The
candy darter (Etheostoma osburni) is a small, colorful freshwater fish
native to the upper Kanawha River Basin, which includes the Gauley,
Greenbrier, and New River watersheds in West Virginia and Virginia1
2
Habitat and Distribution
The candy darter is found only in a limited range within West Virginia and Virginia. Its habitat consists of:
- Cold, clear, fast-moving sections of small to medium-sized rivers
1
- Streams with clean gravel bottoms for egg-laying
- Areas with larger cobbles and boulders for shelter
1
Given that Greenbank is located in Pocahontas County, West
Virginia, which is part of the Greenbrier River watershed, it's possible
that candy darters may be present in nearby streams or rivers.
Conservation Status and Threats
The candy darter was listed as a federally endangered species in 2018 due to several threats:
- Habitat degradation from historic land uses
1
- Introduction of non-native fish species, particularly the variegate darter
2
- Pollution and sedimentation in rivers and streams
3
- Presence of dams that fragment their habitat
2
Conservation Efforts
Various organizations, including the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, West Virginia Department of Natural Resources, and Virginia
Department of Wildlife Resources, are working together to protect and
recover candy darter populations2
. Some of these efforts include:
- Research on the species' life history, habitat use, and population structure
- Propagation programs at fish hatcheries
- Identifying suitable streams for restoration and reintroduction
2
While Greenbank is not specifically mentioned in relation to candy
darter conservation efforts, its location within the fish's native
range suggests that local waterways may be of interest to researchers
and conservationists working to protect this endangered species. ----------------------------------------
The
candy darter (Etheostoma osburni) plays an interesting role in its
ecosystem, particularly in relation to freshwater mussels, which are
mollusks. Here's what we know about the relationship between candy
darters and mollusks:
Ecosystem Interactions
Mussel Reproduction
Candy darters serve as hosts for freshwater mussel larvae1
2
. This relationship is crucial for the reproduction cycle of certain mussel species. The process typically works as follows:
- Mussel larvae, called glochidia, attach to the gills or fins of the candy darter.
- The larvae develop while attached to the fish.
- Once mature, the young mussels detach and settle in the stream bed.
This symbiotic relationship allows mussels to disperse and colonize new areas within the stream ecosystem.
Water Quality Enhancement
The interaction between candy darters and mussels contributes to overall water quality in their habitat:
- Mussels filter water, removing pollutants and improving water clarity
2
. - This filtration process benefits the candy darter by maintaining a healthier aquatic environment.
Conservation Implications
The relationship between candy darters and freshwater mussels
highlights the interconnectedness of aquatic ecosystems. Conservation
efforts for the endangered candy darter may also benefit mussel
populations:
- Protecting candy darter habitats can indirectly support mussel reproduction and distribution.
- Maintaining healthy candy darter populations could help sustain mussel diversity in affected watersheds.
Habitat Requirements
Both candy darters and many freshwater mussels prefer similar habitat conditions:
- Clear, cold streams with rocky substrates
1
2
. - Well-oxygenated water.
- Minimal sedimentation and pollution.
Efforts to preserve these habitat characteristics can benefit both the candy darter and its associated mussel species.
By understanding and protecting the relationship between candy
darters and mollusks like freshwater mussels, conservationists can work
towards maintaining the health and biodiversity of entire stream
ecosystems in the Appalachian region. -------------------------------------------------------------------------
Freshwater mussels and candy darters have a mutually beneficial relationship in their shared aquatic ecosystems. Here's how freshwater mussels specifically benefit from the candy darter:
## Reproductive Host
The candy darter serves as a host for freshwater mussel larvae, which is crucial for the mussels' reproduction cycle[1][2]. This process works as follows:
1. Mussel larvae, called glochidia, attach to the gills or fins of the candy darter.
2. The larvae develop while attached to the fish.
3. Once mature, the young mussels detach and settle in the stream bed.
This symbiotic relationship allows mussels to disperse and colonize new areas within the stream ecosystem, which is essential for their survival and genetic diversity.
## Habitat Protection
Conservation efforts aimed at protecting the endangered candy darter indirectly benefit freshwater mussels:
- Protecting candy darter habitats often means preserving the water quality and ecosystem health that mussels also depend on[2].
- Efforts to maintain cold, clear, fast-moving streams with clean gravel and cobble substrates benefit both species[2].
## Ecosystem Balance
Candy darters contribute to the overall health of the aquatic ecosystem, which in turn supports mussel populations:
- As part of the food web, candy darters help maintain a balanced ecosystem by feeding on macroinvertebrates and serving as prey for larger fish[2].
- This balance helps sustain the environmental conditions that freshwater mussels need to thrive.
## Water Quality Enhancement
While mussels are known for their water filtration capabilities, the presence of healthy candy darter populations can indirectly support water quality:
- By helping to maintain a diverse and balanced ecosystem, candy darters contribute to the overall health of the waterway.
- This can lead to improved water quality, which is essential for mussel survival and reproduction.
In summary, the relationship between candy darters and freshwater mussels highlights the interconnectedness of aquatic ecosystems. The candy darter's role as a host for mussel larvae is particularly crucial, enabling mussels to reproduce and disperse effectively. Additionally, conservation efforts focused on the candy darter often have positive ripple effects that benefit the entire aquatic community, including freshwater mussels.
Citations:
[1] https://wonderfulwv.com/whats-in-a-fish/
[2] https://www.nps.gov/neri/learn/nature/protecting-our-native-candy-darter.htm
[3] https://knowablemagazine.org/content/article/living-world/2019/hidden-strengths-freshwater-mussels
[4] https://www.wvhighlands.org/article/candy-darters-caught-in-the-crossroads/
[5] https://xerces.org/endangered-species/freshwater-mussels/about
[6] https://www.mybuckhannon.com/u-s-fish-wildlife-service-proposes-protections-for-rare-freshwater-mussels-found-in-w-va/
[7] https://www.fws.gov/press-release/2023-07/service-proposes-protections-green-floater-mussel
[8] https://www.fws.gov/story/2023-08/inflation-reduction-act-one-year-anniversary
---------------------------------------------------------
The presence of candy darters significantly contributes to the overall health of stream ecosystems in several important ways:
## Indicator of Water Quality
Candy darters are sensitive to environmental conditions and serve as excellent indicators of stream health:
- Their presence generally indicates good water quality, as they are particularly affected by excessive sedimentation and pollution in rivers and streams[4].
- They require specific habitat features to survive and reproduce, including cold, clear, fast-moving water with clean gravel and cobble substrates[1][2].
## Ecosystem Balance
Candy darters play a crucial role in maintaining a balanced aquatic ecosystem:
- As a middle link in the food chain, they help transfer energy through the ecosystem by feeding on macroinvertebrates (such as mayflies and caddisflies) and serving as prey for larger fish like trout and bass[1][4].
- This position in the food web contributes to the overall biodiversity and stability of the stream ecosystem.
## Mussel Reproduction Support
Candy darters have a symbiotic relationship with freshwater mussels:
- They serve as hosts for freshwater mussel larvae (glochidia), aiding in the reproduction and dispersal of these important filter-feeding organisms[1][4].
- This relationship is crucial for maintaining healthy mussel populations, which in turn helps keep rivers clean by filtering out pollutants.
## Water Quality Enhancement
While candy darters themselves don't directly filter water, their presence contributes to water quality improvement:
- By supporting mussel populations, which are efficient water filterers, candy darters indirectly contribute to cleaner water in their habitats[1].
- Their sensitivity to environmental changes makes them early warning systems for declining water quality, allowing for quicker intervention and conservation efforts.
## Biodiversity Support
The presence of candy darters enhances overall biodiversity in stream ecosystems:
- As a unique species found only in specific watersheds, they contribute to the genetic diversity of aquatic ecosystems[2].
- Their role in supporting other species, such as mussels, further promotes biodiversity in the streams they inhabit.
In conclusion, the presence of candy darters in a stream ecosystem is indicative of a healthy, balanced environment. Their role in the food web, support of mussel populations, and sensitivity to environmental conditions make them valuable contributors to overall stream health and biodiversity. Conservation efforts aimed at protecting candy darters and their habitats can have far-reaching positive effects on entire aquatic ecosystems.
Citations:
[1] https://www.nps.gov/neri/learn/nature/protecting-our-native-candy-darter.htm
[2] https://www.fws.gov/sites/default/files/documents/508_candy%20darter%20fact%20sheet.pdf
[3] https://www.wvhighlands.org/article/candy-darters-caught-in-the-crossroads/
[4] https://wonderfulwv.com/whats-in-a-fish/
[5] https://www.vims.edu/research/units/centerspartners/map/education/profdev/VASEA/vaseafindthebullseyecandydarter.pdf
[6] https://knowablemagazine.org/content/article/living-world/2019/hidden-strengths-freshwater-mussels
[7] https://www.mybuckhannon.com/u-s-fish-wildlife-service-proposes-protections-for-rare-freshwater-mussels-found-in-w-va/
[8] https://www.fws.gov/press-release/2023-07/service-proposes-protections-green-floater-mussel
--------------------------------------------------------------
Based on the search results, there are several significant legal consequences for noncompliance with the 2020 Biological Opinion (BiOp) for oil and gas activities in the Gulf of Mexico:
1. Potential Liability Under the Endangered Species Act (ESA):
Without valid take coverage provided by the 2020 BiOp and its associated Incidental Take Statement (ITS), agencies and private actors may be subject to liability under Section 9 of the ESA for any "take" of protected species[2][3]. This could result in civil or even criminal penalties.
2. Invalidation of Existing Permits and Approvals:
The validity of existing plans, permits, and other approvals issued by agencies like the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE), Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM), and Environmental Protection Agency that relied on the 2020 BiOp may be called into question[1][3].
3. Disruption or Shutdown of Operations:
Without a valid BiOp or alternative measures in place, offshore oil and gas operations could be forced to slow down or shut down entirely until a new BiOp is issued or another solution is found[1][3].
4. Increased Regulatory Scrutiny:
Agencies may need to perform individual ESA Section 7 consultations for each permit, plan, or approval sought, which could significantly slow down the permitting process[1].
5. Enforcement Actions:
In cases of chronic noncompliance, agencies like the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSMRE) may be required to initiate enforcement procedures against state agencies or even consider withdrawing delegation of implementation authority[2].
6. Safety and Environmental Risks:
The BSEE has indicated that any gap between BiOps could have "highly disruptive consequences, including compromising the safety of ongoing operations and increasing the risk of harm to the very species that the ESA is intended to protect"[1].
7. Legal Challenges:
Noncompliance with the BiOp could lead to additional lawsuits from environmental groups or other stakeholders, as evidenced by the recent court decision vacating the 2020 BiOp[3][4].
It's important to note that the court's decision to vacate the 2020 BiOp, effective December 20, 2024, has created a situation where these consequences may become more immediate and widespread for the oil and gas industry operating in the Gulf of Mexico[1][3][4]. The agencies involved are working to develop new or interim measures to address this situation, but the potential for significant disruption remains high.
Citations:
[1] https://www.theenergylawblog.com/2024/09/articles/energy/offshore/maryland-courts-vacatur-of-biological-opinion-could-cause-severe-disruption-of-gulf-of-mexico-oil-gas-activities/
[2] https://www.wvhighlands.org/article/protecting-our-appalachian-legacy-the-fight-to-save-the-candy-darter/
[3] https://www.hklaw.com/en/insights/publications/2024/08/court-strikes-down-key-endangered-species-act-opinion
[4] https://earthjustice.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/204_memorandum-opinion-8.19.24.pdf
[5] https://www.endangeredspecieslawandpolicy.com/fish-and-wildlife-service-increases-civil-penalties-for-violations-of-federal-wildlife-protection-laws
[6] https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R46867
[7] https://climatecasechart.com/case/national-wildlife-federation-v-national-marine-fisheries-service/
[8] https://mynbc15.com/news/local/environmentalists-triumph-as-court-rules-gulf-drilling-assessment-unlawful
---------------------------------------------------
Based on the search results, the vacatur of the 2020 Biological Opinion (BiOp) could potentially lead to criminal charges for noncompliance in certain circumstances:
1. Unauthorized Take: Without the 2020 BiOp and its associated Incidental Take Statement (ITS) in place, any "take" of an Endangered Species Act (ESA) listed species could be construed as an unauthorized take in violation of the ESA. This could subject oil and gas operators to both civil and criminal responsibility under the ESA[2].
2. ESA Section 9 Liability: With no valid take coverage for protected species, agencies and private actors may be subject to liability under Section 9 of the ESA for any take of protected species. This liability could include criminal penalties[1].
3. Broad Definition of "Take": The ESA broadly defines "take" as to "harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture or collect" or cause significant modification or degradation of a listed species' habitat. This broad definition increases the potential for violations[2].
4. Risk of Enforcement: Operators face a high degree of uncertainty and potential risk of enforcement or challenge by environmental groups if there is no new BiOp in place by the vacatur date[2].
5. Compliance Dilemma: The vacatur may force Gulf operators to risk substantial ESA liability to comply with other mandatory obligations, potentially putting them in a position where they could face penalties regardless of their actions[4].
It's important to note that while criminal charges are a potential consequence, they would likely be reserved for the most egregious cases of noncompliance. The primary concern for most operators appears to be the risk of civil penalties and operational disruptions. However, the threat of potential criminal liability adds another layer of complexity and risk to the situation facing oil and gas operators in the Gulf of Mexico after the vacatur of the 2020 BiOp.
Citations:
[1] https://www.wvhighlands.org/article/protecting-our-appalachian-legacy-the-fight-to-save-the-candy-darter/
[2] https://www.hklaw.com/en/insights/publications/2024/08/court-strikes-down-key-endangered-species-act-opinion
[3] https://www.theenergylawblog.com/2024/09/articles/energy/offshore/maryland-courts-vacatur-of-biological-opinion-could-cause-severe-disruption-of-gulf-of-mexico-oil-gas-activities/
[4] https://www.api.org/-/media/files/misc/2024/09/240916-gom-nmfs-biop-intervenor-motion-to-amend-judgement-or-stay.pdf
[5] https://earthjustice.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/204_memorandum-opinion-8.19.24.pdf
[6] https://www.endangeredspecieslawandpolicy.com/fish-and-wildlife-service-increases-civil-penalties-for-violations-of-federal-wildlife-protection-laws
[7] https://www.justice.gov/enrd/factors-decisions-criminal-prosecutions-environmental-violations-context-significant-voluntary
[8] https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/sites/ca10/files/opinions/010111034959.pdf
-------------------------------------------------
Based on the search results, the potential criminal penalties for knowingly violating the Endangered Species Act (ESA) include:
1. Fines of up to $50,000 per violation[1][3][5]
2. Imprisonment for up to one year per violation[1][3][5]
The key elements for criminal liability under the ESA are:
- Any person
- Knowingly
- Imports, exports, takes, transports, sells, purchases, or receives in interstate or foreign commerce any species listed as endangered or threatened[1]
It's important to note that:
1. These are maximum penalties - actual sentences may be less severe depending on the specific circumstances.
2. The "knowing" standard means the person must have been aware of their actions, but does not require proof they knew it was illegal.
3. Each individual animal or plant involved could potentially be charged as a separate violation.
4. In addition to fines and imprisonment, violators may also face forfeiture of any equipment or vehicles used in committing the offense[1].
5. While not explicitly stated in the search results, it's likely that more severe penalties could apply for multiple or egregious violations.
The criminal provisions of the ESA are intended to provide strong deterrence against harming protected species. However, prosecution typically focuses on the most serious cases of deliberate harm or trafficking of endangered wildlife.
Citations:
[1] https://www.epa.gov/enforcement/criminal-provisions-us-criminal-code-title-18-and-other-statutes
[2] https://www.unodc.org/e4j/en/wildlife-crime/module-3/key-issues/criminalization-of-wildlife-trafficking.html
[3] https://www.endangeredspecieslawandpolicy.com/fish-and-wildlife-service-increases-civil-penalties-for-violations-of-federal-wildlife-protection-laws
[4] https://www.animallaw.info/article/overview-lacey-act-16-usc-ss-3371-3378
[5] https://extension.okstate.edu/fact-sheets/what-you-need-to-know-about-the-endangered-species-act.html
[6] https://www.hklaw.com/en/insights/publications/2024/08/court-strikes-down-key-endangered-species-act-opinion
[7] https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R46867
[8] https://www.wvhighlands.org/article/protecting-our-appalachian-legacy-the-fight-to-save-the-candy-darter/
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on the search results and general knowledge about the Endangered Species Act (ESA), some of the most common violations include:
1. Unauthorized "Take" of Protected Species:
- This includes harassing, harming, pursuing, hunting, shooting, wounding, killing, trapping, capturing, or collecting any endangered or threatened species[1].
2. Habitat Destruction or Modification:
- Activities that significantly modify or degrade habitat, especially designated critical habitat, in a way that harms listed species[1].
3. Illegal Trade or Trafficking:
- Importing, exporting, selling, or purchasing protected species or their parts without proper permits[1].
4. Failure to Comply with Permit Requirements:
- Not adhering to the conditions of permits issued for activities that may affect listed species.
5. Violations of Section 7 Consultation Requirements:
- Federal agencies failing to consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service or National Marine Fisheries Service when their actions may affect listed species[2].
6. Illegal Logging or Plant Harvesting:
- Taking protected plant species or engaging in unauthorized logging in protected areas[1].
7. Import/Export Violations:
- Importing or exporting protected species without proper documentation or with fraudulent documents[1].
8. Failure to Implement Protection and Enhancement Plans (PEPs):
- In the context of mining operations, failing to develop or implement required plans to protect endangered species like the candy darter[3].
9. Water Pollution Affecting Listed Species:
- Discharging pollutants that harm aquatic endangered species, such as violations of National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits[3].
10. Failure to Report:
- Not reporting accidental takes or other incidents involving listed species as required by permits or regulations.
These violations can result in civil penalties, which as of 2024 can be up to $63,991 for knowing violations of the ESA's "take" prohibition, and up to $30,715 for other knowing violations[4]. Criminal penalties, while less common, can include fines of up to $50,000 and imprisonment for up to one year per violation for knowing violations of the Act[1].
Citations:
[1] https://www.unodc.org/e4j/en/wildlife-crime/module-3/key-issues/criminalization-of-wildlife-trafficking.html
[2] https://earthjustice.org/feature/endangered-species-act-under-attack
[3] https://www.wvhighlands.org/article/protecting-our-appalachian-legacy-the-fight-to-save-the-candy-darter/
[4] https://www.endangeredspecieslawandpolicy.com/fish-and-wildlife-service-increases-civil-penalties-for-violations-of-federal-wildlife-protection-laws
[5] https://earthjustice.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/204_memorandum-opinion-8.19.24.pdf
[6] https://climatecasechart.com/case/national-wildlife-federation-v-national-marine-fisheries-service/
[7] https://www.animallaw.info/intro/endangered-species-act-esa
[8] https://www.wvhighlands.org/article/candy-darters-caught-in-the-crossroads/
------------------------------------------------------
.jpg)
.jfif)
.jfif)
.jfif)
