DOCSLIB.ORG

2017 Georgia Mammal FONSI

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
2017 Georgia Mammal FONSI ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (FINAL) MAMMAL DAMAGE MANAGEMENT IN GEORGIA UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE ANIMAL AND PLANT HEALTH INSPECTION SERVICE WILDLIFE SERVICES In cooperation with: TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY October 2016 TABLE OF CONTENTS ACRONYMS .............................................................................................................................................. iii CHAPTER 1: PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION 1.1 PURPOSE ....................................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 NEED FOR ACTION ...................................................................................................................... 2 1.3 SCOPE OF THIS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ............................................................. 25 1.4 RELATIONSHIP OF THIS EA TO OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTS ................... 27 1.5 AUTHORITY OF FEDERAL AND STATE AGENCIES ........................................................... 28 1.6 COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS AND STATUTES ....................................................................... 30 1.7 DECISIONS TO BE MADE ......................................................................................................... 34 CHAPTER 2: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ISSUES 2.1 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT ..................................................................................................... 35 2.2 ISSUES ASSOCIATED WITH MAMMAL DAMAGE MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES .......... 36 2.3 ISSUES CONSIDERED BUT NOT IN DETAIL WITH RATIONALE ...................................... 44 CHAPTER 3: ALTERNATIVES 3.1 DESCRIPTION OF THE ALTERNATIVES ................................................................................ 52 3.2 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT NOT ANALYZED IN DETAIL .................................. 62 3.3 STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURES FOR MAMMAL DAMAGE MANAGEMENT .. 68 3.4 ADDITIONAL STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURES SPECIFIC TO THE ISSUES ...... 70 CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 4.1 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES FOR ISSUES ANALYZED IN DETAIL .................. 74 4.2 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED ACTION BY ISSUE .................................. 169 CHAPTER 5: LIST OF PREPARERS AND PERSONS CONSULTED 5.1 LIST OF PREPARERS................................................................................................................ 177 5.2 LIST OF REVIEWERS AND PERSONS CONSULTED .......................................................... 177 LIST OF APPENDICES: APPENDIX A – LITERATURE CITED .................................................................................................. A-1 APPENDIX B – METHODS AVAILABLE FOR RESOLVING OR PREVENTING MAMMAL DAMAGE IN GEORGIA ............................................................................................. B-1 APPENDIX C – FEDERAL THREATENED, ENDANGERED, OR CANDIDATE SPECIES IN GEORGIA ..................................................................................................................... C-1 APPENDIX D – STATE THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES ......................................... D-1 APPENDIX E – CRITERIA FOR BEAVER DAM BREACHING/REMOVAL .................................... E-1 APPENDIX F – CURRENT DISTRIBUTION OF FERAL SWINE IN GEORGIA, 2013 ...................... F-1 ii ACRONYMS AMDUCA Animal Medicinal Drug Use Clarification Act APHIS Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service AVMA American Veterinary Medical Association CDC Centers for Disease Control and Prevention CEQ Council on Environmental Quality CFR Code of Federal Regulations CWA Clean Water Act EA Environmental Assessment EIS Environmental Impact Statement EPA Environmental Protection Agency ESA Endangered Species Act FAA Federal Aviation Administration FIFRA Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act FLIR Forward Looking Infrared FR Federal Register FY Fiscal Year GDNR Georgia Department of Natural Resources GnRH Gonadotropin-releasing Hormone IC Intracardiac IV Intravenous MOU Memorandum of Understanding NASS National Agricultural Statistics Service NEPA National Environmental Policy Act NHPA National Historic Preservation Act NRP Natural Resources Plan NWRC National Wildlife Research Center NWP Nationwide Permit ORV Oral Rabies Vaccine PEP Post - Exposure Prophylaxis SOP Standard Operating Procedure T&E Threatened and Endangered TNR Trap-Neuter-Release TVA Tennessee Valley Authority USC United States Code USDA United States Department of Agriculture USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Services WS Wildlife Services iii CHAPTER 1: PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION 1.1 PURPOSE The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), Wildlife Services (WS)1 program in Georgia continues to receive requests for assistance or anticipates receiving requests for assistance to resolve or prevent damage occurring to agricultural resources, natural resources, and property, including threats to human safety, associated with big brown bats (Eptesicus fuscus), bobcats (Lynx rufus), beaver (Castor canadensis), Brazilian free-tailed bats (Tadarida brasiliensis), coyotes (Canis latrans), eastern chipmunk (Tamia striatus), eastern cottontails (Sylvilagus floridanus), evening bats (Nycticeius humeralis), fallow deer (Dama dama), feral cats (Felis domesticus), feral dogs (Canis familiaris), feral swine (Sus scrofa), gray fox (Urocyon cinereoargenteus), gray squirrels (Sciurus carolinensis), little brown myotis (Myotis lucifugus), mink (Neovison vison), muskrats (Ondatra zibethicus), nine-banded armadillos (Dasypus novemcinctus), raccoons (Procyon lotor), Rafinesque’s big-eared bats (Corynorhinus rafinesquii), red fox (Vulpes vulpes), river otters (Lontra canadensis), roof rats (Rattus rattus), silver-haired bats (Lasionycteris noctivagans), striped skunks (Mephitis mephitis), tri-colored bats (Perimyotis subflavus), Virginia opossum (Didelphis virginiana), white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus), and woodchucks (Marmota monax). In addition, WS could occasionally receive requests for assistance with feral or free-ranging non-native mammals2. The Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) also continues to experience damage and threats of damage associated with mammals at facilities or properties they own or manage in Georgia. The TVA could request the assistance of WS to manage damage or threats of damage at those facilities and properties. Individual damage management projects conducted by the WS program could be categorically excluded from further analysis under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), in accordance with APHIS implementing regulations for the NEPA (7 CFR 372.5(c), 60 FR 6000-6003). The purpose of this Environmental Assessment (EA) is to evaluate cumulatively the individual projects that WS could conduct to manage damage and threats to agricultural resources, property, natural resources, and threats to people caused by those mammal species identified previously, including those activities that the TVA could request of WS. This EA will assist in determining if the proposed cumulative management of mammal damage could have a significant impact on the environment based on previous activities conducted by WS and based on the anticipation of conducting additional efforts to manage damage caused by those species. Because the goal of WS would be to conduct a coordinated program to alleviate mammal damage in accordance with plans, goals, and objectives developed to reduce damage, and because the program’s goals and directives3 would be to provide assistance when requested, within the constraints of available funding and workforce, it is conceivable that additional damage management efforts could occur. Thus, this EA anticipates those additional efforts and the analyses would apply to actions that may occur in any locale and at any time within Georgia as part of a coordinated program. This EA analyzes the potential effects of mammal damage management when requested, as coordinated between WS, the TVA, and the Georgia Department of Natural Resources (GDNR). WS and the TVA are preparing this EA to 1) facilitate planning; 2) promote interagency coordination; 3) streamline program management; 4) clearly communicate to the public the analysis of individual and cumulative impacts of proposed activities; and 5) evaluate and determine if there would be any potentially significant or cumulative effects from the alternative approaches developed to meet the need for action. 1The WS program is authorized to protect agriculture and other resources from damage caused by wildlife through the Act of March 2, 1931 (46 Stat. 1468; 7 USC 426-426b) as amended, and the Act of December 22, 1987 (101 Stat. 1329-331, 7 USC 426c). 2 See further discussion in Chapter 4, Section 4.1. 3At the time of preparation, WS’ Directives occurred at the following web address: http://www.aphis.usda.gov/wildlife_damage/ws_directives.shtml. 1 The analyses contained in this EA are based on information derived from WS’ Management Information System, published documents (see Appendix A), interagency consultations, and public involvement. This EA evaluates the need for action to manage damage associated with mammals in the State, the potential issues associated with managing damage, and the environmental consequences of conducting different alternatives to meet the need for action while addressing the identified issues. WS, in cooperation with the TVA, initially developed the issues and alternatives associated with managing damage caused by mammals
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Crop Diversification Leads to Diverse Bird Problems in Hawaiian Agriculture
    Human–Wildlife Confl icts 1(2):235–243, Fall 2007 Crop diversifi cation leads to diverse bird problems in Hawaiian agriculture MARNI E. KOOPMAN1, Hawaii Field Station, USDA/APHIS/Wildlife Services’ National Wildlife Re- search Center, P.O. Box 10880, Hilo, Hawaii 96721, USA [email protected] WILLIAM C. PITT, Hawaii Field Station, USDA/APHIS/Wildlife Services’ National Wildlife Research Center, P.O. Box 10880, Hilo, Hawaii 96721, USA Abstract: Over the last 20 years, Hawaii’s agriculture has shifted from a focus on sugar cane (Saccharum offi cinarum) and pineapples (Ananas comosus) produced on large farms to a diverse array of products produced on a multitude of smaller farms. This dramatic shift in production, in addition to the introduction of many new avian species, has resulted in a concomitant change in the problems faced by agriculture. We surveyed farmers to determine the extent of bird damage to crops, the species responsible, the crops most vulnerable, and control methods employed. Bird problems varied by island, but cardinals (Cardinalis cardinalis, Paroaria coronata, and P. capitata) and pheasants (Phasianus colchicus and Lophura leucomelanos) were signifi cant problems on all islands. Seed corn (Zea mays), fruit, vegetables, rice (Oryza sativa), and orchids (Orchidaceae) all sustained notable damage to their crops by birds, and growers expressed much interest in gaining information on control measures. Most farmers incurred little damage, while a few reported losing 80 to 100% of their crops at certain times of the year. We recommend a multidimensional approach to control invasive bird species, including habitat alterations, scare tactics, cessation of game bird releases, prevention of the spread of known pests among islands, and the development of chemical repellents for use when other methods are not suffi cient.
    [Show full text]
  • September 24, 2018
    September 24, 2018 Sent via Federal eRulemaking Portal to: http://www.regulations.gov Docket Nos. FWS-HQ-ES-2018-0006 FWS-HQ-ES-2018-0007 FWS-HQ-ES-2018-0009 Bridget Fahey Chief, Division of Conservation and Classification U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 5275 Leesburg Pike, MS: ES Falls Church, VA 22041-3808 [email protected] Craig Aubrey Chief, Division of Environmental Review Ecological Services Program U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 5275 Leesburg Pike, MS: ES Falls Church, VA 22041 [email protected] Samuel D. Rauch, III National Marine Fisheries Service Office of Protected Resources 1315 East-West Highway Silver Spring, MD 20910 [email protected] Re: Proposed Revisions of Endangered Species Act Regulations Dear Mr. Aubrey, Ms. Fahey, and Mr. Rauch: The Southern Environmental Law Center (“SELC”) submits the following comments in opposition to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s and National Marine Fisheries Service’s proposed revisions to the Endangered Species Act’s implementing regulations.1 We submit these comments on behalf of 57 organizations working to protect the natural resources of the 1 Revision of the Regulations for Prohibitions to Threatened Wildlife and Plants, 83 Fed. Reg. 35,174 (proposed July 25, 2018) (to be codified at 50 C.F.R. pt. 17); Revision of Regulations for Interagency Cooperation, 83 Fed. Reg. 35,178 (proposed July 25, 2018) (to be codified at 50 C.F.R. pt. 402); Revision of the Regulations for Listing Species and Designating Critical Habitat, 83 Fed. Reg. 35,193 (proposed July 25, 2018) (to be codified at 50 C.F.R.
    [Show full text]
  • Reducing Bird Damage in the State of Vermont
    ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REDUCING BIRD DAMAGE IN THE STATE OF VERMONT In cooperation with: United States Department of Interior United States Fish and Wildlife Service Migratory Bird Program Region 5 The Vermont Fish and Wildlife Department Prepared by: UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE ANIMAL AND PLANT HEALTH INSPECTION SERVICE WILDLIFE SERVICES November 2015 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS ACRONYMS ............................................................................................................................................... 3 CHAPTER 1: PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION 1.1 INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 4 1.2 PURPOSE ....................................................................................................................................... 5 1.3 NEED FOR ACTION ...................................................................................................................... 5 1.4 DECISIONS TO BE MADE ......................................................................................................... 21 1.5 SCOPE OF THIS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ............................................................. 21 1.6 RELATIONSHIP OF THIS DOCUMENT TO OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTS . 24 1.7 AUTHORITY OF FEDERAL AND STATE AGENCIES ........................................................... 25 1.8 COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS AND STATUTES ....................................................................... 28 CHAPTER 2:
    [Show full text]
  • 2019 New York Bird Damage Management EA
    ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REDUCING BIRD DAMAGE IN THE STATE OF NEW YORK In cooperation with: United States Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Bureau of Wildlife New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation City of New York, Department of Environmental Protection Port Authority of New York and New Jersey Prepared by: UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE ANIMAL AND PLANT HEALTH INSPECTION SERVICE WILDLIFE SERVICES November 2019 Executive summary Page i Executive Summary The United States Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Wildlife Services (WS) prepared this Environmental Assessment (EA) to facilitate planning, interagency coordination and the streamlining of program management, and to clearly communicate with the public the analysis of individual and cumulative impacts in managing bird damage across the State of New York. The EA describes the need for bird damage management to reduce and prevent damage associated with birds in New York, including damage to property, agriculture, and natural resources, and risks to human health and safety. The proposed bird damage management activities could be conducted on public and private property when the property owner or manager requests assistance and/or when assistance is requested by an appropriate state, federal, tribal or local government agency. This EA analyzes the potential environmental impacts of three alternatives for WS’ response to bird damage. Actions proposed in the EA could be conducted on public and private property when the resource owner (property owner) or manager requests assistance, a need for action is confirmed, and agreements specifying the nature and duration of the bird damage management activities to be conducted are completed.
    [Show full text]
  • Rsidade Federal Do Paraná
    UNIVERSIDADE FEDERAL DO PARANÁ RICARDO MITSUO HAYASHI PHENOTYPIC AND GENOTYPIC FEATURES OF THE Salmonella enterica serovar Heidelberg STRAIN UFPR1 AND INSIGHTS ABOUT INTESTINAL MICROBIOTA IN FERAL AND BROILER CHICKENS CURITIBA 2018 RICARDO MITSUO HAYASHI PHENOTYPIC AND GENOTYPIC FEATURES OF THE Salmonella enterica serovar Heidelberg STRAIN UFPR1 AND INSIGHTS ABOUT INTESTINAL MICROBIOTA IN FERAL AND BROILER CHICKENS Tese apresentada como requisito parcial à obtenção do título de Doutor em Ciências Veterinári as, Programa de Pós-Graduação em Ciências Veterinárias, Área de Concentração: Patologia Veterinária, Setor de Ciências Agrárias, Universidade Federal do Paraná. Orientação: Prof.a Dr.a Elizabeth Santin CURITIBA 2018 Hayashi, Ricardo Mitsuo Phenotypic and genotypic features of the Salmonella enterica serovar Heidelberg strain UFPR1 and insights about intestinal H413p microbiota in feral and broiler chickens / Ricardo Mitsuo Hayashi. - Curitiba, 2018. 128 p.: il. Tese (Doutorado) - Universidade Federal do Paraná. Setor de Ciências Agrárias, Programa de Pós-Graduação em Ciências Veterinárias. Orientadora: Elizabeth Santin 1. Salmonela - Ave. 2. Salmonela em animais. 3. Frango de corte - Doenças. 4. Probióticos. I. Santin, Elizabeth. II. Título. III. Universidade Federal do Paraná. CDU 636.5 Sistema de Bibliotecas/UFPR, Biblioteca de Ciências Agrárias Bibliotecário Douglas Alex Jankoski – CRB 9/1167 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Firstly, I would like to express my sincere gratitude to my advisor Prof. Elizabeth Santin, for the continuous support of my Ph.D study, for her patience, motivation, and immense knowledge. Thank you for showing me that the “Universe is the limit”. I thank my fellow labmates from LABMOR/CERIA, Mariana, Antônio, Adrien, Bruna, Jéssica, Juliana, Aline Tujimoto, Ana Carolina, Paulo, Maristela, Andréia and Louise.
    [Show full text]
  • Eradication of Invasive Alien Vertebrates in the UK Overseas Territories
    1 Eradication of invasive alien vertebrates in the UK Overseas Territories A prioritised framework for island restoration to enable the UK Overseas Territories' Biodiversity Strategy June 2014 The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB) Funded by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) 1 2 Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .............................................................................................................................. 4 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ............................................................................................................................. 7 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................................... 9 Aims ........................................................................................................................................................ 10 Scope ...................................................................................................................................................... 11 Limitations ............................................................................................................................................... 12 METHODS .................................................................................................................................................. 14 Data collection ........................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • The Environmental, Financial and Public Health Impact Of
    By Connie R. Ellis A report submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MPH First, a few thanks…… Dr. Robert McClean Vijay Sadhu Susan Moore Dr. Mike Moore Dr. Mike Sanderson Committee members: Dr. Michael Cates Dr. Cathleen Hanlon Dr. Abbey Nutsch A little background first…. -Started as a study on vaccinating 8-week old kittens at the time of spay/neuter. -Looked at the impact of feral cats and feral cat colony issues. -Environmental: hunting and disease. -Public health risks. -Trap-neuter-return programs and costs. -Identified as a free-roaming cat problem. In preparation Coursework that assured success: -DMP 815 Multidisciplinary Thought and Writing -DMP 854 Intermediate Epidemiology (Disease Epidemiology) -DMP 718 Veterinary Parasitology -DMP 712 Veterinary Bacteriology and Mycology -DMP 722 Veterinary Virology -DMP 770 Fundamental Concepts in Emerging Pathological Diseases Felis catus- A Brief History of Domestication “In ancient times cats were worshipped as gods; they have not forgotten this.” -Terry Pratchett, author. Ancestors of the domestic cat -Wild cats, Felis silvestris -3 distinct subspecies: -Felis silvestris libyca (African wild cats) -Felis silvestris silvestris (European wild cats) -Felis silvestris ornata (Asiatic wild cats) -Other contenders: -Felis chaus, ring-tailed jungle cat -Felis manul, Pallas’s cat -DNA studies show a combination of several members of the Felis family contributed to the domestic cat. F. s. libyca -Most of the mummified cats in Egyptian tombs were F. s. libyca. -Native to areas bordering the Mediterranean. -Present day F. s. libyca will mate with domestic cats. -Kittens can be tamed. F. s. silvestris -Its path into the domestic cat ancestry not clear.
    [Show full text]
  • UPC Fall 2015 Poultry Press
    Fall 2015 Volume 25, Number 2 Poultry Press Promoting the compassionate and respectful treatment of domestic fowl Celebrating 25 years of dedicated activism for domestic fowl UPC# 11656 United Poultry Concerns P.O. Box 150 Machipongo, VA 23405-0150 (757) 678-7875 FAX: (757) 678-5070 [email protected] Visit Our Web Site: www.upc-online.org “Dear UPC, you asked us to send photos of our indoor epileptic rooster, Hammie, and here he is. Hammie is a 3 year old Hamburg rooster who weighs 3 pounds. He lives in our home with our dogs and cats, and never in a cage. He takes Phenobarbital daily for his seizures. We love him dearly and he is a member of our family.” – Jim Smoot & Lorena Norwood United Poultry Concerns www.upc-online.org Volume 25, Number 2 Single-Issue Campaigns: What Would a Chicken Say? By Karen Davis, PhD, President of United Poultry overall vegan advocacy? For as Fish Feel director, Mary Concerns Finelli, wrote in a recent debate on this issue, “Veganism is not solely about not using animals for food but rather This article was written in response to the claim by some is about not causing needless harm to animals. In this members of the animal rights community that what they way, the campaign against chicken Kaporos IS about call “single-issue” campaigns blocks the global advancement veganism.” of animal liberation and veganism. For some Abolitionists, all campaigns focusing on particular animals– in this case chickens used for Kaporos – frustrate the ultimate, worldwide goal of Abolition, Animal Rights, and Veganism.
    [Show full text]
  • Correlations Between Biotic Indices, Water Quality, And
    CURRENT STATUS OF ENDEMIC MUSSELS IN THE LOWER OCMULGEE AND ALTAMAHA RIVERS Jason M. Wisniewski, Greg Krakow, and Brett Albanese AUTHORS: Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Wildlife Resources Division, Natural Heritage Program, Social Circle, GA 30025 REFERENCE: Proceedings of the 2005 Georgia Water Resources Conference, held April 25-27, 2005, at the University of Georgia. Kathryn J. Hatcher, editor, Institute of Ecology, The University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia. Abstract. The Altamaha River Basin is well known to stable. As a result, the current status of the endemic among malacologists for its high percentage (ca. 40%) of mussels of the lower Altamaha River system was reviewed. endemic mussels. While little historical data exists to This review will provide information to policy makers and quantify changes in mussel abundance, many biologists regulatory agencies for developing conservation strategies believe that some species are declining. We assembled a that may affect the persistence and habitat quality of large database of mussel occurrence records from imperiled mussels. surveys conducted since 1967 and used this data to assess the current status of endemic mussels in the lower Ocmulgee and Altamaha rivers. The percentage of sites BACKGROUND occupied and the ranges of the Altamaha arcmussel, Altamaha spinymussel, and inflated floater have declined The Altamaha River Basin is the largest basin in Georgia over the past 10 years. The remaining endemic mussel (36,976 km2). Major tributaries in the basin include: the species occupy a large percentage of sites and appear to Ocmulgee, Oconee, and Ohoopee rivers (Figure 1). be stable. We recommend the development of a long- Although historic collections date back to the 1830’s, most term monitoring program for Altamaha basin endemic major surveys have been conducted since the late 1960's mussels.
    [Show full text]
  • USVI Invasive Species Action Plan
    United States Virgin Islands INVASIVE SPECIES ACTION PLAN PREPARED FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND NATURAL RESOURCES DIVISION OF FISH AND WILDLIFE, NOVEMBER 2016 United States Virgin Islands Invasive Species Action Plan PREPARED FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND NATURAL RESOURCES DIVISION OF FISH AND WILDLIFE, NOVEMBER 2016 Research reported in this plan was supported by D.O.I. Office of Insular Affairs, under Technical Assistance Program grant award number TAP-USVI-2016-7/D16AP00151. RENATA PLATENBERG, PHD US Virgin Islands Invasive Species Action Plan Vision and Scope .......................................................................................................................................... 4 Context ......................................................................................................................................................... 4 Pathways of Invasion ................................................................................................................................... 5 Impacts of Invasives ..................................................................................................................................... 5 Environmental impacts ............................................................................................................................. 6 Economic impacts ..................................................................................................................................... 7 Social and Cultural impacts ......................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • The Freshwater Mussels (Mollusca: Bivalvia: Unionoida) of Nebraska
    University of Nebraska - Lincoln DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln Transactions of the Nebraska Academy of Sciences and Affiliated Societies Nebraska Academy of Sciences 11-2011 The Freshwater Mussels (Mollusca: Bivalvia: Unionoida) of Nebraska Ellet Hoke Midwest Malacology, Inc., [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/tnas Part of the Life Sciences Commons Hoke, Ellet, "The Freshwater Mussels (Mollusca: Bivalvia: Unionoida) of Nebraska" (2011). Transactions of the Nebraska Academy of Sciences and Affiliated Societies. 2. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/tnas/2 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Nebraska Academy of Sciences at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. It has been accepted for inclusion in Transactions of the Nebraska Academy of Sciences and Affiliated Societiesy b an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. The Freshwater Mussels (Mollusca: Bivalvia: Unionoida) Of Nebraska Ellet Hoke Midwest Malacology, Inc. Correspondence: Ellet Hoke, 1878 Ridgeview Circle Drive, Manchester, MO 63021 [email protected] 636-391-9459 This paper reports the results of the first statewide survey of the freshwater mussels of Nebraska. Survey goals were: (1) to document current distributions through collection of recent shells; (2) to document former distributions through collection of relict shells and examination of museum collections; (3) to identify changes in distribution; (4) to identify the primary natural and anthropomorphic factors impacting unionids; and (5) to develop a model to explain the documented distributions. The survey confirmed 30 unionid species and the exotic Corbicula fluminea for the state, and museum vouchers documented one additional unionid species. Analysis of museum records and an extensive literature search coupled with research in adjacent states identified 13 additional unionid species with known distributions near the Nebraska border.
    [Show full text]
  • Mollusca: Bivalvia
    AR-1580 11 MOLLUSCA: BIVALVIA Robert F. McMahon Arthur E. Bogan Department of Biology North Carolina State Museum Box 19498 of Natural Sciences The University of Texas at Arlington Research Laboratory Arlington, TX 76019 4301 Ready Creek Road Raleigh, NC 27607 I. Introduction A. Collecting II. Anatomy and Physiology B. Preparation for Identification A. External Morphology C. Rearing Freshwater Bivalves B. Organ-System Function V. Identification of the Freshwater Bivalves C. Environmental and Comparative of North America Physiology A. Taxonomic Key to the Superfamilies of III. Ecology and Evolution Freshwater Bivalvia A. Diversity and Distribution B. Taxonomic Key to Genera of B. Reproduction and Life History Freshwater Corbiculacea C. Ecological Interactions C. Taxonomic Key to the Genera of D. Evolutionary Relationships Freshwater Unionoidea IV. Collecting, Preparation for Identification, Literature Cited and Rearing I. INTRODUCTION ament uniting the calcareous valves (Fig. 1). The hinge lig- ament is external in all freshwater bivalves. Its elasticity North American (NA) freshwater bivalve molluscs opens the valves while the anterior and posterior shell ad- (class Bivalvia) fall in the subclasses Paleoheterodonta (Su- ductor muscles (Fig. 2) run between the valves and close perfamily Unionoidea) and Heterodonta (Superfamilies them in opposition to the hinge ligament which opens Corbiculoidea and Dreissenoidea). They have enlarged them on adductor muscle relaxation. gills with elongated, ciliated filaments for suspension feed- The mantle lobes and shell completely enclose the ing on plankton, algae, bacteria, and microdetritus. The bivalve body, resulting in cephalic sensory structures be- mantle tissue underlying and secreting the shell forms a coming vestigial or lost. Instead, external sensory struc- pair of lateral, dorsally connected lobes.
    [Show full text]