DOCSLIB.ORG

Species Status Assessment Report for the Longsolid (Fusconaia Subrotunda)

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Species Status Assessment Report for the Longsolid (Fusconaia subrotunda) Photo credit: Dick Biggins/Service October 2018 Version 1.3 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Region 4 Atlanta, GA Primary Contributors • Andrew Henderson - Asheville Field Office, Lead Biologist (Region 4) • Heidi Crowell - Pacific Southwest Regional Office, SAT Project Manager (Region 8) • Gary Peeples - Asheville Field Office (Region 4) • Josh Hundley - Missouri Field Office (Region 3) Additional Contributors • Mark Endries - Asheville Field Office (Region 4) – mapping support • David Martinez - Oklahoma Field Office (Region 2) • Megan Kelhart - Headquarters Peer Reviewers ● Bob Butler (USFWS, retired) ● Dr. Nathan Johnson (USGS) ● Dr. Rusty Boyles (USGS) Contributors & Partner Agency Reviewers (underlined) • Leroy Koch, Angela Boyer, Stephanie Chance, Barbara Douglas, Bob Anderson, Jason Mays, Andy Ford, Tamara Smith, Lori Pruitt, Patty Morrison (retired), Jordan Richard, Rose Agbalog, Jennifer Pritchett (USFWS) • Chuck Howard, Tim Keeling (Tennessee Valley Authority) • Kierstin Carlson (Western Pennsylvania Conservancy) • Dr. David Smith, Steve Ahlstedt (retired) (US Geological Survey) • Art Bogan, Jamie Smith (NC Museum of Natural Sciences) • Jeremy Tiemann, Rachel Vinsel, Kevin Cummings (IL Natural History Survey) • Heidi Dunn, Emily Grossman (Ecological Specialists, Inc.) • Brian Watson, Karen Horodysky, Tim Lane (VA Department of Game and Inland Fisheries) • Dr. Paul Johnson, Jeff Garner, Michael Buntin, Todd Fobian, Ashley Peters (AL Department of Conservation & Natural Resources) • Gerry Dinkins (UT McClung Museum) • Greg Zimmermann (EnviroScience, Inc.) • John Spaeth, Mitchell Kriege (Environmental Solutions & Innovations) • Dr. Luke Etchison (NC Wildlife Resources Commission) • Mike Compton, Ian Horn (KY State Nature Preserves Commission) • Chad Lewis, Clarissa Lawliss (Lewis Environmental Consulting) • Nevin Welte (PA Boat and Fish Commission) • Rebecca Winterinnger (TRC, Inc.) • Tim Savidge, Tom Dickinson (Three Oaks Engineering) ii • Amy Mahar, Nick Conrad (NY Natural Heritage Program) • Darran Crabtree (NY Chapter The Nature Conservancy) • Debbie Wolschki (Ohio Natural Heritage Program) • Janet Clayton (WV Division of Natural Resources) • Jason Wisnewski (GA Deptartment of Natural Resources) • Brant Fisher (IN Department of Natural Resources) • Judy Ratcliff (NC Natural Heritage Program) • Charlie Morgan (Mainstream Commercial Divers, Inc.) • Dr. Monte McGregor, Keith Wethington (KY Department of Fish and Wildlife Resources) • Stuart McGregor (Geological Survey of AL) • Don Hubbs (TN Wildlife Resources Agency) • Dr. Mike Hoggarth (Otterbien College) • Dr. Braven Beaty (VA Chapter The Nature Conservancy) iii SUGGESTED CITATION: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service). 2018. Draft Species Status Assessment Report for the Longsolid Mussel (Fusconaia subrotunda), Version 1.X3. Asheville Ecological Services Field Office, Asheville, North Carolina. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS ACRONYMS USED viii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ix CHAPTER 1 - INTRODUCTION 13 1.1 Purpose of SSA 13 1.2 Species Basics - Taxonomy and Evolution 13 1.2.1 Taxonomy 16 1.3 Petition History 16 1.4 State Listing Status 17 CHAPTER 2 - METHODOLOGY AND DATA 18 2.1 SSA Framework 18 2.1.1 Species Needs 18 2.1.2 Current Species Condition 19 2.1.3 Future Species Condition 21 CHAPTER 3 - SPECIES BACKGROUND AND ECOLOGY 23 3.1 Physical Description 23 3.2 Genetics 24 3.3 Life History 24 3.4 Reproduction 26 CHAPTER 4 - RESOURCE NEEDS 28 4.1 Individual-level Resource Needs 28 4.1.1 Clean, Flowing Water 28 4.1.2 Appropriate Water Quality and Temperatures 29 4.1.3 In-Stream Sedimentation 30 4.1.4 Food and Nutrients 30 4.2 Population- and Species-level Needs 30 4.2.1 Connectivity of Aquatic Habitat 30 4.2.2 Dispersal-Adult Abundance and Distribution 31 4.2.3 Host Fish 31 4.3 Uncertainties 31 4.4 Summary of Resource Needs 32 CHAPTER 5 - CURRENT CONDITIONS, ABUNDANCE AND DISTRIBUTION 34 5.1 Historical Conditions For Context 34 5.2 Current Population Abundance, Trends, and Distribution 37 5.3 Estimated Viability of Longsolid Mussel Based on Current Conditions 40 v 5.3.1 Resiliency 40 5.3.2 Representation 44 5.3.3 Redundancy 45 5.4 Uncertainties of Current Condition 45 CHAPTER 6 - FACTORS INFLUENCING VIABILITY 46 6.1 Habitat Degradation or Loss 48 6.1.1 Development/Urbanization 48 6.1.2 Transportation 50 6.1.3 Contaminants 53 6.1.4 Agricultural Activities 57 6.1.4.1 Nutrient Pollution 57 6.1.4.2 Pumping for Irrigation 57 6.1.4.3 Agriculture Exemptions from Permit Requirements 57 6.1.4.4 Agricultural Activities Summary 58 6.1.5 Dams and Barriers 59 6.1.6 Changing Climate Conditions 63 6.1.7 Resource Extraction 65 6.1.7.1 Coal Mining 65 6.1.7.2 Natural Gas Extraction 66 6.1.7.3 Gravel Mining/Dredging 67 6.1.7.4 Resource Extraction Summary 67 6.1.8 Forest Conversion 68 6.2 Invasive and Non-native Species 70 6.3 Harvest and Overutilization 73 6.4 Genetic Isolation and Displacement 74 6.5 Factors Currently Believed To Have Limited Effects on Longsolid Populations 76 6.5.1 Host Fishes 76 6.5.2 Enigmatic Population Declines 77 6.5.3 Parasites 77 6.5.4 Predation 78 6.6 Overall Summary of Factors Affecting the Species 78 CHAPTER 7 - FUTURE CONDITIONS 79 7.1 Future Scenario Considerations 80 7.2 Future Scenarios 80 7.3 Scenario 1 82 7.3.1 Resiliency 86 vi 7.3.2 Representation 87 7.3.3 Redundancy 87 7.4 Scenario 2 87 7.4.1 Resiliency 91 7.4.2 Representation 92 7.4.3 Redundancy 92 7.5 Scenario 3 92 7.5.1 Resiliency 96 7.5.2 Representation 97 7.5.3 Redundancy 97 CHAPTER 8 - OVERALL SYNTHESIS 98 LITERATURE CITED 104 APPENDIX A—SUMMARY OF EXTANT POPULATIONS AND THEIR ESTIMATED SIZE. 134 APPENDIX B - FORMER CONTIGUOUS POPULATIONS AND MANAGEMENT UNITS, NOW CONSIDERED EXTIRPATED, ACROSS THE LONGSOLID RANGE. 158 APPENDIX C—MAPS DEPICTING THE 60 LONGSOLID MUSSEL POPULATIONS WITHIN MANAGEMENT UNITS ACROSS THEIR CURRENT RANGE. 166 APPENDIX D—ESTIMATES OF MAGNITUDE AND IMMEDIACY OF POTENTIAL THREATS NEGATIVELY INFLUENCING THE VIABILITY OF LONGSOLID. 167 vii ACRONYMS USED Act Endangered Species Act NHEP New Hampshire Estuaries ADCNR Alabama Department of Project Conservation and Natural NHP Natural Heritage Program Resources NOAA National Oceanic and AMD acid mine drainage Atmospheric Administration ANHP Alabama National Heritage NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Program Elimination System ANS aquatic nuisance species NPS National Park Service ARA active river area NWR National Wildlife Refuge BMP best management practices ODNR Ohio Department of Natural CAFO Concentrated Animal Feeding Resources Operations OWC organic wastewater contaminants CBD Center for Biological Diversity PANHP Pennsylvania National Heritage CWA Clean Water Act Program CWP Center for Watershed Protection PDEP Pennsylvania Department of DNR Department of Natural Resources Environmental Protection EPA U.S. Environmental Protection PPM parts per million Agency RM river mile ESI Ecological Specialists, Inc. ROW right-of-way FPG Forest Practices Guidelines RRI Reservoir Release Improvement FR Federal Register Service U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service HUC Hydrologic unit codes SMCRA Surface and Mining Control and INHS Illinois Natural History Survey Reclamation Act of 1977 KDEP Kentucky Department for SSA Species Status Assessment Environmental Protection SWAP State Wildlife Action Plan KSNPC Kentucky State Nature Preserves TAN total ammonia-nitrogen Commission TDEC Tennessee Department of KYDOW Kentucky Division of Water Environment and Conservation KDFW Kentucky Department of Fish & TNC The Nature Conservancy Wildlife Resources TSS total suspended solids LEC Lewis Environmental TVA Tennessee Valley Authority Consulting TWRA Tennessee Wildlife Resources MU Management Unit Agency NCASI National Council for Air and USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Stream Improvement USFS U.S. Forest Service NCFA North Carolina Forestry USGS U.S. Geological Survey Association VDGIF Virginia Department of Game NCNHP North Carolina National Heritage and Inland Fisheries Program WVDEP West Virginia Department of NCMNS North Carolina Museum of Environmental Protection Natural Sciences WVDNR West Virginia Division of NCWRC North Carolina Wildlife Natural Resources Resources Commission NGO non-governmental organization viii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY In 1831, Isaac Lea described the Longsolid, a medium-sized mussel, up to 5 inches (125 millimeters (mm) in size, which can be long-lived-potentially up to 50 years. It is found in small streams to large rivers (such as the Ohio River mainstem), and prefers a mixture of sand, gravel, and cobble substrates. The Longsolid is historically known from 12 states, though now only occurs in nine. It is currently found in three major river basins: the Ohio (where is most prevalent), Cumberland (where it is rarest), and Tennessee, it is considered extirpated from the Great Lakes basin. Known populations have declined in number from 162 historically to 60 today. It has suffered impacts from negative influences to aquatic species commonly found in the central and eastern U.S. including habitat fragmentation from dams and other barriers; habitat loss; degraded water quality from chemical contamination and erosion from poorly managed development, agriculture, mining, and timber operations; direct mortality from dredging and harvest; and the proliferation of invasive species, such as the zebra mussel. Projections 50 to 70 years into the future indicate that the number of populations could remain at 60 or drop to as low as 16, depending on the variety of considerations
Recommended publications
  • Volume II Watts Bar Land Plan Amendment

    Volume II Watts Bar Land Plan Amendment

    WATTS BAR RESERVOIR LAND MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT VOLUME II July 2021 This page intentionally left blank Document Type: EA Administrative Record Index Field: Final EA Project Name: Watts Bar RLMP Amendment Project Number: 2017-5 WATTS BAR RESERVOIR Loudon, Meigs, Rhea, and Roane Counties, Tennessee Land Management Plan Amendment VOLUME II Prepared by Tennessee Valley Authority July 2021 This page intentionally left blank Contents Table of Contents APPENDICES ............................................................................................................................II LIST OF TABLES .......................................................................................................................II LIST OF FIGURES .....................................................................................................................II ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ....................................................................................... III CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................. 1 1.1 Tennessee Valley Authority History .............................................................................. 2 1.2 Overview of TVA’s Mission and Environmental Policy ................................................... 3 1.2.1 TVA’s Mission ....................................................................................................... 3 1.2.2 Environmental Policy ...........................................................................................
  • For Siltation and Habitat Alteration in the Nolichucky River

    For Siltation and Habitat Alteration in the Nolichucky River

    TOTAL MAXIMUM DAILY LOAD (TMDL) For Siltation and Habitat Alteration In The Nolichucky River Watershed (HUC 06010108) Cocke, Greene, Hamblen, Hawkins, Jefferson, Unicoi, and Washington, Counties, Tennessee FINAL (Modified) Prepared by: Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation Division of Water Pollution Control 6th Floor L & C Tower 401 Church Street Nashville, TN 37243-1534 April 18, 2008 Approved by: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IV February 26, 2008 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................ 1 2.0 WATERSHED DESCRIPTION .......................................................................................... 1 3.0 PROBLEM DEFINITION .................................................................................................... 5 4.0 TARGET IDENTIFICATION ............................................................................................. 33 5.0 WATER QUALITY ASSESSMENT AND DEVIATION FROM TARGET ......................... 36 6.0 SOURCE ASSESSMENT ................................................................................................ 36 6.1 Point Sources ............................................................................................................... 38 6.2 Nonpoint Sources ......................................................................................................... 45 7.0 DEVELOPMENT OF TOTAL MAXIMUM DAILY LOADS ..............................................
  • Chapter 9 Water Resources

    Chapter 9 Water Resources

    Chapter 9 Water Resources 9.1 River Basin Hydrologic Units Under the federal system, the Hiwassee River basin is made up of hydrologic areas referred to as cataloging units (USGS 8-digit hydrologic units). Cataloging units are further divided into smaller watershed units (14-digit hydrologic units or local watersheds) that are used for smaller scale planning like that done by NCEEP (Chapter 11). There are 22 local watershed units in the basin, all of which are listed in Table 13. Table 13 Hydrologic Subdivisions in the Hiwassee River Basin USGS Watershed Name USGS DWQ Subbasin 8-Digit and 14-Digit Hydrologic Units 6-Digit Codes Hydrologic Major Tributaries Local Watersheds* Units Hiwassee River 04-05-01 and 04-05-02 06020002 050010, 050020, 060010, 070010, 071010, Chatuge Lake 04-05-01 090010, 100050, 090020, 100010, 100020, Hiwassee Lake, Apalachia Lake 04-05-02 100030, 100040, 110010, 170010, 170020, Valley River, Nottely River 04-05-02 170030, 180010, 180020, 180030, 210010 Ocoee Drainage 04-05-02 06020003 030010, 100010 • Numbers from the 8-digit and 14-digit column make the full 14-digit HU. 9.2 Minimum Streamflow Conditions may be placed on dam operations specifying mandatory minimum releases in order to maintain adequate quantity and quality of water in the length of a stream affected by an impoundment. One of the purposes of the Dam Safety Law is to ensure maintenance of minimum streamflows below dams. The Division of Water Resources (DWR), in conjunction with the Wildlife Resources Commission (WRC), recommends conditions related to release of flows to satisfy minimum instream flow requirements.
  • Checklist of Fish and Invertebrates Listed in the CITES Appendices

    Checklist of Fish and Invertebrates Listed in the CITES Appendices

    JOINTS NATURE \=^ CONSERVATION COMMITTEE Checklist of fish and mvertebrates Usted in the CITES appendices JNCC REPORT (SSN0963-«OStl JOINT NATURE CONSERVATION COMMITTEE Report distribution Report Number: No. 238 Contract Number/JNCC project number: F7 1-12-332 Date received: 9 June 1995 Report tide: Checklist of fish and invertebrates listed in the CITES appendices Contract tide: Revised Checklists of CITES species database Contractor: World Conservation Monitoring Centre 219 Huntingdon Road, Cambridge, CB3 ODL Comments: A further fish and invertebrate edition in the Checklist series begun by NCC in 1979, revised and brought up to date with current CITES listings Restrictions: Distribution: JNCC report collection 2 copies Nature Conservancy Council for England, HQ, Library 1 copy Scottish Natural Heritage, HQ, Library 1 copy Countryside Council for Wales, HQ, Library 1 copy A T Smail, Copyright Libraries Agent, 100 Euston Road, London, NWl 2HQ 5 copies British Library, Legal Deposit Office, Boston Spa, Wetherby, West Yorkshire, LS23 7BQ 1 copy Chadwick-Healey Ltd, Cambridge Place, Cambridge, CB2 INR 1 copy BIOSIS UK, Garforth House, 54 Michlegate, York, YOl ILF 1 copy CITES Management and Scientific Authorities of EC Member States total 30 copies CITES Authorities, UK Dependencies total 13 copies CITES Secretariat 5 copies CITES Animals Committee chairman 1 copy European Commission DG Xl/D/2 1 copy World Conservation Monitoring Centre 20 copies TRAFFIC International 5 copies Animal Quarantine Station, Heathrow 1 copy Department of the Environment (GWD) 5 copies Foreign & Commonwealth Office (ESED) 1 copy HM Customs & Excise 3 copies M Bradley Taylor (ACPO) 1 copy ^\(\\ Joint Nature Conservation Committee Report No.
  • Milebymile.Com Personal Road Trip Guide Alabama United States Highway #72 "Alabama/Mississippi State Line to Tennessee/Alabama State Line"

    Milebymile.Com Personal Road Trip Guide Alabama United States Highway #72 "Alabama/Mississippi State Line to Tennessee/Alabama State Line"

    MileByMile.com Personal Road Trip Guide Alabama United States Highway #72 "Alabama/Mississippi State Line to Tennessee/Alabama State Line" Miles ITEM SUMMARY 0.0 Mississippi/Alabama State State Line Road, This is where United States Highway #72 enters Line Alabama from Mississippi, after traversing Alabama west to east, ends at Alabama/Tennessee border, east of Bridgeport, Alabama along Tennessee River. Altitude: 515 feet 1.3 Allsboro Road/Co. Rd 1 Allsboro Road/ County Road 1, Mangerum Road, Community of Malone, Alabama, Altitude: 531 feet 2.6 Asphalt Rock Road : Asphalt Rock Road, Mangerum Annex, Community of Margerum, Mangerum, AL Alabama, Riverton Rose Trail runs along Goose Pond Slough, Buzzard Roost Park, Altitude: 499 feet 4.8 Junction of US #72 Community of Lime Kiln, Alabama. East to Buzzard Roost, Alabama Alabama Route #2 ( Altitude: 449 feet Margerum Road) : Lime Kiln 5.7 Natchez-Trace Access Road Natchez Trace Access Road, Natchez-Trace Parkway, to, Community of Georgetown, Alabama, along the Tennessee River, Natchez-Trace Parkway Colbert Ferry Park, Altitude: 479 feet 6.2 Cedar Lane/Co Rd 7 Cedar Lane / County Road 7, Barton Hall, also known as the Cunningham Plantation, an antebellum plantation house, built in 1840s near present day Cherokee, Alabama, located south of U.S.Route #72 near the former town of Buzzard Roost, Alabama, The house is a declared a National Historic Landmark. Community of Mt. Hester, Alabama, Community of Chisca, Alabama, Altitude: 518 feet 8.1 Main Street : Cherokee, AL Main Street, County Road 21, Cherokee, Alabama, a town in Colbert County, Alabama, Cherokee Public Library, Key Underwood Coon Dog Memorial Graveyard, Stanfield-Worley Bluff Shelter, Barton Hall, Buzzard Roost, Riverton Rose Trail are some of the attractions around Cherokee, Alabama.
  • Tva 2016- Tn5103--Tva

    Tva 2016- Tn5103--Tva

    TVA - Wheeler Tennessee Valley Authority About TVA Newsroom Careers Index Energy Environment Economic Development You are here: Home / Energy / Our Power System / Hydroelectric Share this page Wheeler Wheeler Dam in northern Alabama has 11 generating units with a net dependable capacity of 361 megawatts. The reservoir helps cover the Muscle Shoals, rock formations that had blocked navigation on the Tennessee River, which means the lake level can vary only by a matter of feet from winter to summer. Wheeler Reservoir is named for Joseph Wheeler, a general in the army of the Confederacy, leader of U.S. volunteers in the Spanish-American War and U.S. congressman. Wheeler is one of nine reservoirs that create a stairway of navigable water on the Tennessee River from Knoxville, Tennessee, to Paducah, Kentucky. Wheeler, along with Wilson and Pickwick reservoirs downstream, helps cover the Muscle Shoals. Today, Wheeler Reservoir is a major recreation and tourist center. Along with camping, boating and fishing, visitors enjoy the Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge several miles upstream from the dam. The refuge features Alabama’s only significant concentration of wintering Canada geese. Barge traffic on Wheeler has made it one of the major centers along the Tennessee waterway for shoreline industrial development. Private industry has invested about $1.3 billion in the waterfront plants and terminals at Decatur, Alabama, the largest city on the reservoir. Wheeler: Facts + Figures Construction of Wheeler Dam began in 1933 and was completed in 1936. It was the second dam TVA built, finished only seven months after Norris. https://www.tva.gov/Energy/Our-Power-System/Hydroelectric/Wheeler-Reservoir[6/21/2016 7:56:56 AM] TVA - Wheeler Wheeler Dam is 72 feet high and stretches 6,342 feet across the Tennessee River.
  • Swan Creek Watershed Management Plan

    Swan Creek Watershed Management Plan

    Swan Creek Watershed Management Plan Prepared by Funded by June 2016 Swan Creek Watershed Table of Contents Page 1 Executive Summary …………………….. Page 3 Introduction ………………………………. Page 3 Physical Conditions……………………… Page 3 Location…………………………………… Page 3 Climate………….………………………… Page 4 Geology…………………………………… Page 4 Physiographic Features ………………… Page 5 Soils……………………………………….. Page 8 Topography………………………………. Page 9 Wetlands………………………….………. Page 10 Ecoregion…………………………………. Page 12 Aquifers ..……………………………….… Page 13 Biological Resources……………………. Page 16 Hydrology…………………………………. Page 16 Farm Demographics……………………... Page 17 Cultural Resources………………………. Page 21 Land Use………………………….….…… Page 23 Fish & Wildlife Classifications……...…… Page 24 Pollution Problems & Causes………….. Page 25 Point Source Pollution…………………... Page 28 Non-Point Pollution………………………. Page 30 CAFO’s……………………………………. Page 31 BMP Potential Implementation Sites…… Page 39 BMP Load Reduction Calculations…….. Page 41 Budgetary Information…………...………. Page 42 Technical Assistance Information………. Page 45 Implementation Schedule……………….. Page 46 Monitoring & Assessment……………….. Page 46 Swan Creek Monitoring Data Page 47 Swan Creek Potential Land Use Map…. Page 61 Swan Creek BMP Location Map……….. Page 62 Partnership Information………………….. Page 63 This project was fully or partially funded by the Alabama Department of Environmental Management through a Clean Water Act Section 604(b) grant provided by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency - Region 4. Executive Summary The Swan Creek watershed is an approximate 55.2 square mile area with headwaters located in Limestone County, near the city of Athens, flowing southward for a length of 17.81 miles where it empties into the Wheeler Lake, part of the Tennessee River drainage basin. Swan Creek (HUC 06030002-390) has a length of impairment starting south of the city of Athens flowing in an expanse of 8.2 miles at its terminus with the Tennessee River.
  • REPORT FOR: Preliminary Analysis for Identification, Distribution, And

    REPORT FOR: Preliminary Analysis for Identification, Distribution, And

    REPORT FOR: Preliminary Analysis for Identification, Distribution, and Conservation Status of Species of Fusconaia and Pleurobema in Arkansas Principle Investigators: Alan D. Christian Department of Biological Sciences, Arkansas State University, P.O. Box 599, State University, Arkansas 72467; [email protected]; Phone: (870)972-3082; Fax: (870)972-2638 John L. Harris Department of Biological Sciences, Arkansas State University, P.O. Box 599, State University, Arkansas 72467 Jeanne Serb Department of Ecology, Evolution, and Organismal Biology, Iowa State University, 251 Bessey Hall, Ames, Iowa 50011 Graduate Research Assistant: David M. Hayes, Department of Environmental Science, P.O. Box 847, State University, Arkansas 72467: [email protected] Kentaro Inoue, Department of Environmental Science, P.O. Box 847, State University, Arkansas 72467: [email protected] Submitted to: William R. Posey Malacologist and Commercial Fisheries Biologist, AGFC P.O. Box 6740 Perrytown, Arkansas 71801 April 2008 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY There are currently 13 species of Fusconaia and 32 species of Pleurobema recognized in the United States and Canada. Twelve species of Pleurobema and two species of Fusconaia are listed as Threatened or Endangered. There are 75 recognized species of Unionidae in Arkansas; however this number may be much higher due to the presence of cryptic species, many which may reside within the Fusconaia /Pleurobema complex. Currently, three species of Fusconaia and three species of Pleurobema are recognized from Arkansas. The true conservation status of species within these genera cannot be determined until the taxonomic identity of populations is confirmed. The purpose of this study was to begin preliminary analysis of the species composition of Fusconaia and Pleurobema in Arkansas and to determine the phylogeographic relationships within these genera through mitochondrial DNA sequencing and conchological analysis.
  • Freshwater Mussel Survey of Clinchport, Clinch River, Virginia: Augmentation Monitoring Site: 2006

    Freshwater Mussel Survey of Clinchport, Clinch River, Virginia: Augmentation Monitoring Site: 2006

    Freshwater Mussel Survey of Clinchport, Clinch River, Virginia: Augmentation Monitoring Site: 2006 By: Nathan L. Eckert, Joe J. Ferraro, Michael J. Pinder, and Brian T. Watson Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries Wildlife Diversity Division October 28th, 2008 Table of Contents Introduction....................................................................................................................... 4 Objective ............................................................................................................................ 5 Study Area ......................................................................................................................... 6 Methods.............................................................................................................................. 6 Results .............................................................................................................................. 10 Semi-quantitative .................................................................................................. 10 Quantitative........................................................................................................... 11 Qualitative............................................................................................................. 12 Incidental............................................................................................................... 12 Discussion........................................................................................................................
  • Tennessee River (Tour)

    Tennessee River (Tour)

    LAR 553 – Fall 2016 River Tour DRAFT Itinerary tennessee river (tour) wednesday, September 7: 130 Depart for UTIA Research Station, Forks of the River (Confluence of French Broad/Holston Rivers) Lenoir City (River City, Ft. Loudoun Dam) Confluence of TN River and Clinch River (TVA Kingston Fossil Plant, Site of 2008 Coal Ash Spill) Spring City (River City, TVA Watts Bar Nuclear Facility + Decommissioned Fossil Plant) Calhoun TN (Hiwassee River City, Resolute Forrest Products Paper Mill) Chickamauga Dam (TVA Hydroelectric Facility) 700 Arrive at Chattanooga, TN (Dinner at 21st Century Waterfront, Overnight) thursday, September 8: 830 Meeting with River City Corporation (21st Century Waterfront Redevelopment Story) 1100 Lunch Meeting with Southeast Tennessee Development District (Rural Watershed Challenges) 130 Meeting with TN Aquarium Conservation Institute 330et Depart Chattanooga Raccoon Mountain TVA Hydro-electric Facility + TN River Gorge (Driving) Nickajack Reservoir Rest Area Guntersville, AL (River City +TVA Hydroelectric Facility) 600ct Huntsville, AL (River City, Overnight) friday, September 9: 800ct Driving Tours of Huntsville, Decatur, AL (River Cities) NASA Marshall Space Flight Center Lunch in Decatur, AL Wheeler Dam (TVA Hydroelectric Facility) Driving Tours of Florence, Muscle Shoals AL (River Cities) Pickwick Landing + Dam (TVY Hydroelectric Facility) Shiloh National Military Park 600 Crump/Savannah, TN, Dinner meeting with (former) State Representative Vance Dennis (River City, Overnight) saturday, September 10: 900 TN
  • Rg~ Tow Near Kingston 705 649

    Rg~ Tow Near Kingston 705 649

    bK~'~ ~HUIO '~U~A A~ U~ U7/Z1/j8 PAGe 3 PROJECT NAM~: WATT~ BAR (HYDRO) PROJECT NUMBER: 9 PHOTOGUPH SHEET PHOTOGRAPH FORMAT DATE NUMBER _ ~UflBEL___ nIL; __ __ _ __ __ __ _ __ _ __ CODE AV 981 WATTS BAR DAM 705 941 A.V 982 ____ WATTS BAR OAf! _ _ _ _ _ _ 705 941 AV 983 WATTS BAR DAM 705 941 .. Iy 964 WATTS SAR nOM 705 94' AV 985 WATTS BAR DAM 705 941 q av 986 WATTS eAR DAM 705 94' .. AV1016 WATTS BAR 705 142 .. AVl017 WATTS au 70S 142 AV1018 WATTS BAR 705 14Z .. 01019 WATTS BAR 705 142 If AV1020 WATTS BAR 70S 142 •• !Vl0ll WATTS BAR 105 142 AV1022 WATTS BAR 705 142 • . n1QZ3 WATIS BAR 705 142 IV1024 WATTS BAR 705 142 AV1025 _____ w..LTT.s_llR 705 U., • AV1167 WATTS BAR HYDRO 705 643 • Aylles WATTS BAR HYDRO 705 643 • AV1169 WATTS BA~ HYORO 705 643 • AVllZa WATTS eAR HYDRO 705 643 • AV1171 WATTS BAR HYDRO 705 643 • AVll72 _ __ llA.IiLBU DAM AND STEAM Pi ANT 705 643 • AV1173 WATTS BAR OAM AND STEAM PLANT 705 643 • AV1174 WATTS BAR DAM 705 643 • AV1539 6 WATTS !UR LOCK & DAM 705 649 • Ay1539 1 . WATTS BAR LOCK , DAM 705 649 • AV1539 8 WATTS ~AR LOCK ~ DAM 70S 6~9 • AY1519 , WATTS ,4R I PC! , nOM 705 649 • AV1539 11 WATTS BAR LOCK & DAM 705 649 AV1539 __1L _ nus au LOCK t DAM 705 649 .. AV1546 1 SPRING CITY, TENN. WATERFRONT 705 649 • AV1546 2 SPRING CITY, UriNe WATeRFRONT 705 649 • AV1546 1 SPRING CITY, TENN.
  • September 24, 2018

    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.