DOCSLIB.ORG

Scaleshell Mussel Recovery Plan

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read 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. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service gratefully acknowledge the commitment, efforts, and valuable input of the following individuals in the preparation of this recovery plan. Richard Baker ----- Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Section of Wildlife, St. Paul, MN Dr. Chris Barnhart ----- Missouri State University, Department of Biology, Springfield, MO Sue Bruenderman ----- Kentucky Division of Water, Water Quality Branch, Frankfort, KY Alan Buchanan ----- Missouri Department of Conservation, Columbia, MO Chris Davidson ----- U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Ecological Services, Conway, AR Heidi Dunn ----- Ecological Specialists, Inc., O’Fallon MO Scott Faiman -----Missouri Department of Conservation, Resource Science Division, Columbia, MO Craig Fuller ----- Missouri Department of Conservation, Lebanon, MO Dr. John Harris ----- Arkansas Highway Department, Environmental Division, Little Rock, AR Jessica Hogrefe ----- U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Regional Office, Region 3, Fort Snelling, MN Peggy Horner ----- Missouri Department of Conservation, Jefferson City, MO Alan Leary ----- Missouri Department of Transportation, Jefferson City, MO Steven McMurray ----- Missouri Department of Conservation, Resource Science Division, Columbia, MO David Martinez ----- U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, Ecological Services, Tulsa, OK Dr. Paul McKenzie ----- U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Ecological Services, Columbia, MO T.J. Miller ----- U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Regional Office, Region 3, Fort Snelling, MN Dr. Richard Neves ----- Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Department of Fisheries and Wildlife Sciences, Blacksburg, VA Carlita Payne ----- U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Regional Office, Region 3, Fort Snelling, MN Bill Posey ----- Arkansas Game and Fish Commission, Perrytown, AR Rob Pulliam ----- Missouri Department of Conservation, Fisheries Division, Sullivan, MO Susan Oetker ----- U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Ecological Services, Bloomington, MN Charles M. Scott ----- U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Ecological Services, Columbia, MO Mellisa Shiver ----- Missouri Department of Transportation, Jefferson City, MO Leslie Tewinkel ----- U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Regional Office, Region 3, Fort Snelling, MN1 Dr. Caryn Vaughn ----- The University of Oklahoma, Oklahoma Biological Survey, Norman, OK Chris Vitello ----- Missouri Department of Conservation, Springfield Conservation Office, Springfield, MO 1 Formerly with USFWS. ii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Current Species Status: The scaleshell mussel (Leptodea leptodon) is a federally listed, endangered species that once occurred in 56 rivers in the Mississippi River Drainage. The species has undergone a dramatic reduction in range and is believed to be extirpated from 9 of the 13 states it historically occurred in. While the species has been documented from 18 streams in the last 25 years, it can only be found consistently in three streams in Missouri where it is still very rare. Habitat Requirements and Limiting Factors: The scaleshell occurs in medium to large rivers with low to medium gradients. It primarily inhabits stable riffles and runs with gravel or mud substrate and moderate current velocity. The scaleshell requires good water quality, and is usually found where a diversity of other mussel species are concentrated. More specific habitat requirements of the scaleshell are unknown, particularly of the juvenile stage. Water quality degradation, sedimentation, channel destabilization, and habitat destruction are contributing to the decline of the scaleshell throughout its range. The spread of the non-native zebra mussel (Dreissena polymorpha) may threaten scaleshell populations in the near future. The scaleshell must complete a parasitic phase on freshwater drum (Aplodinotus grunniens) to complete its life cycle. The scaleshell’s complex life cycle and extreme rarity hinders its ability to reproduce. The sedentary nature of the species and the low density of remaining populations exacerbate threats to its survival posed by the natural and manmade factors. Further, the relatively short life span of the scaleshell may render it less able to tolerate periods of poor recruitment. The remaining populations are very susceptible to local extirpation, with little chance of recolonization because of their scattered and isolated distribution. Recovery Strategy: Scope of threats and recovery: Streams occupied by the scaleshell have numerous and widespread threats affecting the species. In some cases, these threats are related to the surrounding land use and can originate far upstream of extant populations. Therefore, threats not only need to be addressed immediately adjacent to occupied sites, but also in the watershed upstream. Some recovery actions may need to be implemented on a large scale in order to restore aquatic habitat downstream. Recovery efforts on this scale will not be possible without soliciting outside help to restore aquatic habitat and improve surface lands. The assistance of federal and state agencies, conservation groups, local governments, private landowners, industries, businesses, and farming communities will be essential in implementing the necessary recovery actions for the scaleshell to meet recovery goals. The role of private landowners, non- profit organizations, and corporations cannot be over emphasized as most land in watersheds occupied by the scaleshell is under private ownership. Addressing threats: To solicit outside help and foster the many partnerships needed to address threats, a recovery implementation team will be formed. This team may be made up of species experts and representatives from federal and state wildlife agencies, other federal and state agencies, non-government organizations, academia, and other concerned groups with a diversity iii of expertise on conservation science and public relations within the scaleshell’s range. This team will take a strategic approach to address threats and work with willing partners to carry out the appropriate recovery actions to protect existing habitat, alleviate threats, and restore habitat. First, threats will be identified, assessed, and mapped for each watershed occupied by the scaleshell. Then a strategic recovery implementation database will be developed to guide recovery efforts for each population. The database will be used to prioritize populations, threats, and needed recovery actions as well as track recovery efforts and document when threats to each population have been alleviated. The threat mapping and strategic database are an integral part of the recovery strategy for the scaleshell. Watershed improvements will be aimed at addressing the various causes of habitat degradation including sedimentation; point and non-point pollution sources; substrate destabilization; land, bank, and channel erosion; and eutrophication. Examples of watershed improvements to alleviate these threats include, but are not limited to the following: improving wastewater treatment plants, reestablishing protective riparian corridors to reduce sedimentation; stabilizing stream banks; reducing sheet run-off; using no-till agricultural methods; controlling nutrient enrichment by carefully planning heavy livestock use areas; excluding cattle from streams by erecting fences and providing alternative water supplies; development of gravel mining guidelines; and implementing voluntary best management practices to control run-off for a variety of agricultural, silvicultural, and construction activities. Other factors that potentially will affect the scaleshell in the future include the introduction of non-native species,
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Federal Register/Vol. 66, No. 27/Thursday, February 8, 2001/Proposed Rules
    9540 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 27 / Thursday, February 8, 2001 / Proposed Rules impose a minimal burden on small regulatory effect of the critical habitat white to bluish-white, changing to a entities. designation does not extend beyond salmon, pinkish, or brownish color in those activities funded, permitted, or the central and beak cavity portions of E. Federal Rules That May Duplicate, carried out by Federal agencies. State or the shell; some specimens may be Overlap, or Conflict With the Proposed private actions, with no Federal marked with irregular brownish Rules involvement, are not affected. blotches (adapted from Clarke 1981). 37. None. Section 4 of the Act requires us to Clarke (1981) contains a detailed consider the economic and other description of the species’ shell, with Ordering Clauses relevant impacts of specifying any illustrations; Ortmann (1921) discussed 38. Pursuant to Sections 1, 3, 4, 201– particular area as critical habitat. We soft parts. 205, 251 of the Communications Act of solicit data and comments from the Distribution, Habitat, and Life History 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 153, public on all aspects of this proposal, 154, 201–205, and 251, this Second including data on the economic and The Appalachian elktoe is known Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking other impacts of the designation. We only from the mountain streams of is hereby Adopted. may revise this proposal to incorporate western North Carolina and eastern 39. The Commission’s Consumer or address comments and other Tennessee. Although the complete Information Bureau, Reference information received during the historical range of the Appalachian Information Center, Shall Send a copy comment period.
    [Show full text]
  • Best Management Practices for That Host Species, If Applicable
    indicates that little or no reproduction is taking place Scaleshell and that a more chronic negative condition exists in Leptodea leptodon the watershed. Despite efforts to conserve Missouri’s native mussel fauna, many populations continue to decline. Efforts should be made to Guidelines for Landowners ensure our waterways are healthy through protection and/or restoration of habitat for this and Using Conservation Practices other aquatic species. Missouri Department of Almost all mussel species require a fish host to Conservation complete their life cycle. Mature mussels release glochidia (the immature parasitic stage), which must Common name ▪ Scaleshell attach to the gills or fins of a host to complete their Scientific name ▪ Leptodea leptodon development. After an average of 2 to 4 weeks, State Status ▪ Endangered newly developed juveniles drop from the host and Federal Status ▪ Endangered burrow into the substrate and grow to repeat the cycle if dropped into suitable habitat. The scaleshell uses the freshwater drum as its fish host. The scaleshell spawns from early to mid-August to October and releases glochidia from mid-April to mid-June. Ecological well-being of the host population is critical to the long-term viability of all mussel populations. In some cases, host species are also threatened or endangered. Refer also to the Best Management Practices for that host species, if applicable. Photo Credit: M.C. Barnhart, Missouri State University Reasons for Decline Historically, scaleshell populations extended Ecology throughout river systems in much of the midwestern The scaleshell is a rather distinct mussel that was United States. Now, however, they are endangered historically found in 13 states within the Ohio, and are known to exist in only a few rivers in Missouri and Mississippi River drainage basins.
    [Show full text]
  • Freshwater Mussels "Do You Mean Muscles?" Actually, We're Talking About Little Animals That Live in the St
    Our Mighty River Keepers Freshwater Mussels "Do you mean muscles?" Actually, we're talking about little animals that live in the St. Lawrence River called "freshwater mussels." "Oh, like zebra mussels?" Exactly! Zebra mussels are a non-native and invasive type of freshwater mussel that you may have already heard about. Zebra mussels are from faraway lakes and rivers in Europe and Asia; they travelled here in the ballast of cargo ships. When non-native: not those ships came into the St. Lawrence River, they dumped the originally belonging in a zebra mussels into the water without realizing it. Since then, particular place the zebra mussels have essentially taken over the river. invasive: tending to The freshwater mussels which are indigenous, or native, to the spread harmfully St. Lawrence River, are struggling to keep up with the growing number of invasive zebra mussels. But we'll talk more about ballast: heavy material that, later. (like stones, lead, or even water) placed in the bottom of a ship to For now, let's take a closer look at what it improve its stability means to be a freshwater mussel... indigenous: originally belonging in a particular place How big is a zebra mussel? 1 "What is a mussel?" Let's classify it to find out! We use taxonomy (the study of naming and classifying groups of organisms based on their characteristics) as a way to organize all the organisms of our world inside our minds. Grouping mussels with organisms that are similar can help us answer the question "What KKingdom:ingdom: AAnimalianimalia is a mussel?" Start at the top of our flow chart with the big group called the Kingdom: Animalia (the Latin way to say "animals").
    [Show full text]
  • Louisiana's Animal Species of Greatest Conservation Need (SGCN)
    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]
  • Guiding Species Recovery Through Assessment of Spatial And
    Guiding Species Recovery through Assessment of Spatial and Temporal Population Genetic Structure of Two Critically Endangered Freshwater Mussel Species (Bivalvia: Unionidae) Jess Walter Jones ( [email protected] ) United States Fish and Wildlife Service Timothy W. Lane Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries N J Eric M. Hallerman Virginia Tech: Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University Research Article Keywords: Freshwater mussels, Epioblasma brevidens, E. capsaeformis, endangered species, spatial and temporal genetic variation, effective population size, species recovery planning, conservation genetics Posted Date: March 16th, 2021 DOI: https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-282423/v1 License: This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. Read Full License Page 1/28 Abstract The Cumberlandian Combshell (Epioblasma brevidens) and Oyster Mussel (E. capsaeformis) are critically endangered freshwater mussel species native to the Tennessee and Cumberland River drainages, major tributaries of the Ohio River in the eastern United States. The Clinch River in northeastern Tennessee (TN) and southwestern Virginia (VA) harbors the only remaining stronghold population for either species, containing tens of thousands of individuals per species; however, a few smaller populations are still extant in other rivers. We collected and analyzed genetic data to assist with population restoration and recovery planning for both species. We used an 888 base-pair sequence of the mitochondrial NADH dehydrogenase 1 (ND1) gene and ten nuclear DNA microsatellite loci to assess patterns of genetic differentiation and diversity in populations at small and large spatial scales, and at a 9-year (2004 to 2013) temporal scale, which showed how quickly these populations can diverge from each other in a short time period.
    [Show full text]
  • Department of the Interior
    Vol. 76 Thursday, No. 194 October 6, 2011 Part II Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service 50 CFR Part 17 Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 12-Month Finding on a Petition To List Texas Fatmucket, Golden Orb, Smooth Pimpleback, Texas Pimpleback, and Texas Fawnsfoot as Threatened or Endangered; Proposed Rule VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:27 Oct 05, 2011 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4717 Sfmt 4717 E:\FR\FM\06OCP2.SGM 06OCP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 62166 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 194 / Thursday, October 6, 2011 / Proposed Rules DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gary additional mussels from eastern Texas, Mowad, Texas State Administrator, U.S. the Texas heelsplitter (Potamilus Fish and Wildlife Service Fish and Wildlife Service (see amphichaenus) and Salina mucket (P. ADDRESSES); by telephone at 512–927– metnecktayi), were also included in this 50 CFR Part 17 3557; or by facsimile at 512–927–3592. petition. The petition incorporated all If you use a telecommunications device analyses, references, and documentation [FWS–R2–ES–2011–0079; MO 92210–0–0008 for the deaf (TDD), please call the provided by NatureServe in its online B2] Federal Information Relay Service database at http://www.natureserve.org/ Endangered and Threatened Wildlife (FIRS) at 800–877–8339. into the petition. Included in and Plants; 12-Month Finding on a SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: NatureServe was supporting information regarding the species’ Petition To List Texas Fatmucket, Background Golden Orb, Smooth Pimpleback, taxonomy and ecology, historical and Texas Pimpleback, and Texas Section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Act (16 current distribution, present status, and Fawnsfoot as Threatened or U.S.C.
    [Show full text]
  • Atlas of the Freshwater Mussels (Unionidae)
    1 Atlas of the Freshwater Mussels (Unionidae) (Class Bivalvia: Order Unionoida) Recorded at the Old Woman Creek National Estuarine Research Reserve & State Nature Preserve, Ohio and surrounding watersheds by Robert A. Krebs Department of Biological, Geological and Environmental Sciences Cleveland State University Cleveland, Ohio, USA 44115 September 2015 (Revised from 2009) 2 Atlas of the Freshwater Mussels (Unionidae) (Class Bivalvia: Order Unionoida) Recorded at the Old Woman Creek National Estuarine Research Reserve & State Nature Preserve, Ohio, and surrounding watersheds Acknowledgements I thank Dr. David Klarer for providing the stimulus for this project and Kristin Arend for a thorough review of the present revision. The Old Woman Creek National Estuarine Research Reserve provided housing and some equipment for local surveys while research support was provided by a Research Experiences for Undergraduates award from NSF (DBI 0243878) to B. Michael Walton, by an NOAA fellowship (NA07NOS4200018), and by an EFFRD award from Cleveland State University. Numerous students were instrumental in different aspects of the surveys: Mark Lyons, Trevor Prescott, Erin Steiner, Cal Borden, Louie Rundo, and John Hook. Specimens were collected under Ohio Scientific Collecting Permits 194 (2006), 141 (2007), and 11-101 (2008). The Old Woman Creek National Estuarine Research Reserve in Ohio is part of the National Estuarine Research Reserve System (NERRS), established by section 315 of the Coastal Zone Management Act, as amended. Additional information on these preserves and programs is available from the Estuarine Reserves Division, Office for Coastal Management, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U. S. Department of Commerce, 1305 East West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910.
    [Show full text]
  • Iowa Wildlife Action Plan Appendix 1
    IOWA WILDLIFE ACTION PLAN APPENDIX 1 - APPENDIX 21 187 APPENDIX 1 . The IWAP - A Plan to Plan Planning Schedule The target date for a final review draft of a State Comprehensive Wildlife Plan for Iowa is June 1, 2005. Meeting this deadline will allow for adequate review and approval by the Director and the Natural Resource Commission prior to the September 20, 2005 deadline. Developing a more detailed planning schedule will be one of the first tasks of the steering committee in coordination with the plan author. Plan Contributors Plan Director – Richard Bishop – Iowa DNR Responsibilities 1) Participate in committee meetings 2) Review all drafts of the plan 3) Approve all press releases and plan marketing plans 4) Review and communicate progress to Division Administrator, Director and NRC commissioners Plan Coordinator – Terry Little, Iowa DNR Responsibilities 1) Assemble Steering Committee 2) Participate in all committees 3) Identify and contract with a meeting facilitator 4) Identify and contract with plan author 5) Coordinate review and editing of all drafts of the plan 6) Coordinate all press releases and plan marketing 7) Report progress, problems and other developments to DNR administrators Steering Committee Chair – Doug Harr, Iowa DNR Responsibilities 1) Convene and coordinate all steering committee meetings 2) Keep steering members and sub-committees focused, on task and on schedule 3) Consult with coordinator and committee members to solve problems 4) Plan, schedule and coordinate advisory committee meetings Steering Committee Members – Key representatives from Iowa’s conservation professionals 1) Dale Garner (DNR): a. 2003-04: Coordination with Federal plans (PPJV, etc.) b.
    [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]
  • Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service
    Thursday, September 13, 2007 Part II Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service 50 CFR Part 17 Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Establishment of Nonessential Experimental Population Status for 15 Freshwater Mussels, 1 Freshwater Snail, and 5 Fishes in the Lower French Broad River and in the Lower Holston River, Tennessee; Final Rule VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:04 Sep 12, 2007 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4717 Sfmt 4717 E:\FR\FM\13SER2.SGM 13SER2 gechino on PROD1PC76 with RULES 52434 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 177 / Thursday, September 13, 2007 / Rules and Regulations DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR their tributaries. These species are being Regulatory restrictions are considerably reintroduced under the authority of reduced under a Non-essential Fish and Wildlife Service section 10(j) of the Act and would be Experimental Population (NEP) classified as a nonessential designation. 50 CFR Part 17 experimental population (NEP). Without the NEP designation, the Act RIN 1018–AU01 The geographic boundaries of the NEP provides that species listed as would extend from the base of Douglas endangered or threatened are afforded Endangered and Threatened Wildlife Dam (river mile (RM) 32.3 (51.7 protection primarily through the and Plants; Establishment of kilometers (km)) down the French Broad prohibitions of section 9 and the Nonessential Experimental Population River, Knox and Sevier Counties, requirements of section 7. Section 9 of Status for 15 Freshwater Mussels, 1 Tennessee, to its confluence with the the Act prohibits the take of an Freshwater Snail, and 5 Fishes in the Holston River and then up the Holston endangered species.
    [Show full text]
  • Xerces Society's
    Conserving the Gems of Our Waters Best Management Practices for Protecting Native Western Freshwater Mussels During Aquatic and Riparian Restoration, Construction, and Land Management Projects and Activities Emilie Blevins, Laura McMullen, Sarina Jepsen, Michele Blackburn, Aimée Code, and Scott Homan Black CONSERVING THE GEMS OF OUR WATERS Best Management Practices for Protecting Native Western Freshwater Mussels During Aquatic and Riparian Restoration, Construction, and Land Management Projects and Activities Emilie Blevins Laura McMullen Sarina Jepsen Michele Blackburn Aimée Code Scott Hoffman Black The Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation www.xerces.org The Xerces® Society for Invertebrate Conservation is a nonprot organization that protects wildlife through the conservation of invertebrates and their habitat. Established in 1971, the Society is at the forefront of invertebrate protection, harnessing the knowledge of scientists and the enthusiasm of citizens to implement conservation programs worldwide. The Society uses advocacy, education, and applied research to promote invertebrate conservation. The Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation 628 NE Broadway, Suite 200, Portland, OR 97232 Tel (855) 232-6639 Fax (503) 233-6794 www.xerces.org Regional oces from coast to coast. The Xerces Society is an equal opportunity employer and provider. Xerces® is a trademark registered in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Oce © 2018 by The Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation Primary Authors and Contributors The Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation: Emilie Blevins, Laura McMullen, Sarina Jepsen, Michele Blackburn, Aimée Code, and Scott Homan Black. Acknowledgements Funding for this report was provided by the Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board, The Nature Conservancy and Portland General Electric Salmon Habitat Fund, the Charlotte Martin Foundation, Meyer Memorial Trust, and Xerces Society members and supporters.
    [Show full text]
  • Leptodea Leptodon
    Natural Resource Ecology and Management Natural Resource Ecology and Management Publications 2017 A comparison of genetic diversity and population structure of the endangered scaleshell mussel (Leptodea leptodon), the fragile papershell (Leptodea fragilis) and their host-fish the freshwater drum (Aplodinotus grunniens) Jer Pin Chong The University of Illinois at Chicago Kevin J. Roe Iowa State University, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://lib.dr.iastate.edu/nrem_pubs Part of the Ecology and Evolutionary Biology Commons, Genetics Commons, Natural Resources and Conservation Commons, and the Natural Resources Management and Policy Commons The ompc lete bibliographic information for this item can be found at https://lib.dr.iastate.edu/ nrem_pubs/264. For information on how to cite this item, please visit http://lib.dr.iastate.edu/ howtocite.html. This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Natural Resource Ecology and Management at Iowa State University Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Natural Resource Ecology and Management Publications by an authorized administrator of Iowa State University Digital Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. A comparison of genetic diversity and population structure of the endangered scaleshell mussel (Leptodea leptodon), the fragile papershell (Leptodea fragilis) and their host-fish the freshwater drum (Aplodinotus grunniens) Abstract The al rvae of freshwater mussels in the order Unionoida are obligate parasites on fishes. Because adult mussels are infaunal and largely sessile, it is generally assumed that the majority of gene flow among mussel populations relies on the dispersal of larvae by their hosts.
    [Show full text]