20221175 Ver 1_17BP.7.R.21 Mebane Bridge Dan River Fish and Mussel Survey Report_Draft_20220831

Freshwater Fish and Mussel Survey Report
Bridge 233 on Mebane Bridge Road over the Dan River
STIP No. BR-780233
WBS Element No. 17BP.7.R.21
Rockingham County, North Carolina
Dan River and Mebane Bridge during the survey efforts
Prepared For:
F uoerH
4
F F L
OF
NC Department of Transportation
Raleigh, North Carolina
July 12, 2022

Prepared by:
`v
.It
4 701*
324 Blackwell Street, Suite 1200
Durham, NC 27701
Contact Person:
Tom Dickinson
tom.dickinson(cr�,threeoaksengineering.com
919-732-1300

Table of Contents
1.0 Introduction..........................................................................................................................
1
2.0 Waters Impacted..................................................................................................................
1
2.1 303(d) Classification........................................................................................................
2
2.2 NPDES Discharges..........................................................................................................
2
3.0 Target Federally Protected Species Descriptions................................................................
2
3.1 Percina rex (Roanoke Logperch).....................................................................................
2
3.1.1 Species Characteristics..............................................................................................
2
3.1.2 Distribution and Habitat Requirements....................................................................
3
3.1.3 Threats to Species.....................................................................................................
4
3.1.4 Designated Critical Habitat.......................................................................................
5
3.2 Parvaspina collina (James Spinymussel)........................................................................
5
3.2.1 Species Characteristics..............................................................................................
5
3.2.2 Distribution and Habitat Requirements....................................................................
6
3.2.3 Threats to Species.....................................................................................................
6
3.2.4 Designated Critical Habitat.......................................................................................
7
3.3 Fusconaia masoni (Atlantic Pigtoe).................................................................................
8
3.3.1 Species Characteristics..............................................................................................
8
3.3.2 Distribution and Habitat Requirements....................................................................
8
3.3.3 Threats to Species.....................................................................................................
9
3.3.4 Designated Critical Habitat.......................................................................................
9
4.0 Other Target Species Descriptions....................................................................................
11
4.1 Lasmigona subviridis (Green Floater)...........................................................................
11
4.1.1 Species Characteristics............................................................................................
11
4.1.2 Distribution and Habitat Requirements..................................................................
11
4.1.3 Threats to Species...................................................................................................
11
5.0 Survey Efforts....................................................................................................................
11
5.1 Stream Conditions at Time of Survey: Dan River.........................................................
11
5.2 Methodology..................................................................................................................
12
5.2.1 Fish Surveys............................................................................................................
12
5.2.2 Mussel Surveys.......................................................................................................
12
5.3 Results............................................................................................................................
13
5.3.1 Fish Survey Results.................................................................................................
13
5.3.2 Mussel Survey Results............................................................................................
13
6.0 Discussion/Conclusions.....................................................................................................
13
7.0 Literature Cited..................................................................................................................
15
Appendix A. Figures:
Figure 1: Project Vicinity & Survey Reach
Figure 2-1 to 2-4: NCNHP Element Occurrences
Figure 3: 303(d) Listed Streams and NPDES Discharges

1.0 INTRODUCTION
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes the removal of Bridge No.
233 on SR 1964 (Mebane Bridge Road) over the Dan River in Rockingham County (STIP No.
BR-780233; Appendix A, Figure 1). The project crosses the Dan River of the Roanoke River
Basin. The Federally Endangered Roanoke Logperch (Percina rex) and James Spinymussel
(Parvaspina collina, JSM [formerly Pleurobema collina (Perkins et al. 2017)]), and the
Federally Threatened Atlantic Pigtoe (Fusconaia masoni) are listed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (USFWS) under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) for Rockingham County. The
Green Floater (Lasmigona subviridis) is being considered for listing by USFWS and is also
known to occur in Rockingham County. The USFWS Information, Planning, and Consultation
(IPaC) system indicates the Roanoke Logperch, James Spinymussel, and Atlantic Pigtoe as
species that could potentially be affected by activities in this location (USFWS IPaC 2022).
Table 1 lists the nearest element occurrence (EO) for each of the targeted species in approximate
river miles (RM) from the subject bridge. Data is from the NC Natural Heritage Program
database (NCNHP 2022) most recently updated in April 2022 (Figure 2-1 to 2-4).
Table 1. Element Occurrences
Distance
from
EO
crossing
First
Last
EO
Species Name
EO ID
Waterbody
(RM)
Observed
Observed
Status*
Figure
Roanoke
In Study
October
25404
Smith River
July 2007
C
2-1
Logperch
Area
2019
James
November
October
37056
Dan River
4.1
C
2-2
Spinymussel
2016
2017
September
October
Atlantic Pigtoe
39786
Dan River
4.1
C
2-3
2017
2019
In Study
November
September
Green Floater
3622
Dan River
C
2-4
Area
2000
2019
*: C — NCNHP Current
As part of the federal permitting process that requires an evaluation of potential project -related
effects to federally protected species, Three Oaks Engineering (Three Oaks) was contracted to
conduct fish surveys targeting the Roanoke Logperch and mussel surveys targeting James
Spinymussel, Atlantic Pigtoe, and Green Floater.
2.0 WATERS IMPACTED
This section of the Dan River is located in the Upper Dan River subbasin (HUC9 03010103) of
the Roanoke River Basin. The Dan River flows approximately 58 RM from the existing bridge
before reaching the John H. Kerr Reservoir.
BR-780233 Fish and Mussel Survey Report 2022
Job# 21-026 Page 1

2.1 303(d) Classification
The Dan River at the subject bridge is not on the 2020 final 303(d) list of impaired streams (NC
Division of Water Resources [NCDEQ] 2020). However, a section of the Smith River, which
flows into the Dan River 0.8 RM upstream of the subject bridge is listed for Benthos (fair rating).
However, this portion of the Dan River is listed with a 4t for suspended solids (Approved
TMDL), 4i (Exceeding criteria with statistical confidence) category for turbidity, and a 3a
(Pathogen indicator screening excursions) category for fecal coliform (Figure 3).
2.2 NPDES Discharges
There are three major and one minor discharger located within a 5-mile buffer of the project
study area. The Eden Mebane Bridge Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP, Permit
#NC0025071) is the closest major permitted discharger located approximately 450-500 meters
downstream of the Mebane Bridge on the Dan River, discharging approximately 13,500,000
Gallons Per Day (GPD). The Duke Energy Carolinas LLC Dan River Combined Cycle (Permit
#NC0003468) is located 1.5 RM downstream of the study area on the Dan River. The Eden Real
Estate WWTP (Permit #NC0001643) is located 5.9 RM from the subject bridge on Covenant
Branch; the confluence of Covenant Branch with the Dan River is located 4.3 RM downstream
from the subject bridge. The Nestle Purina Petcare Company (Permit #NC0029980) is located
11.9 RM from the subject bridge on Dry Creek; Dry Creek's confluence with the Dan River is
located 7.7 RM downstream of the subject bridge. There are numerous general permitted
dischargers located within a 5-mile buffer of the project study area, several of which are located
upstream of the subject bridge on tributaries to the Dan River (Figure 3, USEPA 2022).
3.0 TARGET FEDERALLY PROTECTED SPECIES DESCRIPTIONS
3.1 Percina rex (Roanoke Logperch)
3.1.1 Species Characteristics
The Roanoke Logperch is a large darter with an
elongate body up to 165 mm in total length. The
snout is conical or pig -like. The caudal fin is slightly
emarginated, truncate, or slightly rounded. The body
is straw-colored to pale olive dorsally, pale to
yellow -olive on the lower side with a white belly; the
lateral line is complete. Markings are dark olive to
black with green, gold, or blue iridescence on the
side of the head and the prepectoral area. There are
8-11 lateral blotches. The first dorsal fin has
submarginal yellow or orange bands, while the
second dorsal, caudal, and pectoral fins are distinctly tessellated (Terwilliger 1991).
The Roanoke Logperch is a benthic feeder; feeding on a variety of immature insects by
overturning gravel and small rocks with its snout (Terwilliger 1991). The average life
expectancy is five to six years. Spawning occurs in April or May in deep runs over gravel and
BR-780233 Fish and Mussel Survey Report 2022
Job# 21-026 Page 2

small cobble. Logperch typically bury their eggs and provide no subsequent parental care
(USFWS 2015).
3.1.2 Distribution and Habitat Requirements
The Roanoke Logperch can be found in larger streams in the upper Roanoke, Smith, Pigg, Otter,
and Nottoway River systems and Goose Creek in Virginia; and in the Dan, Mayo, and Smith
River systems and Big Beaver Island Creek in North Carolina. Its upstream range in the Dan and
Mayo Rivers is presumably impeded by dams (USFWS 2015).
Due to barriers such as dams, there are currently eight discrete populations of Roanoke
Logperch. The population in the upper Roanoke River is probably the largest and most
important in the species' range (USFWS 2007).
The Roanoke Logperch occupies medium to large warm water streams and rivers of moderate
gradient and relatively unsilted substrates. Inhabited waterways have a moderate to low
gradient, and the fish usually inhabit riffles and runs with silt -free sandy to boulder -strewn
bottoms. During different phases of life history and season, every major riverine habitat is
exploited by the Logperch. Young are usually found in slow runs and pools with clean sandy
bottoms. In winter, Logperch may be more tolerant of silty substrates and may also inhabit
pools. Males are associated with shallow riffles during the reproductive period; females are
common in deep runs over gravel and small cobble where they spawn (NatureServe 2015,
USFWS 1992a).
The species is usually in low abundance. The populations are small and separated by long
segments of river or large impoundments; it is nearly always rare, never abundant (Terwilliger
1991). In addition, the Roanoke Logperch's low catchability, patchy distribution, and low
abundance make them difficult to detect. Extensive and intensive sampling by the Virginia
Transportation Research Council confirmed that Roanoke Logperch are difficult to detect even
with more sampling effort than typically is applied in general fish surveys (Lahey and
Angermeier 2007). It wasn't until 2007, that individuals of this species were found in the
Roanoke River drainage (Smith and Dan Rivers) in Rockingham County, North Carolina
(NCWRC 2015).
Existing information on the distribution of Roanoke Logperch and habitat suitable for Logperch
is scarce and uneven in quality. Most previous surveys for Logperch focused on areas near
known occurrences and information on habitat suitability has been scarce and inconsistently
gathered (Lahey and Angermeier 2007).
The present understanding of the Roanoke Logperch range and densities indicate that all
populations extend further and are denser than previously assumed when the species was
federally listed. Populations in the upper Roanoke and Nottoway Rivers show comparably high
densities (Rosenberger and Angermeier 2002 in USFWS 2007) and high genetic diversity
(George and Mayden 2003 in USFWS 2007). The species appears to be reproducing throughout
its range, however, a poor understanding of abundance at the time of listing makes it difficult to
determine whether populations are increasing, stable, or declining over the long term (USFWS
2007).
BR-780233 Fish and Mussel Survey Report 2022
Job# 21-026 Page 3

3.1.3 Threats to Species
Roanoke Logperch populations are threatened by dams/barriers and reservoirs, watershed
urbanization, agricultural and silvicultural activities contributing to non -point source pollution,
stream channelization, roads, toxic spills, woody debris loss, and water withdrawals (USFWS
2015).
It appears that massive habitat loss associated with the construction of the large impoundments
of the Roanoke River Basin in the 1950s and 1960s (Roanoke Rapids, Gaston, Kerr, Leesville,
Smith Mountain, and Philpott Reservoirs) was the original cause of significant population
declines of this species. These reservoir systems resulted in major disruptions in the ability of
this species to move throughout its historic range. The populations in the Roanoke and
Nottoway basins probably represent remnants of much larger populations that once occupied
much of the Roanoke and Chowan River drainages upstream of the fall line. All the populations
are small and no genetic exchange occurs among them because they are separated by large
impoundments and wide river gaps. Each population is vulnerable due to its relatively low
density and limited range.
Small Logperch populations could go extinct with minor habitat degradation. Catastrophic
events may consist of natural events such as flooding or drought, as well as human influenced
events such as toxic spills associated with highways, railroads, or industrial -municipal
complexes (USFWS 2015).
The best known and largest population, which inhabits the upper Roanoke from the City of
Roanoke upstream into the North and South Forks, has been subjected to considerable stress
from human uses in the basin, progressively more so in the downstream direction. Although
there are no trend data available, the continued urbanization of the upper Roanoke threatens the
existing population density and abundance in this portion of the species' range (USFWS 2007).
Water withdrawals may pose a serious threat to the species in the future as the human population
of the Roanoke River basin increases (USFWS 2015).
Non -point sources of pollution can be a problem for the species. Large quantities of stormwater
drain from streets and lawns, carrying nutrients, oil, metals, and other pollutants into the upper
Roanoke (USFWS 1992a). Spills of toxic chemicals have occurred in the Roanoke River in
Salem and Roanoke, including 11 spills documented in the Roanoke and its tributaries from 1970
through 1991 (USFWS 1992a). One of the most destructive spills resulted from the accidental
discharge of more than 100,000 gallons of liquid manure into a tributary of the South Fork of the
Roanoke River. It is estimated that this spill killed 190,000 fish, including 300 Roanoke
Logperch (USFWS 1992a). Events such as this could be catastrophic to small, isolated
populations.
Siltation is a widespread threat to the Roanoke Logperch. Excessive silt deposition reduces
habitat heterogeneity and primary productivity; increases egg and larval mortality; abrades
organisms; and alters, degrades, and entombs macrobenthic communities (Burkhead and Jenkins
1991, in USFWS 1992a). The water quality of the North Fork of the Roanoke River is
significantly degraded by silt washed from agricultural lands in the watershed. It is probable that
BR-780233 Fish and Mussel Survey Report 2022
Job# 21-026 Page 4

the absence of the species from the upper and middle portions of the North Fork Roanoke is the
result of historical habitat degradation. Excessive siltation generated by poor agricultural and
logging practices is also a problem in the Nottoway River watershed (USFWS 1992a).
The impacts from in -stream sand and gravel -mining operations on aquatic environments and
riparian habitats are well -documented (Meador and Layher 1998, Kondolf 1997, Starnes and
Gasper 1996). These physical and biotic effects can extend far upstream and downstream from
the site of extraction (Brown et al. 1998). The recovery time of the stream ecosystem from
mining operations can be very extensive (>20 years) and total restoration in some cases has been
considered improbable (Kanehl and Lyons 1992, Brown et al. 1998). There are a number of
active and inactive mining operations in the Dan River subbasin in Stokes and Rockingham
counties.
Wide forested buffers have been identified as critical in maintaining stream type (Llhardt et al.
2000), water temperature control (Lynch and Corbett 1990), food resources (Palik et al. 2000),
and instream habitat (Semlitsch 1998) for aquatic resources. Deforestation of large magnitude in
the Dan and Mayo River watersheds may have significant effects on aquatic habitat.
3.1.4 Designated Critical Habitat
There is currently no Designated Critical Habitat for the Roanoke Logperch, as of July 2022.
3.2 Parvaspina collina (James Spinymussel)
3.2.1 Species Characteristics
The James Spinymussel was discovered in the
Calfpasture River (of the James River Basin) by T.
A. Conrad and originally described as Unio collinus
(Conrad 1837). Various people (See USFWS 1990
for synonyms) have subsequently placed this species
in a number of different genera. Turgeon et al.
(1988) placed the JSM in the genus Pleurobema.
Perkins et al. (2017) subsequently placed JSM in the
genus Parvaspina. The taxonomic history of this
species is described fully in Clarke and Neves
(1984).
The JSM is a small mussel that is reported to reach a maximum size of 70 mm; however, a
specimen collected in the Dan River was measured at 74 mm in length (Tim Savidge, personal
observations). Larger specimens up to 89 mm in length have been collected in Johns Creek of
the upper James River basin (Tom Dickinson, personal observations). The shells of small
individuals (<40 mm) are subrhomboidal in shape with an obliquely subtruncated posterior with
widely spaced concentric striations. The periostracum is shiny and straw yellow with prominent
growth rings. Faint brownish rays are rarely present. One to three short, but prominent spines
are occasionally present on each valve. With age, the shell becomes more ovate or even arcuate,
the periostracum becomes brownish to black and any spines that were once present are lost.
BR-780233 Fish and Mussel Survey Report 2022
Job# 21-026 Page 5

Their beaks are typically eroded and only slightly elevated above the hinge line, if at all. The
nacre is white with occasional bluish suffusions. The foot and mantle of live specimens are light
orange in color (USFWS 1990, Clarke and Neves 1984, Johnson 1970). Internal anatomy is
detailed in Clarke and Neves (1984).
The JSM and the Tar Spinymussel (TSM) share many morphological traits but are considered
distinct species. The TSM has been described as having intermediate characteristics between the
small, short-spined JSM and the large, long-spined Altamaha Spinymussel (Elliptio spinosa)
(USFWS 1992b; USFWS 1990). Internal anatomical differences between the two species are
described in Clarke and Neves (1984). TSM can have up to 12 spines (USFWS 1992b) and tend
to have spines more often than JSMs. Clarke and Neves (1984) state most specimens of JSM
"never develop spines."
Knowledge of the reproductive biology of the JSM is limited to thesis research at Virginia
Polytechnic Institute and State University (Hove 1990; Hove and Neves 1989). Like nearly all
freshwater mussel species, the reproductive strategy of the JSM involves a glochidium that
becomes a temporary obligate parasite on a fish. Many mussel species have specific fish hosts
that must be present to complete their life cycle. Based upon laboratory infestation experiments,
Hove (1990) identified seven fish species, all in the family Cyprinidae (minnows), as potential
fish hosts for the JSM. McMahon and Bogan (2001) and Pennak (1989) provide a general
overview of freshwater mussel reproductive biology.
3,2.2 Distribution and Habitat Requirements
Previously, the JSM was believed to be endemic to the James River system, with a widespread
distribution within the basin (USFWS 1990, Clarke and Neves,1984). When the Recovery Plan
for this species was adopted, it was believed to have been extirpated from 90% of its historic
distribution. Since its discovery in the Dan River in the fall of 2000, extensive surveys have
been conducted and a "working range" of approximately 36 miles in the Dan River in Stokes
County, North Carolina, and approximately 17 miles in the Mayo River, in Patrick County,
Virginia, and Rockingham County, North Carolina has been established.
A description of chemical and physical conditions at sites currently and historically supporting
the JSM is given in Clarke and Neves (1984) and Boss and Clench (1967). The habitat is
generally described as runs with moderate current, with sand, gravel, and cobble substrate.
Individuals from the Dan River population have been found in a variety of substrates that range
from silt/sand, to sand, gravel, cobble, bedrock crevices, and sand surrounded by boulders, and in
a variety of flow patterns that range from slack pools to runs with moderate to swift currents
(Tom Dickinson, personal observations). The hardness of the water is believed to be a
significant requirement for this species, with a minimum hardness value of >50 ppm CaCO3
(Clarke and Neves 1984).
3.2.3 Threats to Species
The cumulative effects of several factors, including sedimentation, point and non -point
discharge, stream modification (e.g., impoundment, channelization), coupled with the apparent
BR-780233 Fish and Mussel Survey Report 2022
Job# 21-026 Page 6

restricted range, are believed to have contributed to the decline of this species throughout its
range (USFWS 1990). When mussel populations are reduced to a small number of individuals
and are restricted to short reaches of isolated streams, they are extremely vulnerable to
extirpation from a single catastrophic event or activity (Strayer et al. 1996). Catastrophic events
may consist of natural events such as flooding or drought, as well as human influenced events,
such as toxic spills.
Siltation resulting from improper erosion control of various land usage, including agriculture,
silviculture, and development activities, has been recognized as a major contributing factor to
degradation of mussel populations (USFWS 1996). Siltation has been documented to be
extremely detrimental to mussel populations by degrading substrate and water quality, increasing
potential exposure to other pollutants, and by directly smothering mussels (Ellis 1936, Marking
and Bills 1979). Sediment accumulations of less than 1 inch have been shown to cause high
mortality in most mussel species (Ellis 1936).
Sewage treatment effluent has been documented to significantly affect the diversity and
abundance of mussel fauna (Goudreau et al. 1988). Goudreau et al. (1988) found that recovery
of mussel populations might not occur for up to two miles below points of chlorinated sewage
effluent. Clarke and Neves (1984) suggested that sewage and industrial pollution might have
contributed to the extirpation of the James Spinymussel from the North River in Virginia.
The impact of impoundments on freshwater mussels has been well -documented (USFWS 1992c,
Neves 1993). Construction of dams transforms lotic habitats into lentic habitats, which results in
changes with aquatic community composition. These changes associated with inundation
adversely affect both adult and juvenile mussels as well as fish community structure, which
could eliminate possible fish hosts for glochidia (Fuller 1974).
The introduction of exotic species, such as the Asian Clam (Corbicula fluminea) and Zebra
Mussel (Dreissena polymorpha), has also been shown to pose significant threats to native
freshwater mussels. The Asian Clam is now established in most of the major river systems in the
United States (Fuller and Powell 1973) including those streams still supporting surviving
populations of the James Spinymussel. Concern has been raised over competitive interactions
for space, food, and oxygen between this species and native mussels, possibly at the juvenile
stages (Neves and Widlak 1987, Alderman 1997). The Asian Clam is common to abundant
within the James River. The Zebra Mussel, native to the drainage basins of the Black, Caspian,
and Aral Seas, is an exotic freshwater mussel that was introduced into the Great Lakes in the
1980s and has rapidly expanded its range into the surrounding river basins, including those of the
South Atlantic Slope (O'Neill and MacNeill 1991). This species competes for food resources
and space with native mussels and is expected to contribute to the extinction of at least 20
freshwater mussel species if it becomes established throughout most of the eastern United States
(USFWS 1992c). This species has not been recorded in the Roanoke River Basin.
3.2.4 Designated Critical Habitat
There currently is no Designated Critical Habitat for the James Spinymussel, as of July 2022.
BR-780233 Fish and Mussel Survey Report 2022
Job# 21-026 Page 7

3.3 Fusconaia masoni (Atlantic Pigtoe)
3.3.1 Species Characteristics
The Atlantic Pigtoe was described by Conrad (1834) from
the Savannah River in Augusta, Georgia. Although larger
specimens exist, the Atlantic Pigtoe seldom exceeds 50 mm
(2 inches) in length. This species is tall relative to its
length, except in headwater stream reaches where
specimens may be elongated. The hinge ligament is
relatively short and prominent. The periostracum is
normally brownish, has a parchment texture, and young
individuals may have greenish rays across the entire shell
surface. The posterior ridge is biangulate. The interdentum
in the left valve is broad and flat. The anterior half of the valve is thickened compared with the
posterior half, and, when fresh, nacre in the anterior half of the shell tends to be salmon colored,
while nacre in the posterior half tends to be more iridescent. The shell has full dentation. In
addition to simple papillae, branched and arborescent papillae are often seen on the incurrent
aperture. In females, salmon colored demibranchs are often seen during the spawning season.
When fully gravid, females use all four demibranchs to brood glochidia (VDGIF 2014).
The Atlantic Pigtoe is a tachytictic (short-term) breeder, brooding young in early spring and
releasing glochidia in early summer. The Bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus) and Shield Darter
(Percina peltata) have been identified as potential fish hosts for this species (O'Dee and Waters
2000). Additional research has found Rosefin Shiner (Lythrurus ardens), Creek Chub (Semotilus
atromaculatus), and Longnose Dace (Rhinichthys cataractae) are also suitable hosts (Wolf
2012). Eads and Levine (2012) found White Shiner (Luxilus albeolus), Satinfin Shiner
(Cyprinella analostana), Bluehead Chub (Nocomis leptocephalus), Rosyside Dace (Clinostomus
funduloides), Pinewoods Shiner (Lythrurus matutinus), Swallowtail Shiner (Notropis procne),
and Mountain Redbelly Dace (Chrosomus oreas) to also be suitable hosts for Atlantic Pigtoe.
3.3.2 Distribution and Habitat Requirements
Johnson (1970) reported the range of the Atlantic Pigtoe extended from the Ogeechee River
Basin in Georgia north to the James River Basin in Virginia; however, recent curation of the H.
D. Athearn collection uncovered valid specimens from the Altamaha River in Georgia (USFWS
2021a). In addition, USFWS (2021b) citing Alderman and Alderman (2014) reported two shells
from the 1880's that also documented the historical occurrence in the Altamaha River Basin. It
is presumed extirpated from the Catawba River Basin in North and South Carolina south to the
Altamaha River Basin (USFWS 2021a, USFWS 2021b). The general pattern of its current
distribution indicates that the species is currently limited to headwater areas of drainages and
most populations are represented by few individuals. In North Carolina, aside from the
Waccamaw River, it was once found in every Atlantic Slope River basin. Except for the Tar
River, it is no longer found in the mainstem of the rivers within its historic range within North
Carolina (Savidge et al. 2011). It is listed as Endangered in Georgia, South Carolina, and North
Carolina, and as Threatened in Virginia. It has a NatureServe rank of G1 (Critically Imperiled)
(Natureserve, 2018).
BR-780233 Fish and Mussel Survey Report 2022
Job# 21-026 Page 8

The Atlantic Pigtoe has been found in multiple physiographic provinces, from the foothills of the
Appalachian Mountains, through the Piedmont and into the Coastal Plain, in streams less than
one meter wide to large rivers. The preferred habitat is a substrate composed of gravel and
coarse sand, usually at the base of riffles; however, it can be found in a variety of other substrates
and lotic habitat conditions.
3.3.3 Threats to Species
Threats to the Atlantic Pigtoe are largely similar to the James Spinymussel. Atlantic Pigtoe
appears to be particularly sensitive to pollutants and requires clean, oxygen -rich water for all
stages of life. All the remaining Atlantic Pigtoe populations are generally small in numbers and
restricted to short reaches of isolated streams. The low numbers of individuals and the restricted
range of most of the surviving populations make them extremely vulnerable to extirpation from a
single catastrophic event.
3.3.4 Designated Critical Habitat
As mentioned in Section 1.0, the Atlantic Pigtoe is listed as a Federally Threatened Species
under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) with Section 4(d) Rule and Critical Habitat
Designation. In accordance with Section 4 of the ESA, Critical Habitat for listed species consists
of:
(1) The specific areas within the geographical area occupied by the species at the time it is
listed, in which are found those physical or biological features (constituent elements) that
are:
a. essential to the conservation of the species, and
b. which may require special management considerations or protection
(2) Specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by the species at the time it is listed
in accordance with the provisions of Section 4 of the Act, upon a determination by the
Secretary that such areas are "essential for the conservation of the species."
On November 16, 2021, USFWS listed the Atlantic Pigtoe as a Threatened species under the
ESA. Critical habitat was revised with the listing (86 FR 64000) and consists of the following
(USFWS 2021b):
• Unit I (JRl) - 29 river mi (46.7 river km) of Craig Creek in Craig and Botetourt
Counties, Virginia
• Unit 2 (JR2) - I mile (1.6-km) of Mill Creek in Bath County, Virginia
• Unit 3 (CRI) - 4 miles (6.6 km) of Sappony Creek in the Chowan River Basin in
Dinwiddie County, Virginia
• Unit 4 (CR2) - 64 river miles (103 river km) of the Nottoway River and a portion of
Sturgeon Creek in Nottoway, Lunenburg, Brunswick, Dinwiddie, and Greenville
Counties, Virginia
BR-780233 Fish and Mussel Survey Report 2022
Job# 21-026 Page 9

• Unit 5 (CR3) - 5 miles (8 km) of the Meherrin River in Brunswick County, Virginia
• Unit 6 (RR1) - 14 miles (22.5 km) of the Dan River in Pittsylvania County, Virginia and
Rockingham County, North Carolina
• Unit 7 (RR2) - 12 miles (19.3 km) of Aarons Creek in Granville County, North Carolina
and along the Mecklenburg County -Halifax County line in Virginia and North Carolina
• Unit 8 (RR3) —3 miles (4.8 km) of Little Grassy Creek in the Roanoke River Basin in
Granville County, North Carolina
• Unit 9 (TR1) - 91 miles (146.5 km) of the mainstem of the upper and middle Tar River as
well as several tributaries (Bear Swamp Creek, Crooked Creek, Cub Creek, and Shelton
Creek), in Granville, Vance, Franklin, and Nash Counties, North Carolina.
• Unit 10 (TR2) - 50 miles (80.5km) of Sandy/Swift Creek in Granville, Vance, Franklin,
and Nash Counties, North Carolina
• Unit 11 (TR3) - 85 miles (136.8 km) in Fishing Creek, Little Fishing Creek, Shocco
Creek, and Maple Branch located in Warren, Halifax, Franklin, and Nash Counties, North
Carolina
• Unit 12 (TR4) - 30 miles (48.3 km) of the Lower Tar River, lower Swift Creek and lower
Fishing Creek in Edgecombe County, North Carolina
• Unit 13 (NRI) - 60 river miles (95 river km) in four subunits including Flat River, Little
River, Eno River, and the Upper Eno River in Person, Durham, and Orange Counties,
North Carolina
• Unit 14 (NR2) - 61 river miles (98.2 river km) in five subunits including Swift Creek,
Middle Creek, Upper Little River, Middle Little River, and Contentnea Creek in Wake,
Johnston, and Wilson Counties, North Carolina
• Unit 15 (CF1) - 4 miles (6.4 km) of habitat in New Hope Creek in Orange County, North
Carolina
• Unit 16 (CF2) - 10 river miles (16.1 river km) of Deep River in Randolph County, North
Carolina, including the mainstem as well as Richland Creek and Brush Creek
• Unit 17 (YRI) - 40 miles (64.4 km) of Little River in Randolph and Montgomery
Counties, North Carolina
*JR, CR, RR, TR, NR, CF and YR denote James River, Chowan River, Roanoke River, Tar
River, Neuse River, Cape Fear River and Yadkin River Basins, respectively.
Critical Habitat Unit 6 occurs approximately 4.1 RM downstream of the subject bridge (Figure
2-3).
BR-780233 Fish and Mussel Survey Report 2022
Job# 21-026 Page 10

4.0 OTHER TARGET SPECIES DESCRIPTIONS
4.1 Lasmigona subviridis (Green Floater)
4.1.1 Species Characteristics
The Green Floater was described by Conrad (1835) from
the Schuykill River in Lancaster County, Pennsylvania.
This small mussel species has a thin, slightly inflated,
subovate shell that is narrower in front, higher behind. The
dorsal margin forms a blunt angle with the posterior margin.
The shell is dull yellow or tan to brownish green, usually
with concentrations of dark green rays.
4.1.2 Distribution and Habitat Requirements
The Green Floater occurs along the Atlantic slope from the
Savannah River in Georgia north to the Hudson River in New York, as well as in the "interior"
basins (New, Kanawah, and Wataugua Rivers) of the Tennessee River Basin. It has experienced
major declines throughout its entire range. Based on preliminary genetics research, the southern
populations of the Green Floater (Tar -Pamlico, Neuse, and Yadkin/Pee Dee River Basins) appear
to be genetically distinct from populations from the Roanoke River to the north and west
(Morgan Railey and Arthur Bogan, North Carolina Museum of Natural Sciences, 2007 Personal
Communication). Further research is needed to determine if these differences warrant
classification of the southern populations as a distinct species. It occurs in small size streams to
large rivers, in quiet waters such as pools, or eddies, with gravel and sand substrates.
4.1.3 Threats to Species
Threats to the Green Floater and many other mussel species are similar to those described above
for the James Spinymussel (Section 3.2.3).
5.0 SURVEY EFFORTS
Surveys were conducted by Three Oaks personnel Tom Dickinson (Permit # 22-ES00343), Tim
Savidge (Permit # 22-ES0034), Trevor Hall, and Nathan Howell, along with assistance from
NCWRC biologists T.R. Russ and Taylor Crews on June 21, 2022.
5.1 Stream Conditions at Time of Survey: Dan River
Habitat consisted primarily of deep (up to 15 feet) run within the reach, with shallow habitats
confined to the slopes of banks and sandbars. The river channel ranged from approximately 170
to 200 feet wide with banks up to 15 feet high that ranged from stable in some areas, to others
that exhibited significant erosion and undercutting. Substrates consisted primarily of
unconsolidated sand mid -channel with silt and fine sand slopes lined with heavy woody debris.
Some pebble and cobble were noted in thalweg habitat. Steep topography along the right
BR-780233 Fish and Mussel Survey Report 2022
Job# 21-026 Page 11

descending bank and associated rocky outcropping provided stability and higher quality habitat
near the current bridge crossing, where large boulders were present.
5.2 Methodology
5.2.1 Fish Surveys
Three Oaks conducted visual surveys in conjunction with mussel survey efforts in an
approximately 1,640-ft (500 meter) reach, 1,312 ft (400 meters) downstream to 328 ft (100
meters) upstream, of the bridge crossing. All habitat types in the survey reach (riffle, run, pool,
slack -water, etc.) were sampled, with special attention given to transition areas between habitat
types where fish congregate.
Relative abundance reported was estimated using the following criteria:
➢ (VA) Very abundant > 30 collected at survey station
➢ (A) Abundant: 16-30 collected at survey station
➢ (C) Common: 6-15 collected at survey station
➢ (U) Uncommon: 3-5 collected at survey station
➢ (R) Rare: 1-2 collected at survey station
It should be noted that relative abundances of particular species can be affected by survey
methodologies and site conditions. Thus, some species, particularly those that are found in
deeper pools and or undercut banks, may be under -represented, or not detected at a sample site.
Visual survey results can vary depending on daily survey conditions such as water clarity and
depth, making direct site comparisons difficult.
5.2.2 Mussel Surveys
Mussel surveys were also conducted from approximately 1,312 ft (400 meters) downstream to
approximately 328 ft (100 meters) upstream of the project area for a distance of approximately
1,640 ft (500 meters) (Figure 1). Areas of appropriate habitat were searched, concentrating on
the stable habitats preferred by the target species. The survey team spread out across the
channels into survey lanes. Visual surveys were conducted using mask/snorkel, glass bottom
view buckets (bathyscopes) and SCUBA. Tactile methods were employed, particularly in
streambanks under submerged rootmats. All freshwater bivalves were recorded and returned to
the substrate. Timed survey efforts provided Catch Per Unit Effort (CPUE) data for each
species. Relative abundance for freshwater snails and freshwater clam species were estimated
using the following criteria:
BR-780233 Fish and Mussel Survey Report 2022
Job# 21-026 Page 12

➢ (VA) Very abundant > 30 per square meter
➢ (A) Abundant 16-30 per square meter
➢ (C) Common 6-15 per square meter
➢ (U) Uncommon 3-5 per square meter
➢ (R) Rare 1-2 per square meter
➢ (P-) Ancillary adjective "Patchy" indicates an uneven distribution of the species within the
sampled site.
5.3 Results
5.3.1 Fish Survey Results
A total of 13 species were observed (Table 2). A Roanoke Logperch individual was observed
near the downstream extent of the reach along the left descending riverbank.
Table 2. Fish survey results
Scientific Name
Common Name
Relative Abundance
C rinella analostana
Satinfin Shiner
C
Etheostoma ni rum
Johnny Darter
A
Etheostoma vitreum
Glassy Darter
U
H entelium ni ricans
Northern Ho sucker
C
ktalurus punctatus
Channel Catfish
C
Le orris auritus
Redbreast Sunfish
C
Le orris macrochirus
Blue ill Sunfish
U
Micro terus dolomieui
Smallmouth Bass
U
Micro terus salmoides
Largemouth Bass
U
Nocomis le toce halus
Bluehead Chub
C
Notro is sp
a Shiner
C
Percina rex
Roanoke Logperch
R
Scartom zon cervinus
Black Jum rock
C
5.3.2 Mussel Survey Results
A total of 16 person hours of survey time were spent in the reach, during which one native
freshwater mussel species and one invasive freshwater clam species were found (Table 3).
Table 3. CPUE for Freshwater Mussels in the Dan River
Scientific Name
Common Name
# live
Abundance / CPUE
Freshwater Mussels
CPUE
Elli do com lanata
Eastern Elli do
24
1.5/hr
Freshwater Snails and Clams
Relative Abundance
Corbicula uminea
I Asian Clam
C
6.0 DISCUSSION/CONCLUSIONS
The results confirm that the study area supports the Roanoke Logperch and a low -density
population of the common Eastern Elliptio was documented during this effort; the James
Spinymussel, Atlantic Pigtoe, and Green Floater were not found.
BR-780233 Fish and Mussel Survey Report 2022
Job# 21-026 Page 13

Based on these and previous survey results, impacts to Roanoke Logperch may occur as a result
of bridge demolition. Roanoke Logperch had been observed just upstream of the PSA (-0.5 RM)
near the confluence of the Smith River in the Dan River in 2007 (070724.730duke), along with
being consistently observed in the lower Smith River, the most recent of which occurring in 2019
(191016.2WTR). This survey will mark the furthest downstream observation on the Dan River
within the NCNHP EO9 25404. The magnitude and severity of these potential effects will need
to be quantified and disclosed during the Section 7 Consultation process.
Although the Green Floater NCNHP EO (93622) occurs within the project study area, the closest
observation since 2014 is located downstream of the Dan River Steam Station Dam, which
contains significantly different habitat than that present in the Mebane Bridge study area.
Recommended Biological Conclusions on potential impacts from the project on target species
are provided below. The USFWS is the regulating authority for Section 7 Biological Conclusions
and as such, it is recommended that they be consulted regarding their concurrence with the
finding of this document. The federal action agency, or its nonfederal designee (NCDOT) must
render a biological conclusion for the species.
Recommended Biological Conclusion Roanoke Logperch: May Affect, Likely To Adversely
Affect
Recommended Biological Conclusion James Spinymussel: May Affect, Not Likely To
Adversely Affect
Recommended Biological Conclusion Atlantic Pigtoe: May Affect, Not Likely To Adversely
Affect
While the Green Floater is not currently federally protected, and no biological conclusion is
necessary at the time of the writing of this report, if the species were to receive federal
protection, the appropriate biological conclusion is as follows:
Recommended Biological Conclusion Green Floater: May Affect, Not Likely To Adversely
Affect
BR-780233 Fish and Mussel Survey Report 2022
Job# 21-026 Page 14

7.0 LITERATURE CITED
Alderman, J.M. 1997. Monitoring the Swift Creek freshwater mussel community. Pages 98-107
in K.S. Cummings, A.C. Buchanan, C.A. Mayer, and T.J. Naimo, eds. 1997.
Conservation and Management of Freshwater Mussels II Initiatives for the future.
Proceedings of a UMRCC symposium, 16-18 October 1995, St. Louis, Missouri. Upper
Mississippi River Conservation Committee, Rock Island Ilinois. 293 pp.
Boss, K. J. and W. J. Clench. 1967. Notes on Pleurobema collina (Conrad) from the James
River, Virginia. Occas. Pap. Mollusks (Mus. Comp. Zool., Harvard) 3 (7):45-2.
Brown, A.V., M.M. Lyttle, and K.B. Brown. 1998. Impacts of gravel mining on gravel bed
streams. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 127:979-994.
Burkhead, N.M. and R.E. Jenkins. 1991. Fishes. In: Virginia's Endangered Species, proceedings
of a symposium. Karen Terwilliger (ed.). McDonal and Woodward Publishing Company,
Blacksburg, VA. 672 pp.
Clarke, A. H. and R. J. Neves. 1984. Status survey of the James River spinymussel Cathyria
collina, in the James River, Virginia. A report for Region 5 of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service. 32pp.
Conrad, T.A. 1834. New freshwater shells of the United States, with coloured illustrations; and a
monograph of the genus Anculotus of Say; also a synopsis of the American naiades. J.
Dobson, 108 Chestnut Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 1-76, 8 pls.
Conrad, T.A. 1835. Monography of the Family Unionidae, or naiades of Lamarck, (fresh water
bivalve shells) of North America, illustrated by figures drawn on stone from nature. J.
Dobson, 108 Chestnut Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 1:1-12, plates 1-5.
Conrad T. A. 1835-1840. Monography o the Family Unionidae, or naiades ofLamarck. ( esh
water bivalve shells) or North America, illustrated by figures drawn on stone from
nature. 108 Chestnut Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: J. Dobson.
Eads, C.B. and J.F. Levine. 2011. Refinement of Growout Techniques for Four Freshwater
Mussel Species. Final Report submitted to NC Wildlife Resources Commission, Raleigh,
NC. 15pp.
Ellis, M.M. 1936. Erosion silt as a factor in aquatic environments. Ecology. 17:29-42.
Fuller, S.L.H. 1974. Clams and mussels (Mollusca: Bivalvia). Pages 215-273, inC.W. Hart and
S.L.H. Fuller eds. Pollution Ecology of Freshwater Invertebrates. Academic Press, New
York.
Fuller, S.L.H., and C.E. Powell. 1973. Range extensions of Corbicula manilensis (Philippi) in
the Atlantic drainage of the United States. Natilus. 87(2):59.
BR-780233 Fish and Mussel Survey Report 2022
Job# 21-026 Page 15

George, A.L. and R.L. Mayden. 2003. Conservation genetics of four imperiled fishes of the
southeast. Final Report to the U.S. Forest Service.
Goudreau, S.E., R.J. Neves, and R.J. Sheehan. 1988. Effects of sewage treatment effluents on
mollusks and fish of the Clinch River in Tazewell County, Virginia. Final Rep., U.S. Fish
and Wildl. Serv. 128 pp.
Hove, M. 1990. Distribution and life history of the endangered James spinymussel, Pleurobema
collina (Bivalvia: Unionidae). M.S. Thesis. Virginia Polytech. Inst. And State Univ.,
Blacksburg, Virginia. 113pp.
Hove, M. and R. J. Neves. 1989. Life history of the James spinymussel. In: North Carolina
Wildlife Resources Commission. 1989. Population status, distribution, and biology of
the Tar River spinymussel (Elliptio (Canthyria steinstansana Johnson and Clarke), in
North Carolina. Final Report to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Johnson, R. I. 1970. The systematics and zoogeography of the Unionidae (Mollusca:Bivalvia) of
the southern Atlantic Slope region. Bull. Mus. Comp. Zool. 140(6):263-449.
Kanehl, P., and J. Lyons. 1992. Impacts of in -stream sand and gravel mining on stream habitat
and fish communities, including a survey on the Big Rib River, Marathon County,
Wisconsin. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources Research Report 155, Madison.
Kondolf, G.M. 1997. Hungry water: effects of dams and gravel mining on river channels.
Environmental Management 21:533-551.
Lahey, A.M. and P.L. Angermeier. 2007. Range -wide Assessment of Habitat Suitability for
Roanoke Logperch (Percina rex). Virginia Transportation Research Council.
http://www.virginiadot.org/vtrc/main/online reports/pdf/07-cr8.pdf
Llhardt, B.L., E.S. Verry, and BJ. Palik. 2000. Defining riparian areas. Pages 23-42 in E.S.
Verry, J.W. Hornbeck, and C.A. Doloff, eds. Riparian management of forests of the
continental eastern United States. Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, Florida.
Lynch, J.A., and E.S. Corbett. 1990. Evaluation of best management practices for controlling
nonpoint pollution from silvicultural operations. Water Resources Bulletin, 26(1):41-52.
Marking, L.L., and T.D. Bills. 1979. Acute effects of silt and sand sedimentation on freshwater
mussels. Pp. 204-211 in J.L. Rasmussen, ed. Proc. of the UMRCC symposium on the
Upper Mississippi River bivalve mollusks. UMRCC. Rock Island IL. 270 pp.
McMahon, R.F. and A.E. Bogan. 2001. Mollusca: Bivalva. Pp. 331-429. In: J.H. Thorpe and
A.P. Covich. Ecology and Classification of North American freshwater invertebrates.
2" d edition. Academic Press.
BR-780233 Fish and Mussel Survey Report 2022
Job# 21-026 Page 16

Meador, M.R., and A.O. Layher. 1998. Instream sand and gravel mining: environmental issues
and regulatory process in the United States. Fisheries 23(11):6-13.
NatureServe. 2015. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]
NatureServe. 2018. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application].
Version 7.1. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available http://explorer.natureserve.org.
(Accessed: February 2022). Species Accessed: Fusconaia masoni.
Neves, R.J. 1993. A state of the Unionids address. Pp. 1-10 in K.S. Cummings, A.C. Buchanan,
and L.M. Kooch, eds. Proc. of the UMRCC symposium on the Conservation and
Management of Freshwater Mussels. UMRCC. Rock Island IL.189 pp.
Neves, R.J., and J.C. Widlak. 1987. Habitat ecology of juvenile freshwater mussels (Bivalvia:
Unionidae) in a headwater stream in Virginia. Amer. Malacol. Bull. 1(5):1-7.
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (NCDEQ) - Division of Water Resources.
2020. 2020 North Carolina Final 303(d) List.
https:Hfiles.nc.gov/ncdeq/W ater%20Quality/Planning/TMDL/303d/2018/2018-NC-303-
d--List-Final.pdf
North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP). 2022. Biotics Database. Division of Land
and Water Stewardship. Department of Natural and Cultural Resources, Raleigh, North
Carolina. January 2022 version.
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) 2015. Roanoke Logperch.
https://www.ncwildlife. org/Learning/Speci es/Fi sh/Roanoke-Logperch#2521717-detailed-
information
O'Dee, S.H., and G.T. Waters. 2000. New or confirmed host identification for ten freshwater
mussels. Pp. 77-82 in R.A. Tankersley, D.I. Warmolts, G.T. Waters, B.J. Armitage, P.D.
Johnson, and R.S. Butler (eds.). Freshwater Mollusk Symposia Proceedings Part I.
Proceedings of the Conservation, Captive Care and Propagation of Freshwater Mussels
Symposium. Ohio Biological Survey Special Publication, Columbus.
O'Neill, C.R., Jr., and D.B. MacNeill. 1991. The zebra mussel (Dreissena polymorpha): an
unwelcome North American invader. Sea Grant, Coastal Resources Fact Sheet. New
York Sea Grant Extension. 12 pp.
Palik, B.J., J.C. Zasada, and C.W. Hedman. 2000. Ecological principles for riparian silviculture.
Pages 233-254 in E.S. Verry, J.W. Hornbeck, and C.A. Doloff, eds. Riparian
Management of Forests of the Continental Eastern United States. Lewis Publishers, Boca
Raton, Florida.
Pennak, R.W. 1989. Fresh -water invertebrates of the United States, protozoa to Mollusca Third
Edition, John Wiley & Sons, Inc. New York, 628 pp.
BR-780233 Fish and Mussel Survey Report 2022
Job# 21-026 Page 17

Perkins, M.A., N.A. Johnson, and M.M. Gangloff. 2017. Molecular systematics of the
critically -endangered North American spinymussels (Unionidae: Elliptio and
Pleurobema) and description of Parvaspina gen. nov. Conservation Genetics (2017).
doi :10.1007/s 10592-017-0924-z
Railey, Morgan and Arthur Bogan, North Carolina Museum of Natural Sciences, 2007 Personal
Communication
Rosenberger, AE., Angermeier. PL. 2002 Roanoke Logperch (Percina rex) Population Structure
and Habitat Use Final Report.
Savidge, T. W., J. M. Alderman, A. E. Bogan, W. G. Cope, T. E. Dickinson, C. B. Eads,S. J.
Fraley, J. Fridell, M. M. Gangloff, R. J. Heise, J. F. Levine, S. E. McRae, R.B. Nichols,
A. J. Rodgers, A. Van Devender, J. L. Williams and L. L. Zimmerman. 2011. 2010
Reevaluation of Status Listings for Jeopardized Freshwater and Terrestrial Mollusks in
North Carolina. Unpublished report of the Scientific Council on Freshwater and
Teresstrial Mollusks. 177pp.
Semlitsch, R. D. 1998. Biological delineation of terrestrial buffer zones for pond -breeding
salamanders. Conservation Biology 12:1113— 1119.
Starnes, L.B., and D.C. Gasper. 1996. Effects of surface mining on aquatic resources in North
America. Fisheries 21(5):24-26.
Strayer, D. L., S. J. Sprague and S. Claypool, 1996. A range -wide assessment of populations of
Alasmidonta heterodon, an endangered freshwater mussel (Bivalvia: Unionidae). J.N.
Am. Benthol. Soc., 15(3):308-317.
Terwilliger, Karen. 1991. Virginia's Endangered Species, pp. 395-397, 785-788.
Turgeon, D. D., A. E. Bogan, E. V. Coan, W. K. Emerson, W. G. Lyons, W. L. Pratt, C. F. E.
Roper, A. Scheltema, F. G. Thompson, and J. J. Williams. 1988. Common and scientific
names of aquatic invertebrates of the United States and Canada: Mollusks. Am.
Fisheries Soc. Spec. Publ.16. Bethesda, Md. 227 pp.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water. NPDES facilities by permit type.
NPDESPERMIT—WMERC. Accessed July 2022.
https://watersgeo. epa.gov/arcgi s/rest/services/OWPROGRAM/NPDESPERMIT—WMER
C/MapServer
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1990. James Spinymussel (Pleurobema collina)
Recovery Plan. Newton Corner, Massachusetts, 38 pp.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1992a. Roanoke Logperch (Percina rex) Recovery
Plan. Newton Corner, MA.
BR-780233 Fish and Mussel Survey Report 2022
Job# 21-026 Page 18

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1992b. Tar spinymussel (Elliptio (Cathyria)
steinstansana) Recovery Plan. Atlanta, Georgia. 34 pp.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1992c. Endangered and Threatened species of the
southeast United States (The red book). Prepared by Ecological Services, Div. of
Endangered Species, Southeast Region. Government Printing Office, Wash. D.C. 1,070
pp-
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1996. Revised Technical/Agency Draft Carolina
Heelsplitter Recovery Plan, Atlanta, GA: 47.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2007. Roanoke Logperch (Percina rex). 5-Year
Review: Summary & Evaluation. Prepared by Virginia Field Office, Gloucester, Virginia.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2015. Roanoke Logperch.
http://www.fws.gov/raleigh/species/es_roanoke_Logperch.html.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2018. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and
Plants; Threatened Species Status with Section 4(d) Rule and Critical Habitat Desgnation
for Atlantic Pigtoe. 50 CFR 17:83 FR 51570, 51570-51609. Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-
2018-0046.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). April 2021a. Species Status Assessment Report for the
Atlantic Pigtoe (Fusconaia masoni) Version 1.4
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2021b. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and
Plants: Threatened Species Status with Section 4(d) Rule for Atlantic Pigtoe and
Designation of Critical Habitat. 50 CFR 17:86 FR 64000, 64000-64053. Docket Nos.
FWS-R4-ES-2018-0046FF09E21000 FXES1111090FEDR 223.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2022. Information for Planning and Consultation
(IPaC). https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/IYSSY7RDDNE6FPMZCXY7YM5HLM/resources
Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries (VDGIF). 2014. Atlantic Pigtoe
Conservation Plan. Bureau of Wildlife Resources. VDGIF, Richmond, VA. 31 pp.
Wolf, E.D. 2012. Propagation, Culture, and Recovery of Species at Risk Atlantic Pigtoe.
Virginia Tech Conservation Management Institute, Project No. 11-108. 55pp.
BR-780233 Fish and Mussel Survey Report 2022
Job# 21-026 Page 19

APPENDIX A
Figures
BR-780233 Fish and Mussel Survey Report 2022
Job# 21-026 Page 20

Prepared ror.
Aquatic Species Surveys
Replace Bridge #233 on SR 1964
(Mebane Bridge Road) over Dan River
Project Vicinity & Survey Reach
Rockingham County, North Carolina
D" July 2022
S�re0 75 150 306 raw!.
i i i
JobHv 21.026
M H
Figure

N
as '
r
}far.+ifon Hi-
f,4
EO I[
ION- fi
vNnan,.nr � 'nF�
I�xi I
o e
c�
Vy111r NAh
1 rl`1R
t•rppar*M�II
Hrl.
mrd�vcd -
H�T
Bridge #780233
NCNHP Element Occurrence
Roanoke Logperch
Stream
��,It1Eir
ERly�, w .
r
W
� x*
,� [rrW,elage
• �I&r �pr
1 r•
}YC 77O f 1
�r1r� E 1W' f�Jr
F+rle....RnM
'� � Co'tiv�� IAeaacw wrmrn•
or • 1
�J p d 0pe,- reettl,p fond} cv tributors, C6BY--SA
Aquatic Species Surveys
Replace Bridge #233 on SR 1964
(Mebane Bridge Roadj over Dan River
N C N H P Element Occurrence:
Roanoke Logperch
Rockingham County �lorth Carolina
July 2022
Scske 0 iA25 2.250 F.-
21-026
7777�N
_
Figure
2-1

.Lr i11 'w
'1 W.
Fkm k .
Gamrrprl
EOID 38163
,#OfERIyC
r
W '
a
Bridge #780233
N C N H P Element Occurrence
James Spinymussel
-� NC.NA Boundary
-- Stream -
LIS 11 I
1
311
?7
NC 7w
PIC 77c
. NC p 41
t
115311
KC 13 L
he l7
f
EO ID 37056
s
r •.r,
�7 0 enStre��Map i§nd} m ribu� FCC-$ -5A
Aquatic Species Surveys
Replace Bridge #233 on SR 1964
iMebane Bridge Road) over Dan River
NCNHP Element Occurrence:
James Spinymusse€
Rockingham County, North Carolina
July 2022
0 23M 4,600 rein:
I 1
.ah Hv
21-026
?a r� EfK
TD H
Chlnc7and Ee,.
iE D
Fig ure
2

N
SR 711
�_,__._�.--------
vnrrh----------------------------� �__ _�—_— ---� • .----- 1 — - — -
/,OF
:5
US 311 emu.
NC 700 f
U5 311
.., NC 770 v
NC 14
NC
A NC 87
N ij nit #6
-
I
EO ID 39786
f
i
fF
US 311 �3
a NC 14 \
r'
NC 87
C 770
NC 14
us 3
v grin
4�
r Bridge #760233
NCNHP Element Occurrence
-, Atlantic Pigtoe
Critical Habitat: Atlantic Pigtoe
F~ ! NC.NABoundary
Stream
,#oful
,I f x .�
Aquatic Species Surveys
� July 2022
Figure
s�k o ,,sso 3-tao r.•..
' '
. •
Replace Bridge #233 on SR 1964
(Mebane Bridge Road) over Dan River
"k?40
21-02fi
_
NCNHP Element Occurrence and
2-3
Critical Habitat: Atlantic Pigtoe
DMA' By
TDH
k dk
TED
' 1 *
Rockingham County, North Carolina

a f S r g `,� tN 14 NC 774
NC 7
. NC 8
r
us J11 � -
NC 1 ?
Dar? Rra
Gamela
4:
NC 770
NC 65
00fER1% 'tea
M N.�
W
rf' tiu5 III
NC 14
EO ID 3622
}
k
® Bridge #780233
NCNHP Element Occurrence
Green Floater
Wentworth
Stream
Aquatic Species Surveys
Replace Bridge #233 on SR 1964
(Mebane Bridge Road) over Dan River
NCNHP Element Occurrence -
Green Floater
Rockingham County, North Carolina
'aw July 2022
�� 0 1,550 3-t9d Feert
I l
.ah Hv
21-026
Tarn [9K
TU H
CFecxcd Ffy.
TE Q
Figure
2-4

A
NC0029980
5311 NC0001643-
NC 14
NC 87 W 700
den US311
1
y NC 14
NC C. N C00031468
NC0060623 NC 77f,.���<<
N C0025 071
US 311 °+
NC 135
- U5 311 �y
NC 770
Dun Rfvrr
-
f' ,
;... 01-1
NC 87
[�+a-
jNC14
NCO089699
L� Bridge # 780233
Y=Wentwort 5 Mile Buffer
NC 65 Minor NPDES Discharge
Major NPDES Discharge
303(d) Listed Streams
Dan River: 303(d) Category 4
NC 65 L___� NCNA Boundary
NC $7
.•� Stream
Aquatic Species Surveys
Replace Bridge #233 on SR 1964
(Mebane Bridge Rd) Over Dan Riv er
303(d) Listed Streams and
NPDES Discharges
Rocldngham.County, NC
July 2022
0 0-5 1 Miles
� Ha
21-026
:xur�
TDH
TED
Figure