DOCSLIB.ORG

USCA4 Appeal: 20-2042 Doc: 23 Filed: 10/09/2020 Pg: 1 of 205

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
USCA4 Appeal: 20-2042 Doc: 23 Filed: 10/09/2020 Pg: 1 of 205 USCA4 Appeal: 20-2042 Doc: 23 Filed: 10/09/2020 Pg: 1 of 205 No. 20-2042 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT SIERRA CLUB, et al., Petitioners, v. UNITED STATES ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, et al., Respondents, and MOUNTAIN VALLEY PIPELINE, LLC, Intervenor-Respondent. On Petition for Review of Action of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers FEDERAL RESPONDENTS’ OPPOSITION TO PETITIONERS’ MOTION TO STAY AGENCY ACTION JONATHAN D. BRIGHTBILL Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General ERIC GRANT Deputy Assistant Attorney General ELLEN J. DURKEE KEVIN W. McARDLE Attorneys Environment and Natural Resources Division U.S. Department of Justice Post Office Box 7415 Washington, D.C. 20044 (202) 305-0219 [email protected] USCA4 Appeal: 20-2042 Doc: 23 Filed: 10/09/2020 Pg: 2 of 205 TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF AUTHORITIES .................................................................................... ii INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................... 1 LEGAL AND FACTUAL BACKGROUND ............................................................ 1 A. Nationwide permits under the Clean Water Act ................................... 1 B. West Virginia’s original Section 401 certification ............................... 4 C. The prior lawsuit ................................................................................... 4 D. West Virginia’s amended Section 401 certification ............................. 5 E. The Norfolk District’s reinstatement decision ...................................... 6 ARGUMENT ............................................................................................................. 7 I. Petitioners are unlikely to succeed on the merits ............................................ 7 A. The Court lacks jurisdiction over the agency actions challenged by Petitioners ...................................................................... 8 B. The Corps’ reissuance of NWP 12 did not trigger ESA consultation ......................................................................................... 12 C. The Corps properly accepted West Virginia’s revised Section 401 certification of NWP 12 .................................................. 15 II. Petitioners have not shown a likelihood of irreparable harm ........................ 19 III. The balance of equities and the public interest do not support a stay .............................................................................................................. 20 CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................ 22 CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE ....................................................................... 23 LIST OF EXHIBITS i USCA4 Appeal: 20-2042 Doc: 23 Filed: 10/09/2020 Pg: 3 of 205 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Cases Amoco Production Co. v. Village of Gambell, 480 U.S. 531 (1987)....................................................................................... 20 Crutchfield v. County of Hanover, 325 F.3d 211 (4th Cir. 2003) ........................................................................... 3 East Tennessee Natural Gas Co. v. Sage, 361 F.3d 808 (4th Cir. 2004) ......................................................................... 21 Legal Environmental Assistance Foundation v. EPA, 118 F.3d 1467 (11th Cir. 1997) ..................................................................... 10 National Ass’n of Manufacturers v. Department of Defense, 138 S. Ct. 617 (2018) ................................................................................. 9, 11 NetCoalition v. SEC, 715 F.3d 342 (D.C. Cir. 2013) ......................................................................... 8 Newton County Wildlife Ass’n v. Rogers, 141 F.3d 803 (8th Cir. 1998) ..................................................................... 4, 12 Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418 (2009)......................................................................................... 7 NLRB Union v. Federal Labor Relations Authority, 834 F.2d 191 (D.C. Cir.1987) ........................................................................ 11 Northern Plains Resource Council v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, No. CV 19-44-GF-BMM, 2020 WL 3638125 (D. Mont. May 11, 2020) ................................................. 4 Perry v. Judd, 471 Fed. Appx. 219 (4th Cir. 2012) .............................................................. 20 Public Citizen, Inc. v. NHTSA, 489 F.3d 1279 (D.C. Cir. 2007) ............................................................. 8, 9, 11 ii USCA4 Appeal: 20-2042 Doc: 23 Filed: 10/09/2020 Pg: 4 of 205 San Diegans for Mount Soledad National War Memorial v. Paulson, 548 U.S. 1301 (2006) ...................................................................................... 4 Sierra Club v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 909 F.3d 635 (4th Cir. 2018) ....................................................... 2, 3, 5, 16, 19 Snoqualmie Valley Preservation Alliance v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 683 F.3d 1155 (9th Cir. 2012) ................................................. 17 Southwest Center for Biological Diversity v. U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, 143 F.3d 515 (9th Cir. 1998) ................................................... 10 United States v. Oakland Cannabis Buyers’ Cooperative, 532 U.S. 483 (2001)....................................................................................... 21 Washington Trout v. McCain Foods, Inc., 45 F.3d 1351 (9th Cir. 1995) ......................................................................... 10 Winter v. NRDC, Inc., 555 U.S. 7 (2008) ........................................................................................... 20 Statutes Administrative Procedure Act 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A) ....................................................................................... 7 Natural Gas Act 15 U.S.C. § 717(a) ......................................................................................... 21 15 U.S.C. § 717r(d)(1) ..................................................................................... 8 15 U.S.C. § 717r(d)(5) ..................................................................................... 8 Endangered Species Act 16 U.S.C. § 1536(a)(2) .................................................................................... 4 16 U.S.C. § 1540 ............................................................................................ 12 16 U.S.C. § 1540(g)(1) .............................................................................. 8, 10 28 U.S.C. § 1331 ........................................................................................................ 8 iii USCA4 Appeal: 20-2042 Doc: 23 Filed: 10/09/2020 Pg: 5 of 205 Clean Water Act 33 U.S.C. § 1311(a) ......................................................................................... 3 33 U.S.C. § 1319 ............................................................................................ 12 33 U.S.C. § 1341(a)(1) .................................................................................... 3 33 U.S.C. § 1341(d) ......................................................................................... 3 33 U.S.C. § 1344(a) ......................................................................................... 3 33 U.S.C. § 1344(e)(1) .................................................................................... 3 33 U.S.C. § 1369(b)(1) .................................................................................... 9 Regulations 33 C.F.R. § 325.4 ..................................................................................................... 16 33 C.F.R. § 330.1(c) ................................................................................................. 12 33 C.F.R. § 330.1(d) ................................................................................................ 18 33 C.F.R. § 330.1(e)(2) .............................................................................................. 3 33 C.F.R. § 330.4(c)(2) ...................................................................................... 16, 18 33 C.F.R. § 330.5(c)(1) ............................................................................................ 17 33 C.F.R. § 330.6(a) ................................................................................................... 3 50 C.F.R. § 402.02 ................................................................................................... 13 50 C.F.R. § 402.14(a) ................................................................................................. 4 50 C.F.R. § 402.14(g) .............................................................................................. 13 80 Fed. Reg. 26,832 (May 11, 2015) ....................................................................... 13 81 Fed. Reg. 35,186 (June 1, 2016) ......................................................................... 15 82 Fed. Reg. 1860 (Jan. 6, 2017) ............................................................. 3, 12, 13, 18 iv USCA4 Appeal: 20-2042 Doc: 23 Filed: 10/09/2020 Pg: 6 of 205 INTRODUCTION Petitioners’ stay motion in this case is directly related to the stay motion filed by the same parties in Case No. 20-2039. There, Petitioners purport to challenge a September 25, 2020 letter issued by the Huntington District of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) verifying that water crossings required for the Mountain Valley Pipeline comply with Nationwide
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Pittsburgh NWP 12 Combined
    PASPGP-5 PERMIT COMPLIANCE, SELF-CERTIFICATION FORM Project Name: Applicant Name: PADEP Permit No: Date of Issuance: Corps Permit Number: Date of Issuance: Waterway: County: In accordance with the compliance certification condition of your PASPGP-5 authorization, you are required to complete and sign this certification form and return it to the appropriate Corps of Engineers District in which the work is located. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers U.S. Army Corps of Engineers U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Philadelphia District Baltimore District Pittsburgh District Regulatory Branch 1631 South Atherton Street Regulatory Branch Wanamaker Building Suite 101 Federal Building, 20th Floor 100 Penn Square East State College, PA 16801-6260 1000 Liberty Avenue Philadelphia, PA 19107-3390 Pittsburgh, PA 15222-4186 Please note that the permitted activity is subject to compliance inspections by U.S. Army Corps of Engineers representatives. As a condition of this permit, failure to return this notification form, provide the required information below, or to perform the authorized work in compliance with the permit, can result in suspension, modification or revocation of your authorization in accordance with 33 CFR Part 325.7 and/or administrative, civil, and/or criminal penalties, in accordance with 33 CFR part 326. Please provide the following information: 1. Date authorized work commenced: ________________________________________________ 2. Date authorized work completed: ________________________________________________ 3. Was all work, including any required mitigation, completed in accordance with your PASPGP-5 authorization? YES NO 4. Explain any deviations (use additional sheets if necessary) ____________________________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________________ 5. Was compensatory wetland/stream mitigation accomplished through an approved Mitigation Bank and/or In-Lieu fee program? YES NO (if YES, attach proof of transaction, if NO complete Number 6 and 7 below).
    [Show full text]
  • Ohio River Basin Pilot Study
    Institute for Water Resources–Responses to Climate Change Program Ohio River Basin Pilot Study CWTS report 2017-01, May 2017 OHIO RIVER BASIN– Formulating Climate Change Mitigation/Adaptation Strategies through Regional Collaboration with the ORB Alliance U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and Ohio River Basin Alliance Institute for Water Resources, Responses to Climate Change Program Sunrise on the Ohio River. January, 2014. i Institute for Water Resources–Responses to Climate Change Program Ohio River Basin Pilot Study i Institute for Water Resources–Responses to Climate Change Program Ohio River Basin Pilot Study Ohio River Basin Climate Change Pilot Study Report ABSTRACT The Huntington District of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, in collaboration with the Ohio River Basin Alliance, the Institute for Water Resources, the Great Lakes and Ohio River Division, and numerous other Federal agencies, non-governmental organizations, research institutions, and academic institutions, has prepared the Ohio River Basin Climate Change Pilot Report. Sponsored and supported by the Institute for Water Resources through its Responses to Climate Change program, this report encapsulates the research of numerous professionals in climatology, meteorology, biology, ecology, geology, hydrology, geographic information technology, engineering, water resources planning, economics, and landscape architecture. The report provides downscaled climate modeling information for the entire basin with forecasts of future precipitation and temperature changes as well as forecasts of future streamflow at numerous gaging points throughout the basin. These forecasts are presented at the Hydrologic Unit Code-4 sub-basin level through three 30-year time periods between 2011 and 2099. The report includes the results of preliminary investigations into the various impacts that forecasted climate changes may have on both aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems and operating water resources infrastructure.
    [Show full text]
  • Of Surface-Water Records to September 30, 1970 Part 3.-0Hio River Basin
    c Index of Surface-Water Records to September 30, 1970 Part 3.-0hio River Basin Index of Surface-Water Recordr to September 30, 1 970 Part 3.-0hio River Basin GEOLOGICAL SURVEY CIRCULAR 653 Washington J ,71 United States Department of the Interior ROGERS C. B. MORTON, Secretary Geological Survey W. A. Radlinski, Acting Director Free on application to the U.S. Geological Survey, Washington, D.C. 20242 Index of Surface-Water Records to September 30, 1970 Part 3.-0hio River Basin INTRODUCTION This report lists the streamflow and reservoir stations in the Ohio River basin for which records have been or are to be published in reports of the Geological Survey for periods through September 30, 1970. lt supersedes Geo­ logical Survey Circular 573. It was updated by personnel of the Data Reports Unit, Water Resources Division, Geo­ logical Survey. Basic data on surface-water supply have been published in an annual series of water-supply papers consisting of several volumes, including one each for the States of Alaska and Hawaii. The area of the other 48 States is divided into 14 parts whose boundaries coincide with certain natural drainage lines. Prior to 1951, the records for the 48 States were published in 14 volumes, one for each of the parts. From 1951 to 1%0, the records for the 48 States were published annually in 18 volumes, there being 2 volumes each for Parts 1, 2, 3, and 6. Beginning in 1961, the annual series of water-supply papers on surface-water supply was changed to a 5-year series, and records for the period 1961-65 were published in 37 volumes, there being 2 or more volumes for each of 11 parts and one each for parts 10, 13, 14, 15 (Alaska), and 16 (Hawaii and other Pacific areas).
    [Show full text]
  • USEPA Approved IR 303D Co
    2016 West Virginia Integrated Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment Report Prepared to fulfill the requirements of Section 303(d) and 305(b) of the federal Clean Water Act and Chapter 22, Article 11, Section 28 of the West Virginia Water Pollution Control Act for the period of July 2014 through June 2016. Prepared by the Division of Water and Waste Management Jim Justice Governor Austin Caperton Cabinet Secretary Department of Environmental Protection Scott G. Mandirola Director Division of Water and Waste Management 2016 WV Integrated Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment Report Table of Contents 1.0 Introduction.............................................................................................................. 1 2.0 Water Quality Standards ............................................................................................ 2 3.0 Surface Water Monitoring and Assessment ................................................................. 4 3.1 Streams and Rivers ......................................................................................................... 5 3.2 Probabilistic (Random) Sampling ...................................................................................... 5 3.3 Ambient Water Quality Monitoring Network ....................................................................... 5 3.4 Targeted Monitoring ........................................................................................................ 7 3.5 Pre-Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Development Monitoring ........................................
    [Show full text]
  • Huntington NWP 12 Combined
    DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY HUNTINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS 502 EIGHTH STREET HUNTINGTON, WEST VIRGINIA 25701-2070 REPLY TO ATTENTION OF February 17, 2017 Regulatory Division Energy Resource Branch LRH-2014-00804-OHR – Ohio River NATIONWIDE PERMIT NO. 12 VERIFICATION Ms. Buffy Thomason Rover Pipeline, LLC 1300 Main Street Houston, Texas 77002 Dear Ms. Thomason: I refer to the Pre-Construction Notification (PCN) requesting a Department of the Army (DA) authorization to discharge dredged and/or fill material into waters of the United States (U.S.) in association with the operation and construction of the Rover Pipeline Project. The project is regulated by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) under section 7(c) of the Natural Gas Act of 2005 (Docket No. CP15-93-000); the FERC issued an Environmental Impact Statement for this project on July 29, 2016. The Rover Pipeline Project involves facilities located within multiple districts of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) Great Lakes and Ohio River Division. The project corridor originates near New Milton, in Doddridge County, West Virginia and terminates near Howell, in Livingston County, Michigan. Within the Huntington District Regulatory Boundary, the project proposes work within multiple counties in West Virginia and Ohio. In West Virginia, portions of the project are located within Doddridge, Tyler and Wetzel Counties. In Ohio, portions of the project are located within Noble, Monroe, Harrison, Carroll, Tuscarawas, Stark, Wayne, Ashland, Richland, and Crawford Counties. The DA file number (LRH-2014-00804-OHR) should be referenced on all future correspondence related to this project. The U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Department of the Interior
    Vol. 77 Tuesday, No. 30 February 14, 2012 Part VI Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service 50 CFR Part 17 Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Determination of Endangered Status for the Rayed Bean and Snuffbox Mussels Throughout Their Ranges; Final Rule VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:11 Feb 13, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4717 Sfmt 4717 E:\FR\FM\14FER3.SGM 14FER3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3 8632 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 30 / Tuesday, February 14, 2012 / Rules and Regulations DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Species Information are swollen, turned forward and inward, and extended above the hingeline Rayed Bean Fish and Wildlife Service (Cummings and Mayer 1992, p. 162). The rayed bean is a small mussel, Beak sculpture consists of three or four 50 CFR Part 17 usually less than 1.5 inches (in) (3.8 faint, double-looped bars (Cummings centimeters (cm)) in length (Cummings and Mayer 1992, p. 162; Parmalee and [Docket No. FWS–R3–ES–2010–0019; and Mayer 1992, p. 142; Parmalee and Bogan 1998, p. 108). The anterior end of 4500030113] Bogan 1998, p. 244; West et al. 2000, p. the shell is rounded, and the posterior 248). The shell outline is elongate or end is truncated, highly so in females. ovate in males and elliptical in females, RIN 1018–AV96 The posterior ridge is prominent, being and moderately inflated in both sexes, high and rounded, while the posterior Endangered and Threatened Wildlife but more so in females (Parmalee and slope is widely flattened. The posterior and Plants; Determination of Bogan 1998, p.
    [Show full text]
  • Final Hughes River TMDL Report
    Total Maximum Daily Loads for the Hughes River Watershed, West Virginia USEPA Approved Report September 2018 On the cover: Photos provided by WVDEP Division of Water and Waste Management Hughes River Watershed: TMDL Report CONTENTS Acronyms, Abbreviations, and Definitions ................................................................................ iv Executive Summary .................................................................................................................... vii 1.0 Report Format ....................................................................................................................1 2.0 Introduction ........................................................................................................................1 2.1 Total Maximum Daily Loads ...................................................................................1 2.2 Water Quality Standards ..........................................................................................4 3.0 Watershed Description and Data Inventory....................................................................5 3.1 Watershed Description .............................................................................................5 3.2 Data Inventory .........................................................................................................7 3.3 Impaired Waterbodies ..............................................................................................9 4.0 Biological Impairment and Stressor Identification ......................................................16
    [Show full text]
  • Fishing Regulations
    FISHING REGULATIONS SUMMARY 2021 FROM THE DIRECTOR My grandmother used to say, “When life gives you lemons, make lemonade.” Well, 2020 could certainly fall into the “lemons” category, but from a fish management standpoint, things could not have gone better. The COVID pandemic motivated millions of Americans to step outside and take in all that Mother Nature has to offer. The West Virginia mountains provide an ideal backdrop for this increased outdoor activity. Our parks, streams and lakes have experienced record attendance, and fishing licenses sales have been robust. Our fish management professionals were behind the scenes making things happen. We continued to work on improving fish habitat, stocking trout and other species, as well as kicking off our $40 million hatchery renovation program. Our hatcheries had been neglected for decades. We started with the hatchery at Bowden. Early last year, Bowden began receiving a $10 million makeover. When finished, it will not only provide state of the art facilities but will increase rearing capacity by 50 percent. When all the renovations are complete, our hatcheries will be able to produce well over one million pounds of trout annually. Looking forward to 2021, we anticipate expanding our Gold Rush event, continuing to improve fish habitat, and developing new special regulation areas and events to create more exciting opportunities for anglers throughout West Virginia. I hope the upcoming season is a special one, and until next time ”tight lines” for everyone. Hancock Stephen S. McDaniel, DNR Director Brooke Ohio Marshall Monongalia Wetzel Morgan Marion Tyler Preston Berkeley Mineral Pleasants Jeerson Taylor Hampshire Harrison Doddridge Grant ___________________ Wood Barbour Ritchie Tucker District Offices Wirt Lewis Hardy Gilmer Randolph Jackson Mason Calhoun Upshur Roane Braxton Main Office - South Charleston, WV 25303 Pendleton Putnam Webster Clay 324 4th Avenue Cabell Kanawha Fish Management − Mark T.
    [Show full text]
  • Peasants, Wood and Ritchie Counties
    V :.... "^I^C CD o o•s d a> a> P CO p p %•":, 3 02 WEST VIRGINIA GEOLOGICAL SURVEY County Reports and Maps Pleasants, Wood and Ritchie Counties BY G. P. GRIMSLEY I. C. WHITE, State Geologist QE '77 f)SPS J THE ACHE PUBLISHING COMPANY PRINTERS AND BINDERS MOROANTOWN 1910 GEOLOGICAL SURVEY COMMISSION. WILLIAM E. GLASSCOCK President GOVERNOR OF WEST VIRGINIA. E. L. LONG Vice President TREASURER OE WEST VIRGINIA. ARCHIBALD MOORE Secretary PRESIDENT OF STATE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE. D. B. PURINTON Treasurer PRESIDENT OF WEST VIRGINIA UNIVERSITY. JAMES H. STEWART Executive Officer DIRECTOR STATE AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION. SCIENTIFIC STAFF. I. C. WHITE State Geologist SUPERINTENDENT OF THE SURVEY. G. P. GRIMSLEY Assistant Geologist RAY V. HENNEN Assistant Geologist C. E. KREBS Assistant Geologist D: B. REGER Temporary Field Assistant A. B. BROOKS Forester B. H. HITE Chief Chemist J. B. KRAK Assistant Chemist EARL M. HENNEN Chief Clerk J. L. WILLIAMS Stenographer LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL. To His Excellency, Hon. William E. Glasscock, Governor of West Virginia, and President of the State Geological and Economic Survey Commission : the Detailed Sir : — I have the honor to transmit herewith Report of Prof. G. P. Grimsley on the counties of Pleasants, Wood and Ritchie, together with the topographic, geologic, and soil maps covering the entire area of the three counties in single sheets. These maps should prove of great value to every inter- est, and especially to that of agriculture. Aside from the vast oil and gas fields that have been developed in this area, the de- scription of which is so well set forth by Prof.
    [Show full text]
  • Seasonal Movements of Muskellunge in North Bend Lake, West Virginia
    Seasonal Movements of Muskellunge in North Bend Lake, West Virginia Scott F. Morrison, West Virginia Division of Natural Resources, 2311 Ohio Avenue, Parkersburg, WV 26101 Lila H. Warren, West Virginia Division of Natural Resources, 2006 Robert C. Byrd Drive, Beckley, WV 25801 Abstract: North Fork Hughes River, West Virginia, is a native muskellunge (Esox masquinongy) stream and is impounded by North Bend Lake, a 12.4-km long, 123-ha impoundment that serves as an important brood source for the West Virginia Division of Natural Resources. Muskellunge movement was monitored from 26 March 2010 through 2 January 2014 to monitor seasonal movements and to verify muskellunge migration through the outlet struc- ture of the dam. Twenty-four fish were collected using pulsed DC boat-mounted electrofishing equipment and surgically implanted with acoustic trans- mitters. Six submersible data loggers were stationed throughout the lake. Data logger data were downloaded monthly throughout the study, resulting in 1,256,046 detections of implanted fish. Seasonal movement of marked fish was consistent during the four years of the study. Most fish moved throughout the entire length of the lake, and seven implanted fish left the lake through the outlet structure of the dam. Fish occupied the upper half of North Bend Lake in spring, and spent the summer and winter in the lower half of the lake. Fish occupied the lower lake in early and late fall, but exhibited a collective movement to the upper lake in October. Based on their upstream movements in early spring, muskellunge appeared to use the upper areas of the lake for spawning purposes.
    [Show full text]
  • 8632 Federal Register / Vol
    8632 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 30 / Tuesday, February 14, 2012 / Rules and Regulations DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Species Information are swollen, turned forward and inward, and extended above the hingeline Rayed Bean Fish and Wildlife Service (Cummings and Mayer 1992, p. 162). The rayed bean is a small mussel, Beak sculpture consists of three or four 50 CFR Part 17 usually less than 1.5 inches (in) (3.8 faint, double-looped bars (Cummings centimeters (cm)) in length (Cummings and Mayer 1992, p. 162; Parmalee and [Docket No. FWS–R3–ES–2010–0019; and Mayer 1992, p. 142; Parmalee and Bogan 1998, p. 108). The anterior end of 4500030113] Bogan 1998, p. 244; West et al. 2000, p. the shell is rounded, and the posterior 248). The shell outline is elongate or end is truncated, highly so in females. ovate in males and elliptical in females, RIN 1018–AV96 The posterior ridge is prominent, being and moderately inflated in both sexes, high and rounded, while the posterior Endangered and Threatened Wildlife but more so in females (Parmalee and slope is widely flattened. The posterior and Plants; Determination of Bogan 1998, p. 244). The valves are ridge and slope in females is covered Endangered Status for the Rayed Bean thick and solid. The anterior end is with fine ridges and grooves, and the and Snuffbox Mussels Throughout rounded in females and bluntly pointed posterioventral shell edge is finely Their Ranges in males (Cummings and Mayer 1992, p. toothed (Cummings and Mayer 1992, p. 142). Females are generally smaller than 162).
    [Show full text]
  • Threatened and Endangered Species Distributions
    Status and Distribution of Threatened and Endangered Species (Updated July 2017) STATUS COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME E = Endangered DISTRIBUTION T = Threatened MAMMALS May occur throughout the entire state. However, this species may be extinct or extirpated and there Cougar, eastern Felis concolor cougar E have been no documented, verified occurrences in WV in over 100 years. May occur throughout the state. Known hibernacula (caves or abandoned mine portals) in Fayette, Greenbrier, Mercer, Monroe, Pendleton, Pocahontas, Preston, Randolph, and Tucker Counties. The Indiana bat Myotis sodalis E Indiana bat may occupy summer habitat throughout the entire state. Maternity activity confirmed in Brooke, Boone, Fayette, Ohio, Tucker, and Wetzel Counties. Critical habitat: Hellhole Cave, Pendleton County. Known summer or winter caves located in Grant, Pendleton, Randolph, Tucker and Counties. Also known to utilize abandoned mine portals in Fayette and Tucker Counties. May also occur in mine Corynorhinus (=Plecotus) portals and caves throughout the state, particularly in Hardy, Kanawha, Mercer, Monroe, Nicholas, Virginia big-eared bat E townsendii virginianus Preston, Raleigh, Summers, and Wyoming Counties. Critical habitat: Hellhole Cave, Cave Mountain Cave, Hoffman School Cave, and Sinnitt/Thorn Mountain Cave, Pendleton County; Cave Hollow/Arbogast Cave, Tucker County. Occurs statewide. Hibernacula found in Pocahontas, Randolph, Tucker, Summers, Kanawha, Fayette, Raleigh, Preston, Hardy, Pendleton, Greenbrier, Monroe, Mercer, Grant, Mineral, Logan, Boone, Northern long-eared bat Myotis septentrionalis T Lincoln, and Marion Counties. Known use summer roosts found in Doddridge, Wetzel, Harrison, Lewis, Ritchie, Tucker, Greenbrier, Marshall, Summers, Fayette, Webster, Nicholas, and Braxton Counties. This species has been documented in Logan and Pendleton County, but it may use caves, abandoned Gray Bat Myotis grisescens E mine portals, or bridges, in Wayne, Cabell, Lincoln, Kanawha, Boone, Fayette, Raleigh, Summers, Monroe, Mercer, McDowell, Wyoming, or Mingo Counties.
    [Show full text]