20181068 Ver 1_Mussel Survey Report_20180803

Freshwater Mussel Survey Report
Replacement of Bridge 27 on US 23 Business over Scott Creek
Jackson County, North Carolina
TIP B-5905
WBS # 48037.1.1
,,�,��, � °�- ,� � ` f , ,,�i f�, ": � Y, +
�,.
��Y �F � � '. � 7 . "Dti'� - ' t s
q.",�f l ` �� fT ;� / � r t' .. . �d
.�` r y A �+ �! !� 1 f� , k �
�; �'� ` ¢
.ryl �7'
'a'�¢FJ iy,�� �r � }t � . 1 r � � �. ."„�,4� _
�y f � '�° � S �� � / � . � �, � �'
�� � � � �
\ , (� I �_.': � ,,. . f� ,{ , � ,
� �. � � ;�, , , 4 �, o .rj r� // �
"j k �'L �y �- � '� � � i / f 3, ,- .F
.. ��� �� � � x .. ]���!�� ���ij � �1 ����.
.'�p..:' � ,j. � � . .
� �
'r; .
. =�` '-z `�. ; �n �`' .�.+-.,
v.�i:_._� ' ;�r� �._; ,,,,,'
.�--" "'" `,� -�.i. � � "'s `,., _
..;�� -
s. . __ '`'
�'_�"�>35u.a` � .. . 5 :,�'?'ar�;,lbi+C� � .'�r::�:`�r'—
Scott Creek i» Swve� Rectc°Ir
Prepared For:
xa�rx
4
W �
a 4
9
t
M� 4
OF Z
NC Department of Transportation
Raleigh, North Carolina
Contact Person:
Jared Gray
Biological Surveys Group
North Carolina Department of Transportation
j��ray(�a,ncdot.gov
1598 Mail Service Center
Raleigh NC 27699-1598
December 20, 2017

Prepared by:
���,fi,1NEfR/,y��
� �
d � �
4
�
f �'�+�+��3'�1���'S
324 Blackwell Street, Suite 1200
Durhain, NC 27701
Contact Person:
Tom Dickinson
tom.dicicinson(cz�,threeoalcsen�ineerin�.com
919-732-1300

Table of Contents
1.0 Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 1
2.0 Waters Impacted .................................................................................................................. 1
2.1 303(d) Classifcation ........................................................................................................ 1
2.2 NPDES discharges ........................................................................................................... 1
3.0 Target Federally Protected Species Descriptions ................................................................ 2
3.1 Appalachian Elktoe (Alasmidonta raveneliana) .............................................................. 2
3.1.1 Characteristics ...........................................................................................................2
3.1.2 Distribution and Habitat Requirements .................................................................... 4
3.1.3 Threats to Species ..................................................................................................... 5
4.0 Survey Efforts ...................................................................................................................... 6
4.1 Stream Conditions at Time of Survey: Scott Creek ......................................................... 6
4.2 Methodology .................................................................................................................... 7
5.0 Results ..................................................................................................................................7
6.0 Discussion/Conclusions ....................................................................................................... 7
7.0 Literature Cited .................................................................................................................... 9
Appendix A. Figures:
Figure 1: Project Vicinity & Survey Locations
Figure 2: NCNHP Element Occurrences
Figure 3: 303(d) Streams and NPDES Discharge

1.0 INTRODUCTION
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes replacement of Bridge
No. 27 on US 23 Business over Scott Creek in Jackson County (TIP B-5905; Figure 1). The
Appalachian Elktoe (Alasmidonta raveneliana) is a federally protected species and is known to
occur in Jackson County, NC.
According to the NC Natural Heritage Program database (NCNHP 2017), accessed November
28, 2017, the nearest element occurrence (EO) for Appalachian Elktoe (EO ID 5933) is in the
Tuckasegee River approximately 0.5 river mile (RM) downstream of the subject bridge. This
EO was first observed in July 1996 and last observed in March 2016.
As part of the federal permitting process that requires an evaluation of potential project-related
impacts to federally protected species, Three Oaks Engineering (Three Oaks) was contracted by
NCDOT to conduct surveys targeting the Appalachian Elktoe.
2.0 WATERS IMPACTED
Scott Creek is in the Tuckasegee Subbasin within the Little Tennessee River Basin (U.S.
Geological Survey [USGS] Hydrological Unit 06010203). Scott Creek flows approximately 0.5
RM into the Tuckasegee River. The Tuckasegee River flows approximately 31 RM to Fontana
Lake, which flows into the Little Tennessee River.
21 303(d) Classification
Scott Creek is listed on the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (NCDEQ,
formerly NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources, NCDENR) - Division of Water
Resources 2014 Fina1303(d) list of impaired streams. The listed region includes from the source
to the confluence with the Tuckasegee River, it is listed for Fecal Coliform (NCDEQ 2014 and
NCDEQ 2016 Draft). At the time of the writing of this report, the 2016 303(d) list had not been
finalized. A draft report has been issued, which does not make changes to the above referenced
impairments to streams in the study area.
2.2 NPDES discharges
The closest active permitted NPDES discharge is on Scott Creek upstream of the study bridge
(USEPA 2017): Tuckasegee Water and Sewer Authority Waste Water Treatment Plant #2
(WWTP, NPDES Permit #NC0020214) discharges into Scott Creek within the surveyed reach,
approximately 0.04 RM upstream of the subject bridge.
B-5905 Mussel Survey Report December 2017
Job #17-307 Page 1

3.0 TARGET FEDERALLY PROTECTED SPECIES DESCRIPTIONS
3.1 Appalachian Elktoe (Alasmidonta raveneliana)
3.1.1 Characteristics
Isaac Lea (1834) described Appalachian Elktoe from the French Broad River basin in North
Carolina. Its shell is thin, but not fragile, oblong and somewhat kidney-shaped, with a sharply
rounded anterior margin and a broadly rounded posterior margin. Parmelee and Bogan (1998)
site a maximum length of 3.1 inches (80 mm). However, recently observed individuals from the
Little River (French Broad River Basin) in Transylvannia County and West Fork Pigeon River
(French Broad River Basin) in Haywood County measured in excess of 3.9 inches (100 mm) in
length (USFWS 2017). The periostracum (outer shell) of the adult Appalachian Elktoe varies in
color from dark brown to yellowish-brown. Rays may be prominent in some individuals, usually
on the posterior slope, and nearly obscure in other specimens. The nacre (inside shell surface) is
a shiny bluish white, changing to salmon color in the beak cavity portion of the shell. A detailed
description of the shell characteristics is contained in Clarke (1981). Ortmann (1921) provides
descriptions of the soft anatomy.
The reproductive cycle of Appalachian Elktoe is similar to that of other native freshwater
mussels. Males release sperm into the water column, and the sperm are then taken in by the
female through their siphons during feeding and respiration. The females retain the fertilized
eggs in their gills until the larvae (glochidia) fully develop. The mussel glochidia are released
into the water, and within a few days they must attach to the appropriate species of fish, which
they parasitize for a short time while they develop into juvenile mussels. They then detach from
their fish host and sink to the stream bottom where they continue to develop, provided they land
in a suitable substrate with the correct water conditions (USFWS 2002).
Many mussel species have specific fish hosts that must be present to complete their life cycle.
Based upon laboratory infestation experiments (Watters 1994), Banded Sculpin (Cottus
carolinae) was identified as a potential fish host for Appalachian Elktoe; however, the ranges of
these two species rarely overlap. Keller documented transformation of Appalachian Elktoe
glochidia on Mottled Sculpin (Cottus bairdi) in 1999 (USFWS 2002), and ongoing research at
Tennessee Technical University (TTU) identified 10 fish species with encysted Appalachian
Elktoe glochidia from the Little Tennessee River in North Carolina (Jim Layzer and Kendall
Mole, TTU personal communication; Table 1).
B-5905 Mussel Survey Report December 2017
Job #17-324 Page 2

Table L Fish species collected from the Little Tennessee River (NC)
that contained encysted Appalachian Elktoe glochidia.
Common Name Scientific Name
Banded Darter Etheostoma zonale
Wounded Darter Etheostoma vulneratum
Greenfin Darter Etheostoma chlorobranchium
Tangerine Darter Percina aurantiaca
Mottled Sculpin Cottus bairdi
Black Redhorse Moxostoma duquesnei
River Redhorse Moxostoma carinatum
Sicklefin Redhorse Moxostoma sp.
Northern Hog Sucker Hypentelium nigricans
Warpaint Shiner Luxilus coccogenis
Additionally, nine of the species shown in Table 2 were shown to successfully transform
Appalachian Elktoe glochidia in laboratory induced infestations (Jim Layzer and Kendall Mole,
TTU, personal communication). Based on over two years of ongoing monitoring of Appalachian
Elktoe population in the Little Tennessee River by the NC Wildlife Resource Commission
(NCWRC), it is apparent that Appalachian Elktoe is a bradytictic (long-term) breeder, with the
females retaining glochidia in their gills from late August to mid-June (USFWS 2017).
Glochidia are released in mid-June attaching to either the gills or fins of a suitable fish host
species, and encysting within 2-36 hours. Transformation time (time until encystment) for
Appalachian Elktoe occurs within 18-22 days at a mean temperature of 18° C(Jim Layzer, TTU,
personal communication). Encystment time for freshwater mussels is reduced at higher
temperatures (Zale and Neves 1982). McMahon and Bogan (2001) and Pennak (1989) should be
consulted for a general overview of freshwater mussel reproductive biology.
Table 2. Fish species collected from the Tuckasegee River (NC) on Apri121, 2004, and
used for laborato induced infestations.
Common Name Scientific Name Number
Gilt Darter Percina evides 6
Banded Darter Etheostoma zonale 8
Wounded Darter * Etheostoma vulneratum 17
Greenfin Darter * Etheostoma chlorobranchium 32
Greenside Darter * Etheostoma blennioides 3
Olive Darter Percina squamata 1
Mottled Sculpin * Cottus bairdi 19
Rock Bass Ambloplites rupestris 1
River Chub * Nocomis micropogon 20
Northern Hogsucker * Hypentelium nigricans 3
Central Stoneroller * Campostoma anomalum 6
Longnose Dace * Rhinichthys cataractae 9
Rosyside Dace * Clinostomus funduloides 1
Mirror Shiner Notropis spectrunculus 3
B-5905 Mussel Survey Report December 2017
Job #17-324 Page 3

Common Name Scientific Name Number
Tennessee Shiner Notropis leuciodus 2
Total 15 131
* Species that successYally transYormed Appalachlan Elktoe glochidia.
3.1.2 Distribution and Habitat Requirements
Appalachian Elktoe is known only from mountain streams of western North Carolina and eastern
Tennessee. Historically, the species has also been recorded from Tulula Creek (Tennessee River
drainage), the main stem of the French Broad River, and the Swannanoa River (French Broad
River system) (Clarke 1981), but it was reported to have been eliminated from these streams
(USFWS 1994; USFWS 1996). Currently, it is known to occur in low numbers in a reach of the
mainstem French Broad River in Transylvania County (see discussion below). It is unclear
whether this represents a re-colonization, or an erroneous conclusion of extirpation. There is
also a historical record of Appalachian Elktoe from the North Fork Holston River in Tennessee
(S.S. Haldeman collection); however, this record is believed to represent a mislabeled locality
(Gordon 1991). If the historical record for the species in the North Fork Holston River was a
valid record, the species has apparently been eliminated from this river as well.
Although the complete historic range of Appalachian Elktoe is unknown, available information
suggests that the species once lived in the majority of the rivers and larger creeks of the upper
Tennessee River system in North Carolina, with the possible exception of the Hiwassee and
Watauga River systems (the species has not been recorded from either of these river systems).
At the time of listing, two known populations of the Appalachian Elktoe existed, the Nolichucky
River including its tributaries, the Cane River and the North Toe River, and the Little Tennessee
River and its tributaries. The record in the Cane River was represented by one specimen found
just above the confluence with the North Toe River (USFWS 1996). Since listing, the
Appalachian Elktoe has been found in additional areas. These occurrences include extensions of
the known ranges in the Nolichucky River (North Toe River, South Toe River and Cane River)
and Little Tennessee River (Tuckasegee River and Cheoah River) as well as a rediscovery in the
French Broad River Basin (Pigeon River, Little River, Mills River and main stem French Broad
River). Many of these newly discovered populations are relatively small in size and range.
Of the known surviving Appalachian Elktoe populations, two — the Nolichucky River system
population and the Tuckasegee River population — currently appear to meet the definition of a
viable population given in the Recovery Plan (though the number of individuals needed to
comprise a viable population is presently unknown and is one of the tasks identified in the
Recovery Plan to be completed).
According to the USFWS 5-Year Review of the Appalachian Elktoe (USFWS 2017), the other
populations of Appalachian Elktoe currently appear to be comprised of scattered individuals
restricted to very short stream reaches and their viability is questionable (USFWS 2017). The
Cheoah River, Pigeon River, Little River, Mills River, and French Broad River populations are
restricted to scattered areas of suitable habitat in stream reaches of approximately 5.8 km (3.60
RM), 22.6 km (14.04 RM), 17.8 km (11.1 RM), 3.2 km (2.0 RM), and 32 km (20.0 RM),
respectively, making them vulnerable to extirpation from a single catastrophic event such as a
major chemical spill (USFWS 2017). After the 5-Year Review was completed, the Appalachian
B-5905 Mussel Survey Report December 2017
Job #17-324 Page 4

Elktoe was found at four new locations within the French Broad River, which was a significant
expansion (32 river miles downstream) of the previously known extant range of this species in
the river (Three Oaks, personal observations).
3.1.3 Threats to Species
The decline of Appalachian Elktoe throughout its historic range has been attributed to a variety
of factors, including sedimentation, point and non-point source pollution, and habitat
modification (impoundments, channelization, etc.).
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 or activity.
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 or railroads.
Siltation resulting from improper erosion control of various types of land usage, including
agricultural, forestry, and development, 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 direct smothering of 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). In Massachusetts, a bridge construction project
decimated a population of the endangered Dwarf Wedgemussel (Alasmidonta heterodon)
because of accelerated sedimentation and erosion (Smith 1981). The abrasive action of sediment
on mussel shells has been shown to cause erosion of the outer shell, which allows acids to reach
and corrode underlying layers (Harman 1974).
The impact of impoundments on freshwater mussels has been well-documented (USFWS 1992,
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 iish hosts for glochidia (Fuller 1974). In addition, the construction of
dams often results in fragmentation of mussel populations by effectively blocking upstream
expansion and recruitment of mussel and fish species. Along with modification of habitat, dams
can indirectly impact freshwater mussel species by posing as a barrier to fish migration. The
construction of the Petitcodiac River Causeway in Canada in 1968, resulted in the extirpation of
the Dwarf Wedgemussel because the causeway restricted the migration of the diadromous Inner
Bay of Fundy stock of Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar), which served as the fish host for the Dwarf
Wedgemussel in this region (Locke et al. 2003).
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 2 mi (3.2 km) below points of chlorinated
sewage effluent. Most of the water bodies where Appalachian Elktoe still exist have relatively
few point source discharges within the watershed and are rated as having `good' to `excellent'
water quality (NCDWQ 2012, USFWS 1996).
B-5905 Mussel Survey Report December 2017
Job #17-324 Page 5

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). 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). When Appalachian Elktoe was listed, it was
speculated that due to its restricted distribution, it "may not be able to withstand vigorous
competition" (USFWS 1996).
The Zebra Mussel, native to the Black, Caspian and Aral Seas, is an exotic freshwater mussel
that was introduced into the Great Lakes in the 1980s. Since its introduction, this species 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
1996). The Zebra Mussel is not currently known from any river supporting Appalachian Elktoe
populations.
Another exotic species that has the potential to adversely impact aquatic species, including
Appalachian Elktoe, is Japanese Knotweed (Reynoutria japonica). The plant is considered to be
an invasive species that can reproduce from its seed or from its long, stout rhizomes. It can
tolerate a variety of conditions such as full shade, high temperatures, high salinity, and drought.
It can be spread by wind, water, and soil movement to an area where it quickly forms dense
thickets that excludes native vegetation and greatly alters the natural ecosystem. This species
has become established in riparian habitats throughout western North Carolina. The species has
a very shallow root system; because of this shallow root system and its preclusion of other
vegetation, areas where this species has been established may be susceptible to erosion during
high flow events.
4.0 SURVEY EFFORTS
Surveys were conducted by Three Oaks personnel Tim Savidge and John Fridell (Permit # 17-
ES0034) on November 14, 2017.
4.1 Stream Conditions at Time of Survey: Scott Creek
Habitat in this portion of Scott Creek is characterized as an entrenched channel within an
urbanized landscape. The channel was approximately 24 to 35 feet in width with banks 9 to 15
feet high that have been stabilized with retaining walls, rip/rap and/or concrete areas. Instream
habitat was dominated by swift runs two to three feet deep, with the exception of a riffle/run/pool
sequence in the vicinity of the existing bridge. The substrate was dominated by cobble and
gravel, with accumulations of silt in pools. A forested buffer was absent.
B-5905 Mussel Survey Report December 2017
Job #17-324 Page 6

4.2 Methodology
Mussel surveys were conducted from approximately 1,312 feet (400 meters) downstream of each
respective crossing to approximately 328 feet (100 meters) upstream for a distance of
approximately 1,640 feet (500 meters) (Figure 1). Areas of appropriate habitat were searched,
concentrating on the habitats preferred by the target species. The survey team spread out across
the creek into survey lanes. Visual surveys were conducted using glass bottom view buckets
(bathyscopes). Tactile methods were employed, particularly in streambanks under submerged
rootmats. If present, all freshwater bivalves were recorded and returned to the substrate. Timed
survey efforts were conducted to allow for Catch Per Unit Effort (CPUE) data for each species.
If encountered, relative abundance for freshwater snails and freshwater clam species were to be
estimated using the following criteria:
➢(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.
5.0 RESULTS
Surveys were conducted for a total of 3.0-person hours, during which no mussel species were
located.
6.0 DISCUSSION/CONCLUSIONS
The results provide updated mussel survey data for the proposed project. The Appalachian
Elktoe was not found during this one-time effort, nor were other mussel species.
Given the lack of a forest buffer, and entrenched character of the stream, the Appalachian Elktoe
is unlikely to be present within the surveyed portion of the stream. However, the species is
present in the Tuckasegee River 0.5 miles downstream of the project crossing and cannot be
ruled out entirely based on a one-time survey. Strict adherence to erosion control standards
should minimize the potential for any adverse impacts to occur. A biological conclusion on
potential impacts from the project to the target species is 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.
Biological Conclusion Appalachian Elktoe: May Affect/Not Likely to Adversely Affect
B-5905 Mussel Survey Report December 2017
Job #17-324 Page 7

B-5905 Mussel Survey Report December 2017
Job #17-324 Page 8

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 Illinois. 293 pp.
Clarke, A.H. 1981. The tribe Alasmidontini (Unionidae: Anodontinae), Part I: Pegias,
Alasmidonta, and Arcidens. Smithsonian Contributions to Zoology, (326), 101 pp.
Ellis, M.M. 1936. Erosion silt as a factor in aquatic environments. Ecology. 17:29-42.
Fuller, S.H. 1974. Clams and mussels (Molluska: Bivalva). Pp 215-273 in J.W. Hart and S.H.
Fuller, eds. Pollution Ecology of Freshwater Invertebrates. Academic Press, New York
City, NY.
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.
Gordon, M.E. 1991. Species account for the Appalachian Elktoe (Alasmidonta raveneliana).
Unpublished report to The Nature Conservancy. 5 pp.
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.
Harman, W.N. 1974. The effects of reservoir construction and channelization on the mollusks of
the upper Delaware watershed. Bull. Am. Malac. Union 1973:12-14.
Layzer, J.B., K. Mole. Tennessee Technical University. Personal communication.
Lea, I. 1834. Observations on the naiads and descriptions of new species of that and other
families. Transactions of the American Philosophical Society 5: 23-119, plates 1-19.
Locke, A., Hanson, J.M., Klassen, G.J., Richardson. S.M., and Aube, C.I. 2003. The Damming
of the Petitcodiac River: Species, populations, and habitats lost. Northeastern Naturalist:
10 (No. 1), pp. 39-54.
Marking, L.L., and Bills, T.D. 1979. Acute effects of silt and sand sedimentation on freshwater
mussels. Pp. 204-211 in J.L. Rasmussen, ed. Proc. of the UMRCC syrnposium on the
Upper Mississippi River bivalve mollusks. UMRCC. Rock Island IL. 270 pp.
McMahon, R.F. and Bogan, A.E. 2001. Mollusca: Bivalva. Pp. 331-429. In: J.H. Thorpe and
A.P. Covich. Ecology and Classification of North American freshwater invertebrates. 2nd
edition. Academic Press.
B-5905 Mussel Survey Report December 2017
Job #17-324 Page 9

North Carolina Department of Natural Resources (NCDENR) - Division of Water Resources.
2014. 2014 North Carolina 303(d) List. https://deq.nc.gov/about/divisions/water-
resources/planning/classification-standards/3 03 d/3 03 d-files
North Carolina Department of Water Quality (NCDWQ). 2012. Little Tennessee River
Basinwide Water Quality Plan. N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources,
Division of Water Quality, Raleigh, NC.
North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP). 2017. nheo-2017-10. Natural Heritage
Element Occurrence polygon shapefile. October 2017 version.
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 Widlak, J.C. 1987. Habitat ecology of juvenile freshwater mussels (Bivalvia:
Unionidae) in a headwater stream in Virginia. Amer. Malacol. Bull. 1(5):1-7.
O'Neill, C.R., Jr., and MacNeill, D.B. 1991. The Zebra Mussel (Dreissena polymorpha): an
unwelcome North American invader. Sea Grant, Coastal Resources Fact Sheet. New
York Sea Grant Extension. 12 pp.
Orhnann, A.E. 1921. The anatomy of certain mussels from the Upper Tennessee. The Nautilus
34(3):81-91.
Parmalee, P.W. and Bogan, A.E. 1998. Freshwater Mussels of Tennessee. University of
Tennessee Press, Knoxville, TN.
Pennak, R.W. 1989. Fresh-water invertebrates of the United States, Protozoa to Mollusca Third
Edition, John Wiley & Sons, Inc. New York, 628 pp.
Smith, D. 1981. Selected freshwater invertebrates proposed for special concern status in
Massachusetts (Mollusca, Annelida, Arthropoda). MA Dept. of Env. Qual. Engineering,
Div. of Water Pollution Control. 26 pp.
United States Environmental Protection (USEPA). Agency Office of Water. NPDES facilities
by permit type. NPDESPERMIT WMERC. Accessed November 30, 2017.
https://watersgeo.epa.gov/arcgis/rest/services/OWPROGRAM/NPDESPERMIT WMER
C/MapServer
United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1992. Special report on the status of
freshwater mussels.
United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1994. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
and Plants; Appalachian Elktoe Determined To Be an Endangered Species. CFR, Vol. 59,
No. 225.
B-5905 Mussel Survey Report December 2017
Job #17-324 Page 10

United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1996. Appalachian Elktoe (Alasmidonta
raveneliana) Recovery Plan. Atlanta, Georgia, 30 pp
United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2002. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
and Plants: Designation of Critical Habitat for the Appalachian Elktoe. CFR, Vol. 67, No.
188.
United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2017. Appalachian Elktoe (Alasmidonta
raveneliana) 5-Year Review: Summary and Evaluation. Asheville, NC.
Watters, G.T. 1994. An annotated bibliography of the reproduction and propagation of the
Unionidae (Primarily of North America). Ohio Biological Survey Miscellaneous
Contributions(1): 158.
Zale, A.V. and Neves, R.J. 1982. Reproductive biology of four freshwater mussel species
(Mollusca: Unionidae) in Virginia. Freshwater Invertebrate Biology. 1: 17-28.
B-5905 Mussel Survey Report December 2017
Job #17-324 Page 11

APPENDIX A
Figures
B-5905 Mussel Survey Report December 2017
Job #17-324 Page 12

, — . . # h . :;., r r �. � `�� ^'-^ , - - e-,r - ` .
SVr��AIN �:.-._�1 ' ��k` � ` ._ , � � � �� � � ; "�- � ' � � ..
COUNTY � � � �_ HAY4V60D �Fy � ��5� ' : ��1� �- `y � ���� � + �,� �
1 "-..'�" ? COUNTY `� ` �y, ; D yY�"r-.��`'� �'�' `;' � '
� �__`� � ,� �. .. , a�:: � �?, r�j., `'..
. ' I.. 1 �' p. . . V ._ , �. � .
� � � i� 4 � �.- �.. � ,
�� `il ���u-A i, r.�A �p � *k 41,� �.
� i a � h �- � , �t � i r°�r Y�.;"� o
� ���cKsc�N ���, k.�� , ��`�,",,�, ,�. v . .,,
'� cauNrv � ,� , � �
�-.
1�-�,, �^->> � �'� � �, �` 1t. *�� _ �I� �S6 Jf�O RC
� ',�.�,' ' ' � � .. '.
Pv9r",CdN � �` a�'�,''�� � w'`'�'�„ �,
� � A. . . . : s�
COUNTY�,, OpenStreethlap {and i 4� - ,� , u.. �""� �':'"'^ Y.
��, �^'���
M1� r�ntrih�ir7r;� C° RY-SA ,�'� >=a`�� � `
" J ,'_ ,. , � ' ,, '� f" = "�``�"��� '
iio �1=`r �,..., .4 ,. i - ,
�
. � },� � � � �., . ' � �;�,� � ` . .. � ixr v{'f �' . . . .
tiJ� ,�! ►s'-_ •�t . � _ 3t�;.; � � . rj. � `��Q� � '� tr:
;�, � . � � �+ � � 1k � ' ��� < � -
�� � � F . .. Yt � �u4 �, y: ` ` � ' �S. ",��.�,_�_ r '`� .�' '� �. ��,'�1,��'a f
a i . �p i. �.. , � Li �� -y � A � �. 1 '� .�� � .h.�' �J ? ,. ��,�'Y �- � ��
,.�� � , . * :�..: .. � u�Y� � -iti 5 .
�, � :. y,, °t .
i ,.. � �� �
" � �y� �''� .J� ��•
q! ,� � :�:
� T 1\. . . � �"i �'ri' �,� 5�f��'., k�� ��_�� �L�-M _.. S. �� �.�'1.Y�� �_ ��'�
.- � ?,ti.'.� �;� h�".�v. � p�' p� .+ � a„ r" , � .. _�
�� 1 .z� �� �, } . f_V�S ��� ..' � �'�� . . �
� fi
'�; + � • � �r,.7 $ � �: � � �,�/� .�* �" `! �i �,�
�
� � �„�Ys+�� �HI� G ,F;.d� a �", � y �y
, p ,�., � �py- ` .-r
I � * -¢/� t � � � � ../ � � ' ',` � �$P's��,c�, �� $ ���
M� �`��,y-�y�� �- ��; : ,�'v ,r�,�rD R'J _ �� � ... ��. ��'�Mw y �;` ,� �{'- � ,,t �
..� F`.. - .- �'r'vi. . _ `s ,.Jt. � ,'7 _ - __
.:r� � � - - - � � � � :,�° 6 ' a ..� ��. *J �M .it.
,'� - �kl4 �.. S;^ f rsfo-.%-_ .A/..� �.T� ..�' `.�a�M * ' . � ., � � .
y� 1i Z' � � T ��� � �{�5�'�I�� `� `y . � .f �'��`�' .. � �.,[j'�
.0 �.� �° � r'A'- 'q _ ����}�iC I_ ����� �x ���� �.^'^
,�� ' , .." �w+ � y i•Ir�s M O, '� a �� ,.: pi� .� '�} `� ''7 6';y+„� „�
, - � � � �i' � �: �� �! c�" �� � .. ,_ . t�k' � �� '�
�� J � ~�, 1 s� � �� �- .�` �r",�' . J' � � ��.: � ,�r' � :.
� `" � � . I ' k 4 , '�,
n aE � \ � '.' ��� ` "" b y�
� � ��' �? ' Lll _.., .��Y�`.. - . : y� . f � � n,.
�' . � � V? 4 i� ' ' . �P � � 'i'•� :. � A ` ' w `'1. � � �1 � .
� �. � '., ` Li7 1� 1 °r�! ' _ }y . ,
� \ ��`i :.l Lli � A' k [ � � , � .
7 fr�p.�-T�m�_
•� ..�'�'' � �T.,x p � 'i"-;{` � :.-P � ��� � . �.�� ,r �'��` x � � ,A �� � t �-'` � b�� `' V,i�. �. �� .. P�
• '�`� _: ., ' - ; .�_ � '� � � ' '' �'y � �' „ �-. ����Kti ��`� � �' �Mu,�
��.v�— 1V .: �x.t ��� . .., ��P.. i .{ i;� � �: t y i, .. ry � 1 � � . P� . ^�N�t � ��!- � � ) 1 �►,,. ,, .
'�". � ���. ,� � �-- x � � r�R. � �a � n c � 'I �''
� �x�:.., ` �' � �� '��.,,�.Tf � b � "si �' A �f�si1 �' `�:. +� �Iw_`� � �'s�.1 w� {� ':��~''
- � �,�Y+I/�7�'�� ,�`�l,�; .'&. , � ���� . � -s- `� '4;� - �,.�
�1�,orl ;,- . ' -. � ��
L ` 4 � I •_.� t l ��i
� �I� - � ��+ � ��r�` �.�� 1�,�,�� 1� v.l � '��,� '�;.� `N��: :!"i5 ��,, .
.a, � ,i
_ �l:. ��,: « � �� C � L � '�S.`''�l. .. _ . t � -:3 0�� � � -�I��L �,��
. + : �
�
_ T , :.
*S 4�.. _ � � .S , �
�,, .� � • �' ' . ag � .. � xa '`�� � �I
��� A� -4� .t ' y' . - , - .. . . ��} ��:�
�.,p� � ,.� �l?€� �rt`j'n t�_: {g � � r,� i� t�` �
U,�� ± rl q' �� ; + + � � A �
. !y � . �'� , i H: � .,: r'^�, . } M � " g9
h '�,�h��' . '-��`� � �,��r�vK ,� -t° , d r;� - .,�` . �'` � � ��: E��, � � . � "�' <� �'i r���'� Vt
_ t ti, � �'�G�,^,� . `!�, WP; �"'aa; +� r P�
�> �� � , w -, a in ,. <1, a"'�,� /' �,1"~ � ___. .r-'`."�1�� H,!" .,^�
'`r �,:;
r � `� a.. ,;.
�'nh�G(v=r5Rr1,a��.��}.,,�; - �'.�,���rii�'; �`'' - - � .. � � iF�..,�� .
_ _ _ . � � . • � , ` �- �"^� � �,, '
� � ,T a � ., y�_' a:. �, "0.'v � . -..
- #c���' ,g��. {� m; �°� , .. �l ','��' � �.."Y:
"�;� �, .��_ �, � , ��=_� � ��,� ,�
���� �-i , c ; : �:�;
p�>. �'s�i � � 7 'e` f4% -.
� �*'d-`i�p
��.'� �f�ia�� � � .
��' � � j °+� �
�r � �,�.� ! -
ir.. �Ir�"..; �.�
iwf� ; !. ��#; � .. +(• .. $, ��.
Prepared For:
vF � +i c
N�
4 'Z
�
� � �r �t
P �
�� Y
� ��
R.� S3
JF � �
, �.
��
�CV� �
� �;
� .i,
Freshvuater Mussel �urvey
B-�905: Replace Bridge No. 27
over Scatt Cres� and Sauthern
�Railroad on �!S 23 Business
�cinitV Map
Jackson County, North Carolina
_ Bridge 27
Su�-vey Reach
— Streets
� NHD Stream
_ ; County Boundary
Da[e:
Navember 2017
SrylE:
0 150 ?00 Feet
� , �
Job Na.:
17-324
Drawn By: Checked Br:
NMS TE[3
Figure

Prepared For:
vF � +i c
N�
4 'Z
�
� � �r �t
P �
�� Y
� ��
R.� S3
JF � �
Freshvuater Mussel �urvey
B-�905: Replace Bridge No. 27
over Scatt Cres� and Sauthern
�Railroad on �!S 23 Business
NCNHP Element Occurrences
Jackson County, North Carolina
Da[e:
Navember 2017
SrylE:
0 200 400 Feet
� , �
Job Na.:
17-324
Drawn By: Checked Br:
NMS TE[3
Figure

Prepared For:
vF � +i c
N�
4 'Z
�
� � � �K
�� `.'
� ��
R.� S3
JF � �
Freshwater Mussel Su�+ey
8-5905: Re�lace Bridge No. 27
aver Scott CreeVc and Southern
Railroad on US 23 Business
303(d} Listed Streams
and N�dES Discharges
Jackson Counry, North Carolina
Da[e:
Navember 2017
SrylE:
0 200 400 Feet
i � i
Job Na.:
17-324
Drawn By: Checked Br:
NMS TE[3
Figure