Download Small River Communities - North Carolina Wildlife Resources

DRAFT - Small River Communities
CLICK HERE TO SUBMIT COMMENTS
A comment form will open in a new window
Ecosystem Description
These river communities represent the next stream order above Piedmont Headwater Streams
community. Typically, this community consists of 3rd and 4th order perennial streams and
small rivers. They may have fragmented habitats due to mill dams and other similar structures,
but are generally too small to have major hydroelectric dams operating on them. Faunal
diversity increases significantly in these systems and larger and more diverse fish and mussel
assemblage are found as compared to the headwater stream community.
Examples of this habitat include the Little River, Eno River, Swift Creek, Uwharrie River, Deep
River, Upper Tar River, and Dan River. The 2005 Wildlife Action Plan described Piedmont
Riverine Aquatic Communities and adjacent terrestrial Small Wetland Communities and
Floodplain Forests, which are components of this community, as priority habitats (see Chapter
5A) (NCWRC 2005).
Table 1 at the end of this report provides of summary of expected climate change impacts to
these natural communities.
Predicted Effects to Wildlife Species
Tables 2 through 7 at the end of this report identify the species of conservation concern and
priority species that use habitats in this ecosystem.
Piedmont riverine aquatic communities provide a number of important habitats, life cycle, or
prey components to a vast assemblage of terrestrial, semi-aquatic, and aquatic wildlife.
Wetlands associated with riverine systems can be important breeding sites for some amphibian
and crayfish species. Birds may use riverine and adjacent terrestrial communities for nesting
and feeding areas. Rivers and streams also provide habitat for many prey species that
terrestrial animals rely upon.
Because of the link between freshwater mussels and fish, phenological disruptions are a
possibility, but exact mechanisms or effects are unknown at this time. Freshwater mussel
larvae, called glochidia, are dependent on a host fish for transformation into juveniles. Host fish
species are known for some mussel species, yet unknown for others. Temperature cues play a
large role in the release of glochidia from female mussels and also in the movement and
migrations of fish. Therefore, with changing temperatures predicted with climate change, there
could be phenological disruptions affecting the reproductive capacity of freshwater mussels.
Aquatic species could experience shifts in their range or distribution and sensitive species may
experience decline or extirpation due to changes in water quality and habitat. Recent studies
DRAFT
1 of 16
have shown that endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDC) in treated wastewater can inhibit
reproduction and cause feminization of mussels and fish. Aquatic species are particularly
sensitive to temperature cues and recent research has shown that many species of freshwater
mussels may already be living at the upper thermal tolerances of their early life stages
(glochidia and juveniles) (Pandolfo et al. 2010). Extreme temperature events could be especially
harmful. These systems may experience a change in species composition due to various
changes in habitat and water quality.
The introduction of any invasive species is cause for concern and the prevalence of warmer
water temperatures may increase the likelihood of additional exotic species that were
previously thought to be non-threatening because the winters were too cold for survival. Exotic
species invasion is a concern, yet effects to this community are largely unknown. While Asian
clam (Corbicula fluminea) is found in aquatic systems throughout the state, its effects on native
mussels are largely unknown. Flathead catfish (Pylodictis olivaris) are a concern because of
direct predation on native species. Nutria (Myocastor coypus) is considered a serious pest
species in the U.S. because they eat a variety of wetland and agricultural plants and their
burrowing damages stream banks, impoundments, and drainage systems.
Climate Change Compared to Other Threats
Aquatic systems have been under threat from a variety of perturbations in the past and many
of those continue today. Problems affecting species and habitats include fragmentation and
direct habitat loss, altered hydrology, and lack of old growth dynamics. Water quality
deterioration and changes in river morphology and hydrology are the most serious problems
affecting wildlife that utilize riverine habitat.
Table 8 summarizes the comparison of climate change with other existing threats.
Table 8. Comparison Of Climate Change With Other Threats
Rank
Threat
Order
Comments
Development
1
Development causes direct, secondary, and cumulative effects.
Residential development can increase erosion during the construction
process, but also as a secondary result of increased impervious
surfaces in the watershed. Growth and development increase water
supply demands and streamflow patterns are being altered due to
rapid urbanization. An increase in impervious surfaces due to roads,
parking lots, homes, and businesses increases the amount and speed
of runoff being delivered into aquatic systems. Decreased
groundwater recharge between storms due to impervious surfaces
contributes to reductions in stream baseflow.
Pollution
2
Erosion and the resultant sedimentation are the largest sources of
nonpoint source pollution in most all aquatic systems. Runoff from
urban areas often contains higher concentrations of nutrients, such as
2 of 16
DRAFT
Small River Communities
Table 8. Comparison Of Climate Change With Other Threats
Rank
Threat
Order
Comments
nitrogen and phosphorus, sediment, metals, hydrocarbons, and
microbes. Point and nonpoint sources of runoff, endocrine disrupting
chemicals – are threats.
Water Withdrawals
2
Irrigation and water supply withdrawals pose a threat to flow regime.
Flood Regime Alteration
2
High and low flow extremes pose a threat.
Livestock
3
Livestock access to streams contributes heavily to bank erosion,
sedimentation, and nutrient input.
Logging/Exploitation
3
Clearing of riparian areas is problematic. Timber harvesting can
increase erosion if proper erosion controls are not used and
maintained, in addition to installing poorly constructed and
maintained timber roads.
Lack of riparian
3
Loss of riparian vegetation contributes to streambank erosion and
vegetation
sedimentation. Riparian vegetation serves as a food/nutrient input to
the stream community and helps regulate stream temperature by
providing shade.
Climate Change
4
Challenges to water quality and water quantity as related to climate
change are similar to those being confronted to accommodate growth
and development. Climate change effects will likely amplify other
threats to increase their severity to aquatic systems.
Conversion to
4
Loss of forest cover can cause increased erosion and sedimentation
agriculture/silviculture
and negatively impact aquatic systems.
Invasive Species
5
Invasive plants in the riparian area can have negative impacts on
stream systems by often times creating a monoculture with poor
nutrient inputs, reducing bank stability, and allowing too much
sunlight and therefore warmer stream temperatures. Invasive aquatic
species, like Asian clam, may have negative effects on native species,
such as competition for space and resources. Specific interactions are
unknown.
Impoundments
6
Water supply needs could increase number of impoundments;
disruptions to flow regime and aquatic habitat.
Summary and Recommendations
Climate change is likely to have a synergistic effect with other, more impending threats to these
systems, such as development and lack of/removal of riparian vegetation. Piedmont small river
systems will probably persist. Very few specific climate change-related impacts have been
identified, and the rare species and their habitats are expected to persist.
Small River Communities
DRAFT
3 of 16
Recommended Actions
Surveys
Determine the distribution and abundance of aquatic species, especially gulf
coast spiny softshell, striped mud turtle, eastern mudsnake.
Freshwater snails and crayfish in particular have not received the attention
needed (they are under-studied taxa).
Conduct surveys in areas poised for development (edge of urban expansion)
to establish baseline populations and identify problems before development
expands.
Gather better information about the status and distribution of common
species associated with riverine habitats (e.g., three-lined salamander,
common ribbonsnake).
Expand research, survey, and monitoring efforts beyond collecting presenceabsence data, to look at long-term trends across species groups, habitats,
and the effects of management actions.
Monitoring
Monitor population trends to determine if species are adapting to changing
habitats and apply what is learned to future management decisions (Bakke
2008).
Monitor aquatic non-native invasive species, analyze population trends and
assesses their effect on native priority species populations.
When we have a better understanding of the current distribution of these
species, survey efforts should be re-directed into development of long-term
monitoring strategies to document population trends, from which
conservation strategies can be specifically designed to target those species.
Monitor the effect of base flow impacts on priority species. Develop climate
change monitoring protocols or methods for monitor base flows where
priority species occur outside projects related to regulated water use (FERC
licensing).
Research
Studies are needed to document the levels of EDC’s in wastewater
discharges and measures need to be identified that will reduce or eliminate
EDC’s from wastewater prior to discharge.
Gain information regarding the specific microhabitat needs of priority
species to develop long term conservation strategies.
Study the extent and impact of exotic species introductions, as well as
effective control measures for the most problematic exotics.
Determine the impacts of “snagging” (removing woody debris after storms)
on wildlife populations.
Research is needed to investigate nutria population densities, population
growth rates, dispersal range, and extent of property damage from
burrowing and herbivory.
4 of 16
DRAFT
Small River Communities
Determine the effect beaver ponds have on downstream movement of
pollutants (toxins and sediments).
Management
Practices
Prevent livestock from having direct access to streams as a measure to
protect riparian vegetation, maintain bank stability, and reduce nutrient
inputs.
In managed rivers, restore stream flows that promote controlled overbank
flows and hydrological connectivity between the river and the floodplain.
Opportunities to restore cane break communities should be sought, through
controlled burning or other management.
Large trees should be maintained around reservoirs for potential eagle nests,
and forest cover should be maintained in the tailrace below dams for eagle
foraging.
Participate in mutual planning with adjacent states for regional species
concerns, especially since some priority species are likely to expand their
range due to climate change impacts.
Plant riparian areas with vegetation with a broad elevational range within a
particular watershed and also to plant vegetation with broad hydrologic
tolerance to promote resiliency from climate change
Land
Protection
Preservation or restoration of riparian vegetation is crucial to the
maintenance of stable streambanks, in addition to the role that riparian
vegetation serves to dissipate water runoff energy and allow for sediment
deposition.
Land use planning and zoning laws are needed to limit development, land
clearing, and hydrology alterations within floodplains (e.g., route highways
and other corridors that cross floodplains as closely as possible to existing
corridors to avoid fragmenting an extensive corridor of forest; try to avoid
routing sewerlines through high quality floodplain).
Promote stormwater management regulations and efforts to control point
source pollution.
CLICK HERE TO SUBMIT COMMENTS
A comment form will open in a new window
References
Bailey, M. A., J. N. Holmes, and K. A. Buhlmann. 2004. Habitat management guidelines for
amphibians and reptiles of the southeastern United States (DRAFT). Partners in Amphibian and
Reptile Conservation.
Small River Communities
DRAFT
5 of 16
Bakke, P. 2008. Physical Processes and Climate Change: A guide for biologists. Department of
Interior, US Fish and Wildlife Service. Unpublished report. 28pp.
Band, L. and D. Salvensen. 2009. The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill: Climate Change
Committee Report. UNC Institute for the Environment.
Boorman, L.A. And R.M. Fuller. 1981. The changing status of reed swamp in the Norfolk
broads. Journal of Applied Ecology 18:241-269.
Conn, K.E., L.B. Barber, G.K. Brown, and R.L. Siegrist. 2006. Occurrence and Fate of Organic
Contaminants during onsite wastewater treatment. Environmental Science & Technology. 40
(23): 7359-7366.
Cumberlandian Region Mollusk Restoration Committee. 2010. Plan for the population
restoration and conservation of freshwater mollusks of the Cumberlandian Region. V + 145 pp.
DeWan, A., N. Dubois, K. Theoharides, and J. Boshoven. 2010. Understanding the impacts of
climate change on fish and wildlife in North Carolina. Defenders of Wildlife, Washington, DC.
Gaff, H., DeAngelis, D.L., Gross, L.J., Salinas, R., and M. Shorrash. 2000. Ecological Modeling
127:3352.
Gosling, L. M. and S. J. Baker. 1991. Rodents: order Rodentia, family Myocastoridae coypu
Myocastor coypus. Blackwell Scientific Publications Ltd., Osney Mead, Oxford.
Guichon, M.L., C.P. Doncaster, and M.H. Cassini. 2003. Population structure of coypus
(Myocastor coypus) in their region of origin and comparison with introduced populations.
Journal of Zoology 261: 265-272. The Zoological Society of London. Printed in the United
Kingdom.
Joss, A., S. Zabczynski, A. Gobel, B. Hoffmann, D. Loffler, C.S. McArdell, T.A. Ternes, A. Thomsen,
H. Siegrist. 2006. Biological degradation of pharmaceuticals in municipal wastewater
treatment: Proposing a classification scheme. Water Research 40(2006): 1686-1696.
Karl, T.R; Melillo, J.M. and Peterson, T.C. 2009. Global Climate Change Impacts in the United
States. Cambridge University Press
Kasprzyk-Hordern, B., R.M. Dinsdale, A.J. Guwy. 2008. The occurrence of pharmaceuticals,
personal care products, endocrine disruptors and illicit drugs in surface water in South Wales,
UK. Water Research
42(2008):3498-3518.
6 of 16
DRAFT
Small River Communities
Kim, S.D., J. Cho, I.S. Kim, B.J. Vanderford, S.A. Snyder. 2007. Occurrence and removal of
pharmaceuticals and endocrine disruptors in South Korean surface, drinking, and waste waters.
Water Research. 41 (2007):1013-1021.
Kolpin, D.W., E.T. Furlong, M.T. Meyer, E.M. Thurman, S.D. Zaugg, L.B.Barber, and H.T. Buxton.
2002. Pharmaceuticals, hormones, and other organic wastewater contaminants in U.S.
streams, 1999-2000: A national reconnaissance. Environmental Science and Technology 36(6):
1202-1211.
Low Impact Development (LID) Practices for Storm Water Management. Retrieved August 23,
2010, from http://www.toolbase.org/TechInventory/TechDetails.aspx?ContentDetailID=909.
Maryland Department of Natural Resources. 2004. Invasive and exotic species. Habitat
Conservation, Wildlife and Heritage Service. Available
http://www.dnr.state.md.us/wildlife/invnutriafaq.asp. (Accessed 4/16/10).
Maryland Department of Natural Resources. 2004. Invasive and exotic species.
Micol, T., C. P. Doncaster, and P. Jouventin. 1996. Biologie du ragondin (Ch. 1); Demographie
du ragondin (Ch. 2). In Le ragondin: 11-41. P. Jouventin, T. Micol, C. Verheyden, and G.
Guedon, eds. Paris: Acta.
Miltner, R.J., D. White, and C. Yoder. 2004. The biotic integrity of streams in urban and
suburbanizing landscapes. Landscape and Urban Planning. 69:87-100.
Moore, A.A., and M.A. Palmer. 2005. Invertibrate biodiversity in agricultural and urban
headwater streams: implications for conservation and management. Ecological Applications
15(4):1169-1177.
NC Wildlife Resources Commission. 2002. Guidance Memorandum to address and mitigate
secondary and cumulative impacts to aquatic and terrestrial wildlife resources and water
quality. NCWRC, Raleigh, NC.
NC Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP). 2001. Descriptions of the biological themes of North
Carolina, 2nd edition. N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Natural
Heritage Program, Raleigh, NC.
NC Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC). 2005. North Carolina Wildlife Action Plan. Raleigh,
NC.
Nowotny, N. B. Epp, C. Von Sonntag, and H. Fahlenkamp. 2007. Quantification and modeling of
the elimination behavior of ecologically problematic wastewater micro-pollutants by adsorption
on powdered and granulated activated carbon. Environmental Science and Technology 41(6):
2050-2055.
Small River Communities
DRAFT
7 of 16
Pandolfo, T.J., W.G. Cope, C. Arellano, R.B. Bringolf, M.C. Barnhart, and E.Hammer. 2010. Upper
thermal tolerances of early life stages of freshwater mussels. Journal of the North American
Benthological Society 29(3): 959-969.
Panzacchi, M., S. Bertolino, R. Cocchi, and P. Genovesi. 2007. Population control of coypu
Myocastor coypus in Italy compared to eradication in UK: a cost-benefit analysis. Wildlife
Biology 13(2):159-171.
Reggiani, G., L. Boitani, S. D'Antoni, and R. De Stefano. 1993. Biology and control of the coypu in
the Mediterranean area. Supplemento alle Ricerche di Biologia della Selvaggina 21, 67-100.
Seavy, N.E., T. Gardali, G.Golet, F.Thomas Griggs, C.A. Howell, R. Kelsey, S. Small, J. Viers, and J.
Weigand. (2009) why Climate Change Makes Riparian Restoration more important than ever:
Recommendations for practice and research. Ecological Restoration. 27:3
Schafale, M. P., and A. S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of the natural communities of North
Carolina, third approximation. N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Natural
Heritage Program, Raleigh, NC.
Shuford, S., S. Rynne, and J. Mueller. 2010. Planning for a New Energy and Climate Future.
American Planning Association, Planning Advisory Service, Report Number 558.
Transportation Research Board, Committee on Climate Change and U.S. Transportation. 2008.
Potential impacts of climate change on U.S. Transportation. Transportation Research Board
Special Report 290. Washington, D.C.
U.S. EPA. 2010. Overview of Climate Change Adaptation in the Southeastern U.S. with a Focus
on Water and Coastal Resources – Draft Discussion Paper (1/26/2010). Stratus Consulting,
Boulder CO.
Wang, L. J. Lyons, P. Kanehl, and R. Bannerman. 2001. Impacts of urbanization on stream
habitat and fish across multiple spatial scales. Environmental Management 28(2): 255-266.
Wenger, S. 1999. A review of scientific literature on riparian buffer width, extent, and
vegetation. Institute of Ecology, University of Georgia. Athens, GA.
Wilson, L.A. 1995. Land manager’s guide to the amphibians and reptiles of the south. The
Nature Conservancy, Chapel Hill, NC.
8 of 16
DRAFT
Small River Communities
Table 1. Predicted Impacts of Climate Change
Climate Change Factor
Comments
Increased Temperature/ Potential increased air temperatures and therefore increased water
Hot Spells
temperatures can lead to algal blooms in aquatic systems, which diminishes
stream oxygen availability. Chronically warmer temperatures and lower
dissolved oxygen levels may increase stress on organisms. Low dissolved
oxygen associated with hot spells may increase fish kills. Higher air and
water temperatures can also lead to increased evaporation, which results in
less flowing water available for aquatic species use.
Flooding
Increased severity and frequency of storm events, similar to hurricanes, will
have impacts. With a change in intensity and variability of rainfall, there are
potential changes to streamflow patterns, channel hydrodynamics, lake or
pond levels, and the volume of groundwater from aquifers (Band and
Salvensen, 2009; U.S. EPA, 2010; Bakke 2009). Flooding also contributes to
increased sediments and contaminants in aquatic systems, major disruption
to channel design and hydrodynamics, and changes to chemical and
biological structure of streams (Band and Salvensen, 2009).
Drought
Lower water levels during dry times will increase stress to the system.
Severe and prolonged droughts may decrease streamflow, decrease
groundwater recharge, and increase evaporation, resulting in impacts to
streams. Nutrients may become concentrated and flush out of systems
more slowly during seasonal droughts because of low-flow periods (DeWan et
al., 2010; Karl et al., 2009; Band and Salvensen, 2009; U.S. EPA, 2010).
Phenological Disruption
Uncertain if disruptions in organismal interactions (mussel-fish host
relationship) will be affected.
Compositional Change
Changes in species composition a possibility.
Channel Hydrodynamics Changes in flow regime, sediment transport, and overall channel design can
alter the pattern of riffles, runs, and pools, therefore creating changes in
aquatic species' habitats. Increased woody debris from storm damage to
riparian areas will also change channel hydrodynamics and available habitat.
Flow Regime
Flashiness of the system may increase with more storm events, thus
changing overall habitat composition.
Sediment Transport
Changes in streamflow could change overall sediment transport dynamics,
leading to altered habitat composition.
Exotic species invasion
Uncertain how exotic species will affect these systems.
Small River Communities
DRAFT
9 of 16
Table 2. Fish Species Utilizing
Species
FISH
Ambloplites
cavifrons
Carpiodes
cyprinus
Clinostomus
funduloides
Cottus
caeruleomentum
Cyprinella
labrosa
Cyprinella
zanema
Etheostoma
collis
Etheostoma
collis pop. 1
Common
Name
Extinction/
Element
Major Extirpation US/ NC/
Rank
Endemic Disjunct
Prone
WAP*
Roanoke bass G3/S2
FSC/E/P
Quillback
/SR/P
G5/S1
Rosyside dace G5/S5
/ /P
Blue Ridge
G4/S1
sculpin
Thicklip chub G4/S3
/SC/P
Santee chub
G4/S3
/SR/P
Carolina
darter
Carolina
darter
G3/S3
YES
FSC/SC/P
G3T3Q/
S3
YES
FSC/SC/
Etheostoma
collis pop. 2
Carolina
darter
G3T3Q/
S2
YES
FSC/SC/
Etheostoma
nigrum
Etheostoma
podostemone
Etheostoma
thalassinum
Etheostoma
vitreum
Exoglossum
maxillingua
Hypentelium
roanokense
Lythrurus
matutinus
Moxostoma
ariommum
Moxostoma
collapsum
Johnny darter G5/S4
/ /P
Riverweed
G4/S3
darter
Seagreen
G4/S3
darter
Glassy darter G4G5/ S3
/SC/P
Cutlip
minnow
Roanoke hog
sucker
Pinewoods
shiner
Bigeye
jumprock
Notchlip
redhorse
G5/S1
/SC/P
G4/S3
/SC/P
G3/S3
FSC/W2/P
G4/S1
/T/P
G5/S5
/ /P
10 of 16
Comments
/W5/
Central
Piedmont
population
Eastern
Piedmont
population
/W5/
/W5/P
DRAFT
Small River Communities
Table 2. Fish Species Utilizing
Species
FISH
Moxostoma
macrolepidotum
Moxostoma
pappillosum
Moxostoma sp. 3
Nocomis
micropogon
Nocomis raneyi
Notropis
amoenus
Notropis
chalybaeus
Notropis
mekistocholas
Noturus furiosus
Noturus gilberti
Percina rex
Petromyzon
marinus
Common
Name
Extinction/
Element
Major Extirpation US/ NC/
Rank
Endemic Disjunct
Prone
WAP*
Shorthead
G5/S4
redhorse
V-lip redhorse G4/S4
Carolina
redhorse
River chub
/ /P
/ /P
G1G2Q/S1
YES
G5/S3?
FSC/T/P
/W5/
Bull chub
G4/S3
Comely shiner G5/S4
/W1/
/ /P
Ironcolor
shiner
Cape Fear
shiner
Carolina
madtom
Orange
madtom
Roanoke
logperch
Sea lamprey
/W5/P
Small River Communities
Comments
G4/S3
G1/S1
YES
G1Q/SX
YES
E/E/P
YES
G2/S1
FSC/T/P
FSC/E/P
G1G2/ S1
YES
G5/S3
E/E/
//P
DRAFT
11 of 16
Table 3. Bird Species Utilizing
Species
BIRDS
Aix sponsa
Coccyzus
americanus
Haliaeetus
leucocephalus
Nyctanassa
violacea
Common
Name
Wood Duck
Yellow-billed
Cuckoo
Bald Eagle
Element
Rank
Endemic
Extinction/ US/
Major Extirpation NC/
Disjunct
Prone
WAP*
G5/S5B,
S4N
G5/S5B
//
G5/S3B,
S3N
/ /P
Comments
/ /P
YellowG5/S3B
crowned Nightheron
/ /P
Table 4. Mammal Species Utilizing
Species
MAMMALS
Corynorhinus
rafinesquii
Lasiurus
seminolus
Myotis
austroriparius
12 of 16
Element
Common Name Rank:
Extinction/ US/
Major Extirpation NC/
Endemic Disjunct
Prone
WAP*
Rafinesque’s
Big-eared bat
Seminole bat
G3G4
TNR/S3
G5/S3?B
/SC/P
Southeastern
myotis
G3G4/S2
FSC/SC
/P
Comments
/ /P
DRAFT
Small River Communities
Table 5. Reptile Species Utilizing
Species
REPTILES
Apalone spinifera
aspera
Clemmys guttata
Farancia abacura
abacura
Kinosternon
baurii
Thamnophis
sauritus
Common Name
Gulf Coast
Spiny Softshell
Spotted Turtle
Eastern
Mudsnake
Striped Mud
Turtle
Eastern
Ribbonsnake
Element
Rank
Extinction/ US/
Major Extirpation NC/
Endemic Disjunct
Prone
WAP*
G5T5/S3
/W2/P
G5/S3
G5/S4
/W1/P
/ /P
G5/S3
/ /P
G5/S4
/ /P
Comments
Table 6. Amphibian Species Utilizing
Species
AMPHIBIANS
Element
Common Name
Rank:
Extinction/ US/
Major Extirpation NC/
Endemic Disjunct
Prone
WAP*
Ambystoma
maculatum
Ambystoma
opacum
Ambystoma
talpoideum
Eurycea
guttolineata
Hyla versicolor
Spotted
salamander
Marbled
salamander
Mole salamander G5/S2
/ /P
G5/S5
/ /P
G5/S2?
/SR/P
Necturus lewisi
Three-lined
Salamander
Northern gray
tree frog
Neuse River
waterdog
G3/S3
Small River Communities
Comments
/ /P
/SC/P
Yes
DRAFT
/SC/P
13 of 16
Table 7. Invertebrate Species Utilizing
Species
INVERTEBRATES
Alasmidonta
heterodon
Alasmidonta
robusta
Alasmidonta
sp. 2
Alasmidonta
undulata
Alasmidonta
varicosa
Ameiurus
brunneus
Ceraclea
mentiea
Ceraclea
slossonae
Choroterpes
basalis
Dibusa angata
Elliptio
cistellaeformis
Elliptio
congaraea
Elliptio
fisheriana
Elliptio icterina
Elliptio
lanceolata
Elliptio
roanokensis
Elliptio
steinstansana
Ephemerella
berneri
Fusconaia
masoni
Gomphus
septima
14 of 16
Common
Name
Extinction/
Element
Major Extirpation US/ NC/
Rank
Endemic Disjunct
Prone
WAP*
Dwarf
G1G2/S1
wedgemussel
Carolina elktoe G1Q/SX
Yes
E/E/P
Yes
/EX/P
A Uwharries
GNR/S1? Yes
region bivalve
Triangle floater G4/S2
/SR/
Brook floater
FSC/E/P
/T/P
G3/S1
Snail bullhead G4/S4
/ /P
A caddisfly
G5/S2
/SR/
A caddisfly
G4/S1
/SR/
A mayfly
G5/S2
/SR/
A caddisfly
Box spike
G5/S2
G4/SU
Carolina
G3/S3
slabshell
Northern lance G4/S3
/SR/
/W3,
W5/P
/W2,
W5/P
/SR/
Variable spike G5Q/S4
Yellow lance
G2G3/ S1
/ /P
FSC/E/P
Roanoke
slabshell
Tar River
spinymussel
A mayfly
Yes
G3/S1
G1/S1
Comments
/T/P
Yes
Yes
G4/S3
E/E/P
/SR/
Atlantic pigtoe G2/S1
Yes
FSC/E/P
Septima’s
clubtail
Yes
FSC/SR/
G2/ S1S2
DRAFT
Small River Communities
Table 7. Invertebrate Species Utilizing
Species
INVERTEBRATES
Homoeoneuria
cahabensis
Lampsilis
cariosa
Lampsilis
radiata
Lampsilis sp. 2
Lasmigona
decorata
Lasmigona
subviridis
Leptoxis
dilatata
Macdunnoa
brunnea
Matrioptila
jeanae
Orconectes
carolinensis
Pleurobema
collina
Somatogyrus
virginicus
Strophitus
undulatus
Tortopus puella
Toxolasma
pullus
Valvata sincera
Villosa
constricta
Common
Name
Extinction/
Element
Major Extirpation US/ NC/
Rank
Endemic Disjunct
Prone
WAP*
Cahaba Sand- G2G3/ S2
filtering mayfly
Yellow
G3G4/ S1
lampmussel
Eastern
G5/S1S2
lampmussel
/SR/
FSC/E/P
/T/
Chameleon
lampmussel
Carolina
heelsplitter
Green floater
G1/S1
G3/S1
FSC/E/P
Seep mudalia
G3/S1
/T/P
A mayfly
G3G4/ S2
/SR/
A caddisfly
G4/S3
/SR/
North Carolina
spiny crayfish
James
spinymussel
Panhandle
pebblesnail
Creeper
G3/S3
G2G3/
S1?
G5/S2
FSC/SR/P
A mayfly
Savannah
lilliput
A valvatid snail
Notched
rainbow
G4/S1
G2/S1
/SR/
FSC/E/P
G5/S1
G3/S3
/SR/
/SC/P
Small River Communities
Comments
Yes
L. radiata
conspicua and
L. radiata
radiata have
been removed
from NHP Rare
Animal list
because
subspecies are
no longer valid.
/SR/
G1/S1
Yes
Yes
E/E/P
/SC/P
G1/S1
Yes
E/E/P
/T/P
DRAFT
15 of 16
Table 7. Invertebrate Species Utilizing
Common
Species
Name
INVERTEBRATES
Villosa delumbis Eastern
creekshell
Villosa
Carolina
vaughaniana
creekshell
Extinction/
Element
Major Extirpation US/ NC/
Rank
Endemic Disjunct
Prone
WAP*
G4/S3
/SR/P
G2/S2
FSC/E/P
Comments
* US/ NC/ WAP Abbreviations (species are subject to reclassification by USFWS, NHP, or WRC).
E
T
FSC
T(S/A)
Endangered
Threatened
Federal Species of Concern
Threatened due to Similarity
of Appearance
SC
SR
W
Special Concern
Significantly Rare
Watch Category
P
WAP Priority Species
NatureServe Element Rank: http://www.natureserve.org/explorer/ranking.htm
USFWS Endangered Species Listing Status: http://www.fws.gov/raleigh/es_tes.html
NC Natural Heritage Program Status:
http://www.ncnhp.org/Images/2010%20Rare%20Animal%20List.pdf
CLICK HERE TO SUBMIT COMMENTS
A comment form will open in a new window
16 of 16
DRAFT
Small River Communities