DOCSLIB.ORG

United States Department of the Interior

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
United States Department of the Interior United States Department of the Interior FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 110 South Amity Road, Suite 300 Conway, Arkansas 72032 IN REPLY REFER TO: Tel.: 501/513-4470 Fax: 501/513-4480 December 19, 2013 Liz Agpaoa, Regional Forester USDA Forest Service – Southern Region 1720 Peachtree Road NW Atlanta, Georgia 30309 Dear Ms. Agpaoa: This document transmits the United States Fish and Wildlife Service’s (Service) biological and conference opinions (BO/CO) based on our review of: 1) the USDA Forest Service – Ouachita National Forest (ONF) proposal regarding designation, operation, and maintenance of the Wolf Pen Gap Trail Complex; 2) its effects to the Arkansas fatmucket (Lampsilis powellii), spectaclecase (Cumberlandia monodonta), rabbitsfoot (Quadrula cylindrica cylindrica), freshwater mussels, and northern long-eared bat (Myotis septentrionalis); and 3) its effects to proposed critical habitat for rabbitsfoot. This BO has been prepared pursuant to section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (Act), as amended (16 U.S.C 1531 et seq.), and its implementing regulations (50 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) §402). Section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires federal agencies to consult with the Service to ensure any action authorized, funded, or carried out is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any federally listed species nor destroy or adversely modify critical habitat. This BO/CO is based on the best available scientific and commercial data including meetings, electronic mail and telephone correspondence with ONF officials, Service files, pertinent scientific literature, discussions with recognized species authorities, and other scientific sources. A complete administrative record is on file at the Arkansas Ecological Services Field Office. Consultation History In a letter dated February 21, 2008, ONF requested comments on the Travel Management Project. In a letter dated March 20, 2008, the Service’s Oklahoma Field Office provided general and species specific comments related to the Travel Management Project. The Service’s Arkansas Field Office provided comments in April, 2008. At a meeting on November 6, 2008, ONF presented a proposal to designate a system of roads and trails for public use of motorized vehicles, including off-highway vehicles. Service staff discussed threatened and endangered species concerns related to the Travel Management Project during the meeting. Service and ONF met again on August 5, 2009, and discussed Travel Management Project revisions. On August 20, 2009, ONF and Service conducted a site visit to Wolf Pen Gap (WPG) Trail Complex. On September 10, 2009, the Service received ONF’s Biological Assessment/Biological Evaluation – Terrestrial and Aquatic Wildlife for the Motor Vehicle Use Map (Travel Management Project). In a letter dated October 28, 2009, the Service concurred with ONF’s finding for federally listed species, except Arkansas fatmucket, affected by the proposed Travel Management Project (TMP) and associated Motor Vehicle Use Maps (MVUM). On November 30, 2009, the Service received ONF’s amendment to the Biological Assessment/Biological Evaluation – Terrestrial and Aquatic Wildlife for the Motor Vehicle Use Map. In a letter dated December 4, 2009, the Service concurred with ONF’s finding of “may affect, not likely to adversely affect” the Arkansas fatmucket for the proposed TMP and MVUM. On April 28, 2010, ONF informed Service WPG trail complex will be excluded from larger MVUM consultation and verbally requested to reinitiate consultation on WPG project. On May 19, 2010, the ONF, The Nature Conservancy (TNC), and Service met to discuss issues related to WPG project. On May 20 – 22, 2010, ONF conducted a site visit to WPG Trail Complex with the Service and public. In a letter dated June 22, 2010, the Service provided comments to the ONF on their development of short-term and long- term plans for WPG. On September 16 and 30 and October 7, 2010, the ONF hosted public meetings in Mena, Arkansas. ONF and Service staff discussed ESA basics, including consultation process, freshwater mussel biology, effects of sediment to aquatic biota, and potential adverse effects to mussels and fishes from an unsustainable WPG Trail Complex at the first meeting. At the second meeting, ONF presented their interim management plan (IMP) and announced short- and long-term proposed actions, including future planning steps, for the WPG project. At the third meeting, the ONF discussed community issues related to WPG project. Service staff was in attendance for all public meetings. In a letter dated October 13, 2010, the Service provided comments to ONF regarding WPG IMP and associated adverse effects to Arkansas fatmucket. On December 10, 2010, ONF and Service staff met to discuss issues related to WPG project. On July 19, 2011, ONF hosted a public meeting to present WPG project updates and overview of Trails Unlimited report. Service staff was in attendance. On August 26, 2011, ONF conducted a site visit to WPG Trail Complex to view best management practice (BMP) work. Service, TNC, congressional delegation representatives, and public were in attendance. On September 23, 2011, ONF presented and discussed preliminary water quality data with the Service. At a meeting on April 5, 2012, ONF briefed the Service on preliminary alternatives. In a letter dated July 30, 2012, ONF invited informal public interaction on eight preliminary 2 alternatives for WPG project. ONF contacted the Service via telephone on July 31, 2012, to summarize ONF time lines for completing NEPA and ESA consultation. In a letter dated November 5, 2012, ONF provided an update on review of 78 public responses to their July 30, 2012, letter and new issues identified for preliminary alternatives. ONF met with the Service and TNC on December 19, 2012, January 22 and March 26, 2013, to discuss sediment monitoring and progress with the WPG project. During a site visit to the WPG Trail Complex on June 12, 2013, ONF, Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ), TNC, and Service staff discussed wet weather management and turbidity monitoring. At a meeting on June 24, 2013, the ONF delivered their draft environmental assessment for the WPG project and discussed alternatives with the Service. On July 1, 2013, ONF, USGS, TNC, and Service staff discussed sediment monitoring for the WPG project. At a meeting on July 24, 2013, ONF and Service staff discussed biological data presented in Clingenpeel (2012a). ONF disclosed an internal review of the report and subsequently provided via email data from their Basin Area Stream Surveys and sediment models for individual trails in WPG trail complex. On August 9, 2013, the Service received the ONF’s biological assessment for the WPG project and accompanying letter initiating formal consultation. In a letter dated August 9, 2013, the Service concurred with the ONF’s determination that the proposed WPG project is likely to adversely affect the Arkansas fatmucket, spectaclecase, and rabbitsfoot. The formal consultation began August 9, 2013, the date the Service concurred with ONF’s adverse effect determination. In November, 2013, the ONF and Service agreed to include the proposed endangered northern long-eared bat as species potentially affected by the proposed activities in the WPG Trail Complex. On November 20, 2013, the Service provided to the ONF a copy of the draft BO for its review and comment. The Service met with ONF staff on December 5, 2013, to address their comments on the draft BO. The Service issued its final BO on December, 19, 2013, concluding formal consultation. BIOLOGICAL AND CONFERENCE OPINION DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION As defined in the Service’s section 7 regulations (50 CFR 402.02), “action” means “all activities or programs of any kind authorized, funded, or carried out, in whole or in part, by Federal agencies in the United States or upon the high seas.” The “action area” is defined as “all areas to be affected directly or indirectly by the Federal action and not merely the immediate area involved in the action.” The direct and indirect effects of the actions and activities must be considered in conjunction with the effects of other past and present Federal, State, or private activities, as well as the cumulative effects of State or 3 private activities within the action reasonably certain to occur in the foreseeable future and which would not trigger a separate section 7 consultation. The 2005 U.S. Department of Agriculture final rule for Travel Management; Designated Routes and Areas for Motor Vehicle Use requires designation of roads, trails, and areas open to motor vehicle use (70 Federal Register 68290). The Ouachita National Forest (ONF) proposes changes to the existing system of roads and motorized trails for public use, including off-highway vehicles (OHV), in Wolf Pen Gap (WPG). The proposed changes to WPG Trail Complex also include changes to motorized use designations, route closures and obliteration, route relocations, and new route construction. The proposed action, also known as Alternative I or modified OHV season of use, includes the following actions: 1. User created trails and old route footprints (resulting from proposed closures or relocations) will be obliterated and the forest floor restored to a natural condition. 2. Stabilize shale pit and watershed by reshaping to redirect and disperse channeled surface water flow, install natural erosion barriers and rock on user- created trails, and prepare beds for planting shortleaf pine, black locust, and native grasses. 3. Install 269 stream crossing improvement structures, including 263 culverts, cement planks or arch culverts, three trail bridges, and three road bridges. 4. Install four administrative and 11 wet weather management gates. 5. Construct foot trail to Hawk’s Gap Overlook. 6. Equip two vistas with picnic tables. 7. Build pavilion with two picnic tables at North Trailhead. 8. Obliterate and relocate “warm-up” trail located at West Trailhead parking lot. 9. Retain old footprint of Forest Service Road 243 for administrative use (maintenance level one).
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Verdeca 011718 Draft Hi Yield Soy Bean EA
    Verdeca Petition (17-223-01p) for Determination of Nonregulated Status for HB4 Soybean (Event IND- 00410-5) Genetically Engineered for Increased Yield and Resistance to Glufosinate-Ammonium OECD Unique Identifier: IND-00410-5 Final Environmental Assessment May 2019 Agency Contact Cindy Eck Biotechnology Regulatory Services 4700 River Road USDA, APHIS Riverdale, MD 20737 Fax: (301) 734-8669 The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, or marital or family status. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’S TARGET Center at (202) 720–2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, Room 326–W, Whitten Building, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20250–9410 or call (202) 720–5964 (voice and TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. Mention of companies or commercial products in this report does not imply recommendation or endorsement by the U.S. Department of Agriculture over others not mentioned. USDA neither guarantees nor warrants the standard of any product mentioned. Product names are mentioned solely to report factually on available data and to provide specific information. This publication reports research involving pesticides. All uses of pesticides must be registered by appropriate State and/or Federal agencies before they can be recommended. i ii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST OF FIGURES...................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Scaleshell Mussel Recovery Plan
    U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Scaleshell Mussel Recovery Plan (Leptodea leptodon) February 2010 Department of the Interior United States Fish and Wildlife Service Great Lakes – Big Rivers Region (Region 3) Fort Snelling, MN Cover photo: Female scaleshell mussel (Leptodea leptodon), taken by Dr. M.C. Barnhart, Missouri State University Disclaimer This is the final scaleshell mussel (Leptodea leptodon) recovery plan. Recovery plans delineate reasonable actions believed required to recover and/or protect listed species. Plans are published by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and sometimes prepared with the assistance of recovery teams, contractors, state agencies, and others. Objectives will be attained and any necessary funds made available subject to budgetary and other constraints affecting the parties involved, as well as the need to address other priorities. Recovery plans do not necessarily represent the views or the official positions or approval of any individuals or agencies involved in plan formulation, other than the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. They represent the official position of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service only after being signed by the Regional Director. Approved recovery plans are subject to modifications as dictated by new findings, changes in species status, and the completion of recovery actions. The plan will be revised as necessary, when more information on the species, its life history ecology, and management requirements are obtained. Literature citation: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2010. Scaleshell Mussel Recovery Plan (Leptodea leptodon). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Fort Snelling, Minnesota. 118 pp. Recovery plans can be downloaded from the FWS website: http://endangered.fws.gov i ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Many individuals and organizations have contributed to our knowledge of the scaleshell mussel and work cooperatively to recover the species.
    [Show full text]
  • Ouachita Mountains Ecoregional Assessment December 2003
    Ouachita Mountains Ecoregional Assessment December 2003 Ouachita Ecoregional Assessment Team Arkansas Field Office 601 North University Ave. Little Rock, AR 72205 Oklahoma Field Office 2727 East 21st Street Tulsa, OK 74114 Ouachita Mountains Ecoregional Assessment ii 12/2003 Table of Contents Ouachita Mountains Ecoregional Assessment............................................................................................................................i Table of Contents ........................................................................................................................................................................iii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY..............................................................................................................1 INTRODUCTION..........................................................................................................................3 BACKGROUND ...........................................................................................................................4 Ecoregional Boundary Delineation.............................................................................................................................................4 Geology..........................................................................................................................................................................................5 Soils................................................................................................................................................................................................6
    [Show full text]
  • Arkansas Fatmucket (Lampsilis Powellii I
    Arkansas Fatmucket (Lampsilis powellii I. Lea, 1852) 5-Year Review: Summary and Evaluation U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Southeast Region Arkansas Ecological Services Field Office Conway, Arkansas 5-YEAR REVIEW Arkansas Fatmucket (Lampsilis powellii I. Lea, 1852) I. GENERAL INFORMATION A. Methodology used to complete review Public notice of the initiation of this 5-year review was given in the Federal Register on September 8, 2006 (71 FR 53127-53129) and a 60 day comment period was opened. During the comment period, we did not receive any additional information about Arkansas fatmucket (Lampsilis powelllii) other than specific information from biologists familiar with the species. This review was completed by the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s Arkansas Field Office. Arkansas fatmucket only occurs in the state of Arkansas. Literature and documents on file at the Arkansas Field Office were used for this review. All recommendations resulting from this review are a result of thoroughly reviewing the best available information on the Arkansas fatmucket and the reviewer’s expertise as one of the leading authorities on this species. Comments and suggestions regarding the review were received from Arkansas Field Office supervisors and peer reviews from outside the Service (see Appendix A). No part of the review was contracted to an outside party. B. Reviewers Lead Region – Southeast Region: Nikki Lamp, (404) 679-7118 Lead Field Office – Conway, Arkansas: Chris Davidson, (501) 513-4481 C. Background 1. Federal Register Notice initiating this review: September 8, 2006. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 5-Year Review of 14 Southeastern Species. (71 FR 53127) 2.
    [Show full text]
  • Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service
    Monday, November 9, 2009 Part III Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service 50 CFR Part 17 Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Review of Native Species That Are Candidates for Listing as Endangered or Threatened; Annual Notice of Findings on Resubmitted Petitions; Annual Description of Progress on Listing Actions; Proposed Rule VerDate Nov<24>2008 17:08 Nov 06, 2009 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4717 Sfmt 4717 E:\FR\FM\09NOP3.SGM 09NOP3 jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3 57804 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 215 / Monday, November 9, 2009 / Proposed Rules DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR October 1, 2008, through September 30, for public inspection by appointment, 2009. during normal business hours, at the Fish and Wildlife Service We request additional status appropriate Regional Office listed below information that may be available for in under Request for Information in 50 CFR Part 17 the 249 candidate species identified in SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION. General [Docket No. FWS-R9-ES-2009-0075; MO- this CNOR. information we receive will be available 9221050083–B2] DATES: We will accept information on at the Branch of Candidate this Candidate Notice of Review at any Conservation, Arlington, VA (see Endangered and Threatened Wildlife time. address above). and Plants; Review of Native Species ADDRESSES: This notice is available on Candidate Notice of Review That Are Candidates for Listing as the Internet at http:// Endangered or Threatened; Annual www.regulations.gov, and http:// Background Notice of Findings on Resubmitted endangered.fws.gov/candidates/ The Endangered Species Act of 1973, Petitions; Annual Description of index.html.
    [Show full text]
  • Little Rock Engineer's Club
    Mark Headley District 6 Engineer Little Rock Engineer’s Club Monday, December 16, 2019 Statewide Program Updates 2 Interstate Rehabilitation Program Completed Number of Projects: 47 Miles: 291 Amount (Millions): $1,027 Interstate Rehabilitation Program Under Construction Number of Projects: 5 Miles: 53 Amount (Millions): $287 Let To Contract Number of Projects: 52 Miles: 344 Amount (Millions): $1,314 Interstate Rehabilitation Program Scheduled Number of Projects: 27 Miles: 160 Amount (Millions): $219 Total Program Number of Projects: 79 Miles: 504 Amount (Millions): $1,533 Connecting Arkansas Program $175 Million Scheduled $533 Million $1.26 Billion Completed Under Construction Local Updates 7 Big Rock Interchange Completed 3 Projects $120 Million 30 Crossing Scheduled 1 Project 7 Miles Estimated $500-600 Million Interstate 30 Under Construction 6 Miles $187 Million Interstate 630 Under Construction 1 Project 2 Miles $87 Million U.S. Highway 67 Completed 1 Project 1 Interchange $26 Million Scheduled 1 Project 2 Interchanges Estimated $30-40 Million U.S. Highway 67 Completed 4 Projects 8.4 Miles $137 Million Scheduled 1 Project 2 Miles Estimated $75-100 Million U.S. Highway 70 Completed 18 Miles $79 Million Arkansas Highway 10 Completed Scheduled Programmed 1 Project 1 Project 1 Project 0 Miles 2 Miles 1 Miles $23 Million Estimated $15-20 Million Estimated $50-75 Million Interstate 40 Completed 1 Project $15 Million Arkansas Highway 9 Completed 17 Miles $9 Million Arkansas Highway 5 Under Construction 2 Miles $17 Million Arkansas Highway 5 Scheduled 1 Mile Estimated $5-10 Million Arkansas Highway 5 Completed Scheduled Programmed 3 Projects 2 Projects 1 Project 26 Miles 18 Miles 1 Mile $9 Million Estimated $15 Million Estimated $10-15 Million Bridge Replacement – Pulaski Co.
    [Show full text]
  • Environmental Assessment
    Job Number 012318 Tier 3 Categorical Exclusion Page 1 of 3 The Environmental Division reviewed the referenced project and has determined it falls within the definition of the Tier 3 Categorical Exclusion as defined by the ARDOT/FHWA Memorandum of Agreement on the processing of Categorical Exclusions. The following information is included for your review and, if acceptable, approval as the environmental documentation for this project. The proposed project would replace two bridges on Highway 7 over the Middle Fork of the Saline River in Garland County (Site 1) and Dry Run Creek in Perry County (Site 2), both within the boundary of the Ouachita National Forest. Total length of the project is approximately 0.5 mile. A project location map is enclosed. The existing roadway consists of two 11’ wide paved travel lanes with 2’ wide gravel shoulders at Site 1 and 2’ wide paved shoulders at Site 2. Existing right of way width averages 132’. Proposed improvements retain the two 11’ wide paved travel lanes, but increase the shoulder width to 6’ (2’ paved). The average proposed right of way width will be 187’ at Site 1 and 132’ at Site 2. Approximately 2.3 acres of additional permanent easement and 0.5 acre of temporary construction easement will be required for this project. To maintain traffic during construction, the Middle Fork Saline River bridge (Site 1) will be replaced using a temporary detour located 60’ east (downstream) of the existing bridge while the new bridge is constructed on the existing alignment. The Dry Run Creek bridge (Site 2) will be replaced approximately 80’ east (upstream) of the existing bridge.
    [Show full text]
  • Population Structure of Selected Freshwater Mussel (Bivalvia: Unionoida) Beds in the Little River, Pond Creek National Wildlife Refuge – Phase I
    Final Report U.S. Department of the Interior – Fish and Wildlife Service Arkansas Ecological Services Field Office POPULATION STRUCTURE OF SELECTED FRESHWATER MUSSEL (BIVALVIA: UNIONOIDA) BEDS IN THE LITTLE RIVER, POND CREEK NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE – PHASE I Principal Investigator: Chris L. Davidson U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Arkansas Ecological Services Field Office Conway, AR 72032 [email protected] April 11, 2017 INTRODUCTION The Little River in southeastern Oklahoma and southwestern Arkansas has a diverse mussel assemblage, including the federally protected Ouachita Rock Pocketbook (Arcidens wheeleri), Rabbitsfoot (Quadrula cylindrica cylindrica), Winged Mapleleaf (Quadrula fragosa), and Pink Mucket (Lampsilis abrupta). Several researchers over the past several decades have sampled mussels in much of the river (Ecosearch 1987; Harris and Gordon 1987; Galbraith et al. 2005, Vaughn 1994, 2012; Vaughn et al. 1995; Vaughn and Taylor 1999; Seagraves 2006; URS 2007; Arkansas Game and Fish Commission (AGFC) Mussel Database 2014; Galbraith and Vaughn 2011; Atkinson et al. 2012, 2014; Allen et al. 2013; Davidson et al. 2014). Mussel declines in the Little River largely have been attributed to impoundments (Vaughn and Taylor 1999; Galbraith and Vaughn 2011; Vaughn et al. 2015; Gates et al. 2015), drought (Atkinson et al. 2014; Vaughn et al. 2015), and degraded water quality from point source effluents (Ecosearch 1987). The factors limiting recruitment also include threats affecting their fish hosts (Haag and Warren 1997; Vaughn and Taylor 2000; Irmscher and Vaughn 2015). Freshwater mussel species richness and community composition are influenced by numerous variables affecting habitat (e.g., land use, land cover, hydrology, etc.) at differing spatial scales (e.g., local to catchment) (Atkinson et al.
    [Show full text]
  • March 2008 Storm Data Publication
    MARCH 2008 VOLUME 50 STORM DATA NUMBER 3 AND UNUSUAL WEATHER PHENOMENA WITH LATE REPORTS AND CORRECTIONS NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION noaa NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL SATELLITE, DATA AND INFORMATION SERVICE NATIONAL CLIMATIC DATA CENTER, ASHEVILLE, NC Cover: This cover represents a few weather conditions such as snow, hurricanes, tornadoes, heavy rain and flooding that may occur in any given location any month of the year. (Photos courtesy of NCDC) TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Outstanding Storm of the Month …..…………….….........……..…………..…….…..…..... 4 Storm Data and Unusual Weather Phenomena ....…….…....…………...…...........…............ 5 Reference Notes .............……...........................……….........…..….…............................................ 356 STORM DATA (ISSN 0039-1972) National Climatic Data Center Editor: William Angel Assistant Editors: Stuart Hinson and Rhonda Herndon STORM DATA is prepared, and distributed by the National Climatic Data Center (NCDC), National Environmental Satellite, Data and Information Service (NESDIS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). The Storm Data and Unusual Weather Phenomena narratives and Hurricane/Tropical Storm summaries are prepared by the National Weather Service. Monthly and annual statistics and summaries of tornado and lightning events re- sulting in deaths, injuries, and damage are compiled by the National Climatic Data Center and the National Weather Service’s (NWS) Storm Prediction Center. STORM DATA contains all confi rmed information on storms available to our staff at the time of publication. Late reports and corrections will be printed in each edition. Except for limited editing to correct grammatical errors, the data in Storm Data are published as received. Note: “None Reported” means that no severe weather occurred and “Not Received” means that no reports were received for this region at the time of printing.
    [Show full text]
  • Kansas Freshwater Mussels ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
    APOCKET GUIDE TO Kansas Freshwater Mussels ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ By Edwin J. Miller, Karen J. Couch and Jim Mason Funded by Westar Energy Green Team and the Chickadee Checkoff Published by the Friends of the Great Plains Nature Center Table of Contents Introduction • 2 Buttons and Pearls • 4 Freshwater Mussel Reproduction • 7 Reproduction of the Ouachita Kidneyshell • 8 Reproduction of the Plain Pocketbook • 10 Parts of a Mussel Shell • 12 Internal Anatomy of a Freshwater Mussel • 13 Subfamily Anodontinae • 14 ■ Elktoe • 15 ■ Flat Floater • 16 ■ Cylindrical Papershell • 17 ■ Rock Pocketbook • 18 ■ White Heelsplitter • 19 ■ Flutedshell • 20 ■ Floater • 21 ■ Creeper • 22 ■ Paper Pondshell • 23 Rock Pocketbook Subfamily Ambleminae • 24 Cover Photo: Western Fanshell ■ Threeridge • 25 ■ Purple Wartyback • 26 © Edwin Miller ■ Spike • 27 ■ Wabash Pigtoe • 28 ■ Washboard • 29 ■ Round Pigtoe • 30 ■ Rabbitsfoot • 31 ■ Monkeyface • 32 ■ Wartyback • 33 ■ Pimpleback • 34 ■ Mapleleaf • 35 Purple Wartyback ■ Pistolgrip • 36 ■ Pondhorn • 37 Subfamily Lampsilinae • 38 ■ Mucket • 39 ■ Western Fanshell • 40 ■ Butterfly • 41 ■ Plain Pocketbook • 42 ■ Neosho Mucket • 43 ■ Fatmucket • 44 ■ Yellow Sandshell • 45 ■ Fragile Papershell • 46 ■ Pondmussel • 47 ■ Threehorn Wartyback • 48 ■ Pink Heelsplitter • 49 ■ Pink Papershell • 50 Bleufer ■ Bleufer • 51 ■ Ouachita Kidneyshell • 52 ■ Lilliput • 53 ■ Fawnsfoot • 54 ■ Deertoe • 55 ■ Ellipse • 56 Extirpated Species ■ Spectaclecase • 57 ■ Slippershell • 58 ■ Snuffbox • 59 ■ Creek Heelsplitter • 60 ■ Black Sandshell • 61 ■ Hickorynut • 62 ■ Winged Mapleleaf • 63 ■ Pyramid Pigtoe • 64 Exotic Invasive Mussels ■ Asiatic Clam • 65 ■ Zebra Mussel • 66 Glossary • 67 References & Acknowledgements • 68 Pocket Guides • 69 1 Introduction Freshwater mussels (Mollusca: Unionacea) are a fascinating group of animals that reside in our streams and lakes. They are front- line indicators of environmental quality and have ecological ties with fish to complete their life cycle and colonize new habitats.
    [Show full text]
  • Life History and Population Biology of the State Special Concern Ouachita Creekshell, Villosa Arkansasensis (I
    Final Report Life History and Population Biology of the State Special Concern Ouachita Creekshell, Villosa arkansasensis (I. Lea 1862) Principal Investigator: Alan D. Christian, Ph.D., Department of Biological Sciences, Arkansas State University, P.O. Box 599. State University, AR 72467; mailto:[email protected]; Phone: (870)-972-3296; Fax: (870) -972-2638 Co-Principal Investigators: Jerry L. Farris, Ph.D., Department of Biological Sciences, Arkansas State University, P.O. Box 599. State University, AR 72467. John L. Harris, Ph. D., Department of Biological Sciences, Arkansas State University, P. O. Box 599, State University, AR 72467; [email protected] ; Phone: (501) 569-2282 Graduate Student Researcher Sara E. Seagraves, Department of Biological Sciences, Arkansas State University, P.O. Box 599. State University, AR 72467 Submitted to: William R. Posey II Malacologist / Commercial Fisheries Biologist Arkansas Game and Fish Commission P.O. Box 6740 Perrytown, AR 71801 11 February 2007 Villosa arkansasensis Report This is the final report to the Arkansas Game and Fish Commission on the Life History and Population Biology of the state special concern Ouachita creekshell, Villosa arkansasensis (Lea 1862). The information within this report belongs to both the principle investigators and the Arkansas Game and Fish Commission and should not be used in publication without the consent of both parties. The purpose of this research is to: 1. Initiate studies of the status of the Ouachita creekshell mussel (Villosa arkansasensis) within its known range to include its relative abundance, population demographics, and habitat use; 2. Identify the suitable host fish for the Ouachita creekshell mussel (Villosa arkansasensis) to include timing of reproduction and identification of host fish.
    [Show full text]
  • April 21, 2009 the Honorable Bobby Kirby PO Box 583 Morrilton, AR
    April 21, 2009 The Honorable Bobby Kirby PO Box 583 Morrilton, AR 72110 RE: Issuance of the City of Morrilton Class 1 Landfill Final Permit Permit No. 0257-S1-R1; AFIN: 15-00034 DIN: 54821, Cross Reference ID: 54427 Dear Mayor Kirby: Enclosed is a permit authorizing for the construction, operation, and maintenance of the City of Morrilton Class 1 Solid Waste landfill facility as described in your application submitted on March 2, 2008, and subsequent documentation. The permit number for the facility is 0257-S1-R1. The decision to issue the permit is based upon 1) the information contained in the permit application; 2) other materials submitted by the applicant; 3) written comments received during the designated 30-day public comment period (none received). The permit is granted subject to the terms and conditions specified in the permit. The initial amount of financial assurance required is $1,163,840.00 for the facility. Acceptable mechanisms for financial assurance include a surety bond, collateral bond (supported by a letter of credit, securities or cash), or other mechanisms as set forth in Chapter Fourteen of Regulation Number 22. The instruments used must be in the exact form set forth in Regulation Number 22 and must be filed with the Department before the permit can become effective. The purpose of the financial assurance is to ensure an environmentally sound closure of the site upon conclusion of disposal operations and acceptable post closure care. Please review all terms and conditions of the permit to ensure compliance with all applicable requirements. Any person with legal standing in this matter may appeal the Department’s final decision to the Arkansas Pollution Control and Ecology Commission.
    [Show full text]