geological Survey, Department of Fisheries and Wildlife Sciences, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, Virginia 24061 USA Abstract. Aspects of the reproduction, age, growth, ®sh hosts, and culture of juveniles were de- termined for the endangered fanshell pearlymussel, Cyprogenia stegaria Ra®nesque, 1820, in the Clinch River, Tennessee. Glochidia of C. stegaria are contained in red, worm-like conglutinates that resemble oligochaetes. Conglutinates are 20 to 80 mm long and are released through the excurrent aperture. Estimated fecundity was 22,357 to 63,459 glochidia/mussel. Eighty-four valves of C. stegaria were thin-sectioned for aging; ages ranged from 6 to 26 y. Of 16 ®sh species tested, 9 hosts were identi®ed through induced infestations of glochidia: mottled sculpin (Cottus bairdi), banded sculpin (Cottus carolinae), greenside darter (Etheostoma blennioides), snubnose darter (Etheostoma simoterum), banded darter (Etheostoma zonale), tangerine darter (Percina aurantiaca), blotchside logperch (Percina burtoni), logperch (Percina caprodes), and Roanoke darter (Percina roanoka). Newly metamorphosed juveniles were cultured in recirculating and nonrecirculating aquaculture systems within dishes containing sediments of 300 to 500 mm diameter (sand) or ,105 mm diameter (silt), and fed either the green algae Neochloris oleoabundans or Scenedesmus quadricauda daily. Growth and survival of juvenile mussels were highest in the nonrecirculating aquaculture system, with a mean survival of 72% after 2 wk and 38% after 4 wk.
    [Show full text]
  • Volume 21 Number 1 April 2018
    FRESHWATER MOLLUSK BIOLOGY AND CONSERVATION THE JOURNAL OF THE FRESHWATER MOLLUSK CONSERVATION SOCIETY VOLUME 21 NUMBER 1 APRIL 2018 Pages 1-18 Pages 19-27 Freshwater Mussels (Bivalvia: Unionida) A Survey of the Freshwater Mussels of Vietnam: Diversity, Distribution, and (Mollusca: Bivalvia: Unionida) of the Conservation Status Niangua River Basin, Missouri Van Tu Do, Le Quang Tuan, and Stephen E. McMurray, Joshua T. Arthur E. Boga Hundley, and J. Scott Faiman Freshwater Mollusk Biology and Conservation 21:1–18, 2018 Ó Freshwater Mollusk Conservation Society 2018 REGULAR ARTICLE FRESHWATER MUSSELS (BIVALVIA: UNIONIDA) OF VIETNAM: DIVERSITY, DISTRIBUTION, AND CONSERVATION STATUS Van Tu Do1, Le Quang Tuan1, and Arthur E. Bogan2* 1 Institute of Ecology and Biological Resources (IEBR), Vietnam Academy of Science and Technology, 18 Hoang Quoc Viet, Nghia Do, Cau Giay, Ha Noi, Vietnam, [email protected]; [email protected] 2 North Carolina Museum of Natural Sciences, 11 West Jones Street, Raleigh, NC 27601 USA ABSTRACT Vietnam has the second highest diversity of freshwater mussels (Unionida) in Asia after China. The purpose of this paper is to compile an up-to-date list of the modern unionid fauna of Vietnam and its current conservation status. Unfortunately, there has been relatively little research on this fauna in Vietnam. Fifty-nine species of Unionida have been recorded from Vietnam based on literature, museum records, and our fieldwork. Fifty were assessed in the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red List 2016 in the IUCN categories of Critically Endangered (four species, 6.8%), Endangered (seven species, 12%), Vulnerable (one species, 1.7%), Near Threatened (two species, 3.4%), Least Concern (23 species, 39%), Data Deficient (11 species, 18.6%), and Not Evaluated (11 species, 18.6%).
    [Show full text]