20190622 Ver 1_B-5795 Lanes Creek Mussel Survey Report_2018_Final_20190510

Freshwater Mussel Survey Report
Replacement of Bridge No. 217 on SR 1654
Over Lanes Creek
TIP # B-5795
WBS Element # 17BP.10.R.140
Anson County, North Carolina
Lanes Creek during the survey efforts
Prepared For:
NC Department of Transportation
Raleigh, North Carolina
Contact Person:
Jared Gray
Biological Surveys Group
North Carolina Department of Transportation
j gray(ancdot. gov
1598 Mail Service Center
Raleigh NC 27699-1598
March 5, 2019

Prepared by:
� ��,C,1�EfR- f
324 Blackwell Street, 1200
Durham, NC 27701
Contact Person:
Tom Dickinson
tom.dickinsongthreeoaksen ing eering 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 Lasmigona decorata (Carolina Heelsplitter).................................................................... 2
3.1.1 Species Characteristics.............................................................................................. 2
3.1.2 Distribution and Habitat Requirements.................................................................... 3
3.1.3 Threats to Species..................................................................................................... 4
3.2 Fusconaia masoni (Atlantic Pigtoe)................................................................................. 5
3.2.1 Species Characteristics.............................................................................................. 5
3.2.2 Distribution and Habitat Requirements.................................................................... 6
3.2.3 Threats to Species..................................................................................................... 6
3.3 Alasmidonta varicosa (Brook Floater)............................................................................. 6
3.3.1 Species Characteristics.............................................................................................. 6
3.3.2 Distribution and Habitat Requirements.................................................................... 7
3.3.3 Threats to Species..................................................................................................... 7
4.0 Survey Efforts...................................................................................................................... 7
4.1 Stream Conditions at Time of Survey: Lanes Creek ........................................................ 8
4.2 Mussel Survey Methodology........................................................................................... 8
4.3 Results.............................................................................................................................. 8
5.0 Discussion/Conclusions....................................................................................................... 9
6.0 Literature Cited.................................................................................................................. 10
Appendix A. Figures:
Figure 1: Project Vicinity & Survey Reach
Figure 2: NCNHP Element Occurrences
Figure 3: 303(d) Listed Streams and NPDES Discharges

1.0 INTRODUCTION
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes the replacement of bridge
number 217 over Lanes Creek on SR 1654 in Anson County (Appendix A, Figure 1). The
project crosses Lanes Creek of the Yadkin -Pee Dee River basin. The Federally Endangered
Carolina Heelsplitter (Lasmigona decorata) is listed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(USFWS) for Anson County. The Atlantic Pigtoe (Fusconaia masoni), which could also occur
in the county, was proposed for listing under the ESA as a Threatened Species with Section 4(d)
Rule and Critical Habitat Designation on October 11, 2018. Additionally, the Brook Floater
(Alasmidonta varicosa), listed as State Endangered by the North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission, is being considered for listing by USFWS, and is known to occur in Anson County.
Table 1 lists the nearest element occurrence (EO) in approximate river miles (RM) for targeted
species for the Lanes Creek survey reach. Data is according to the NC Natural Heritage Program
database (NCNHP 2019), accessed January 24, 2019 (Figure 2).
Table 1. Element Occurrences
Distance
Species Name
EO ID
EO Waterbody
from
First Observed
Last Observed
crossing
Status*
RM
Carolina
21454
Goose and Duck
31
August 1987
March 2017
C
Heelsplitter
Creeks
Atlantic Pigtoe
22087
Goose Creek
31
July 1994
March 1998
C
21776
Brown Creek
32
July 1987
July 1987
H
Brook Floater
20865
Rocky Creek
47
August 1993
August 1993
C
* C-NCNHP Current, H-NCNHP Historic
As part of the federal permitting process that requires an evaluation of potential project -related
impacts to federally protected species, Three Oaks Engineering (30aks) was contracted by
NCDOT to conduct freshwater mussel surveys targeting the Carolina Heelsplitter, Atlantic
Pigtoe, and Brook Floater.
2.0 WATERS IMPACTED
Lanes Creek is located in the Rocky River subbasin of the Yadkin -Pee Dee basin (HUC#
03040105). Lanes Creek flows approximately 3.4 RM to its confluence with the Rocky River.
B-5795 Lanes Creek Mussel Survey Report March 2019
Job# 18-316 Page 1

2.1 303(d) Classification
Lanes Creek is on the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (NCDEQ) -
Division of Water Resources 2016 Final 303(d) list of impaired streams. It is impaired due to
fair benthos (NCDEQ 2019a) (Figure 3).
2.2 NPDES discharges
The closest permitted NPDES discharge is approximately 11 RM downstream of the study area
(NCDEQ 2019b); Norwood Wastewater Treatment Plant (NPDES Permit # NC0021628) is
located on the Rocky River (Figure 3).
3.0 TARGET FEDERALLY PROTECTED SPECIES DESCRIPTIONS
3.1 Lasmigona decorata (Carolina Heelsplitter)
3.1.1 Species Characteristics
The Carolina Heelsplitter (Lasmigona decorata), originally described as Unio decoratus by (Lea
1852), synonymized with the Green Floater (Lasmigona subviridis) (Conrad 1835, Johnson
1970), and later separated as a distinct species (Clarke 1985), is a federally Endangered
freshwater mussel, historically known from several locations within the Catawba and Pee Dee
River systems in North Carolina and the Pee Dee, Savannah, and possibly the Saluda River
systems in South Carolina.
The Carolina Heelsplitter is characterized as having an ovate, trapezoid -shaped, un-sculptured
shell. The outer surface of the shell ranges from greenish brown to dark brown in color, with
younger specimens often having faint greenish brown or black rays. The shell's nacre is often
pearly white to bluish white, grading to orange in the area of the umbo (Keferl 1991). The hinge
teeth are well developed and heavy and the beak sculpture is double looped (Keferl and Shelly
1988). Morphologically, the shell of the Carolina Heelsplitter is very similar to the shell of the
Green Floater (Clarke 1985), with the exception of a much larger size and thickness in the
Carolina Heelsplitter (Keferl and Shelly 1988).
Prior to collections in 1987 and 1990 by Keferl (1991), the Carolina Heelsplitter had not been
collected in the 20th century and was known only from shell characteristics. Because of its
rarity, very little information of this species' biology, life history, and habitat requirements was
known until very recently. Feeding strategy and reproductive cycle of the Carolina Heelsplitter
have not been documented, but are likely similar to other native freshwater mussels (USFWS
1996). Nearly all freshwater mussel species have similar reproductive strategies; a larval stage
(glochidium) becomes a temporary obligatory parasite on a fish.
Many mussel species have specific fish hosts, which must be present to complete their life cycle.
Until recently, nothing was known about the host species(s) for the Carolina Heelsplitter
(USFWS 1996, Bogan 2002). Starnes and Hogue (2005) identified the most likely fish host
candidates (15 species) based on fish community surveys in occupied streams throughout the
B-5795 Lanes Creek Mussel Survey Report March 2019
Job# 18-316 Page 2

range of the Carolina Heelsplitter. McMahon and Bogan (2001) and Pennak (1989) should be
consulted for a general overview of freshwater mussel reproductive biology.
3.1.2 Distribution and Habitat Requirements
Currently, the Carolina Heelsplitter has a very fragmented, relict distribution. Until recently, it
was known to be surviving in only six streams and one small river (USFWS 1996); however,
recent discoveries have increased the number of known populations to eleven:
Pee Dee River Basin:
1. Duck Creek/Goose Creek — Mecklenburg/Union counties, NC
2. Flat Creek/Lynches River — Lancaster/Chesterfield/Kershaw counties, SC
Catawba River Basin:
3. Sixmile Creek (Twelvemile Creek Subbasin) — Lancaster County, SC
4. Waxhaw Creek — Union County, NC and Lancaster County, SC
5. Cane Creek/Gills Creek — Lancaster County, SC
6. Fishing Creek Subbasin — Chester County, SC
7. Rocky Creek Subbasin (Bull Run Creek/UT Bull Run Creek/Beaverdam Creek) —
Chester County, SC
Saluda River Basin:
8. Redbank Creek — Saluda County, SC
9. Halfway Swamp Creek — Greenwood/Saluda County, SC
Savannah River Basin:
10. Little Stevens Creek/Mountain Creek/Sleep Creek/Turkey Creek (Stevens Creek
Subbasin) — Edgefield/McCormick counties, SC
11. Cuffytown Creek (Stevens Creek Subbasin) — Greenwood/McCormick counties, SC
Habitat for this species has been reported from small to large streams and rivers as well as ponds.
These ponds are believed to be millponds on some of the smaller streams within the species'
historic range (Keferl 1991). Keferl and Shelly (1988) and Keferl (1991) reported that most
individuals have been found along well -shaded streambanks with mud, muddy sand, or muddy
gravel substrates. However, numerous individuals in several of the populations have been found
in cobble and gravel dominated substrate, usually in close proximity to bedrock outcroppings
(Savidge, personal observations). The stability of stream banks appears to be very important to
this species (Keferl 1991).
B-5795 Lanes Creek Mussel Survey Report March 2019
Job# 18-316 Page 3

3.1.3 Threats to Species
Habitat degradation, water quality degradation, and changes in stream flow (water quantity) are
the primary identified threats to the Carolina Heelsplitter. Specific types of activities that lead to
these threats have been documented by the USFWS in the Recovery Plan, Federal Register and
other publications (USFWS 1996, 2002, 2007). These specific threats include the following:
• Siltation resulting from poorly implemented agricultural, forestry, and developmental
activities;
• Golf course construction;
• Road construction and maintenance;
• Runoff and discharge of municipal, industrial and agricultural pollutants;
• Habitat alterations associated with impoundments, channelization, dredging, and sand
mining operations; and
• Other natural and human -related factors that adversely modify the aquatic environment.
These threats, alone and collectively, have contributed to the loss of the Carolina Heelsplitter in
streams previously known to support the species (USFWS 2002). In addition, many of the
remaining populations occur in areas experiencing high rates of urbanization, such as the
Charlotte, NC and Augusta, GA greater metropolitan areas. The low numbers of individuals and
the restricted range of each of the surviving populations make them extremely vulnerable to
extirpation from a single catastrophic event or activity (USFWS 1996). The cumulative effects
of several factors, including sedimentation, water quality degradation, habitat modification
(impoundments, channelization, etc.), urbanization and associated alteration of natural stream
discharge, invasive species, and other causes of habitat degradation have contributed to the
decline of this species throughout its range (USFWS 1996).
All of the 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 or
activity, much like the endangered Dwarf Wedgemussel (DWM, Alasmidonta heterodon, 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 associated with highways, railroads, or
industrial -municipal complexes.
Siltation resulting from substandard land -use practices associated with activities such as
agriculture, forestry, and land development has been recognized as a major contributing factor to
degradation of mussel populations. 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 direct smothering of mussels (Ellis 1936, Marking and Bills 1979).
Sediment accumulations of less than one 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 DWM because of accelerated sedimentation and erosion (Smith 1981).
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
B-5795 Lanes Creek Mussel Survey Report March 2019
Job# 18-316 Page 4

mussel populations may not occur for up to two miles below points of chlorinated sewage
effluent.
The impact of impoundments on freshwater mussels has been well documented (USFWS 1992a,
Neves 1993). Construction of dams transforms lotic habitats into lentic habitats, which results in
changes in aquatic community composition. The changes associated with inundation adversely
affect both adult and juvenile mussels as well as fish community structure, which could eliminate
possible fish hosts for upstream transport of glochidia. Muscle Shoals on the Tennessee River in
northern Alabama, once the richest site for naiads (mussels) in the world, is now at the bottom of
Wilson Reservoir and covered with 19 feet of muck (USFWS 1992b). Large portions of all of
the river basins within the Carolina Heelsplitter's range have been impounded and this could be a
major factor contributing to the decline of the species (Master 1986).
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 populations of
the Carolina Heelsplitter. Concern has been raised over competitive interactions for space, food
and oxygen with this species and native mussels, possibly at the juvenile stages (Neves and
Widlak 1987, Alderman 1995). 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 1992b). The Zebra Mussel is not currently known from any river in North
Carolina.
3.2 Fusconaia masoni (Atlantic Pigtoe)
3.2.1 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
B-5795 Lanes Creek Mussel Survey Report March 2019
Job# 18-316 Page 5

(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 (Rhynichthys cataractae) are also suitable hosts (Wolf
2012). Eads and Levine (2011) found White Shiner (Luxilus albeolus), Satinfin Shiner
(Cyprinella analostana), Bluehead Chub (Nocomis leptocephalus), Rosyside Dace (Clinostomus
funduloides), Pinewoods Shiner (Lythrurus matutinus), Creek Chub, Swallowtail Shiner
(Notropis procne), and Mountain Redbelly Dace (Chrosomus oreas) to also be suitable hosts for
Atlantic Pigtoe.
3.2.2 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 (Sarah
McRae, USFWS, personal communication). It is presumed extirpated from the Catawba River
Basin in North and South Carolina south to the Altamaha River Basin. 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 (Savidge et al.
2011).
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.
3.2.3 Threats to Species
Threats to the Atlantic Pigtoe are similar to those described for the Carolina Heelsplitter (Section
3.1.3.). All of 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 Alasmidonta varicosa (Brook Floater)
3.3.1 Species Characteristics
The Brook Floater, described from the Schuylkill River in Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania,
by Lamarck (1819), is a small mussel reaching a maximum size of around 70 mm. The shells of
the Brook Floater are long rhomboid in outline with a yellowish to greenish smooth
perisotracum, which darkens to brown in adults, with green to black rays possible. The ventral
margin can be straight, but is frequently arcuate, especially in older individuals. The posterior
ridge is broad, somewhat inflated, and round. There is a second faint ridge above and together
B-5795 Lanes Creek Mussel Survey Report March 2019
Job# 18-316 Page 6

the posterior ridges end in a biangulate margin. The posterior slope is flat to slightly concave,
usually with numerous short, low corrugations radiating toward the posterior margin. The
umbos are large, a little inflated, projecting little above the anterior margin, and are directed
anteriorly. Each valve has one small thin, triangular pseudocardinal tooth. Lateral teeth are
vestigial or lacking. The nacre is glossy, bluish white, and grades into pale orange in the umbo
cavity. The foot and mantle color are usually bright orange in color.
3.3.2 Distribution and Habitat Requirements
The Brook Floater ranges from the lower St. Lawrence River Basin in Canada south to the
Atlantic drainages of South Carolina. While still common in some areas, the species has
experienced significant declines throughout its range. In North Carolina, it is found in the
Roanoke, Neuse, Cape Fear, Pee Dee and Catawba River basins (Clarke 1981, Adams et al.
1990, Bogan 2002).
According to Ortmann (1919), the Brook Floater is most abundant in small streams with gravelly
bottoms, and prefers strong currents; thus it is frequently found in or near riffles. Johnson (1970)
stated that the Brook Floater "lives among rocks on gravel substrates; also on sandy shoals,
especially in rapids and riffles of small rivers and creeks". According to Fuller (1977) the
characteristic habitat of the Brook Floater is the sand floors or gravel riffles of small, upland,
rapidly flowing, oxygen -rich streams in upper portions of river systems. Eugene Kefrel in
Adams et al. (1990) noted that the Linville River of the Catawba River Basin population of this
species occurred near the mouth of the Linville River and Lake James. Most of the naiades
collected or observed were found in a sandy or silt substrate in the cracks between medium to
large boulders along a steep bank in 1 to 3 feet of water. Habitat in the Chatuga River of the
Savannah River Basin is described as bedrock crevices in swift rapids (John Alderman, personal
observations). Williams et al. (1993) lists the Brook Floater as Threatened and it is considered
Endangered in NC.
3.3.3 Threats to Species
Threats to the Brook Floater are similar to those described for the Carolina Heelsplitter (Section
3.1.3) and have contributed to the decline of this species throughout its range. All of the
remaining Brook Floater 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.
4.0 SURVEY EFFORTS
Surveys were conducted by 30aks personnel Tom Dickinson (Permit # 18-ES00343), John
Roberts, Lizzy Stokes -Cawley, and Nancy Scott on October 23, 2018.
B-5795 Lanes Creek Mussel Survey Report March 2019
Job# 18-316 Page 7

4.1 Stream Conditions at Time of Survey: Lanes Creek
Habitat primarily consisted of a long, shallow pool with low discernable flow. The exception
occurred surrounding and bisecting a large mid -channel island downstream of the bridge where
three distinct channels were formed that contained riffle and run habitat. A large amount of
woody debris and detritus had accumulated along these channels on mid -channel islands, which
included numerous mussel shells. The main channel ranged from 50-70 feet (ft) wide with
unstable banks that ranged from 6-9 ft high. Substrate was dominated by sand, gravel, and
cobble, with areas of mud, silt, and bedrock. Banks consisted of clay, silt, and root mats. A
narrow forested buffer surrounded the surveyed reach to active agriculture.
4.2 Mussel Survey Methodology
Mussel surveys were conducted from approximately 1,312 ft (400 meters) downstream of the
subject bridge crossing to approximately 328 ft (100 meters) upstream of the crossing 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 creek into survey lanes. Visual surveys were conducted using glass bottom
view buckets (bathyscopes). 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:
➢ (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.
4.3 Results
A total of 10.7 person hours of survey time were spent in the reach, with low numbers of five
species of freshwater being found (Table 2).
Table 2. CPUE for Freshwater Mussels in Lanes Creek
Scientific Name
Common Name 7#
live, shell
Abundance/
CPUE
Freshwater Mussels
CPUE
lliptio complanata
Eastern Elliptio
1,13
0.09/hr
yganadon cataracta
Eastern Floater
5,23
0.47/hr
Uniomerus carolinianus—Florida
Pondhom
1,3
0.09/hr
trophitus undulatus
Creeper
0,3
Villosa delumbis
Eastern Creekshell
2,10
0.19/hr
Freshwater Snails and Clams
Relative
Abundance
B-5795 Lanes Creek Mussel Survey Report March 2019
Job# 18-316 Page 8

Scientific Name
Common Name
# live, shell
Abundance/
CPUE
Cam eloma decisum
Pointed Cam eloma
—
P-C
Corbicula uminea
Asian Clam
—
C
elisoma ance s
Two -ridge Ramshom
—
P-C
h sella sp.
A Ph sid
—
P-C
5.0 DISCUSSION/CONCLUSIONS
The results indicate that the study area supports low abundance of freshwater mussels of five
relatively common species. Two additional species not located in the previous September 2016
survey (Florida Pondhorn and Creeper) were found during this effort. The Carolina Heelsplitter,
Atlantic Pigtoe, and Brook Floater were not found during the surveys, but based on habitat and
associate species present, they do have the potential to occur in the reach.
Based on these survey results, impacts are unlikely to occur in the study area. Strict adherence to
erosion control standards should minimize the potential for any adverse impacts to occur.
Biological conclusions on potential impacts from the project are provided below.
Biological Conclusion Carolina Heelsplitter: May Affect Not Likely To Adversely Affect
Biological Conclusion Atlantic Pigtoe: May Affect Not Likely To Adversely Affect
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.
While the Brook 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:
Biological Conclusion Brook Floater: May Affect Not Likely To Adversely Affect
B-5795 Lanes Creek Mussel Survey Report March 2019
Job# 18-316 Page 9

6.0 LITERATURE CITED
Adams, W. F., J. M. Alderman, R. G. Biggins, A. G. Gerberich, E. P. Keferl, H. J. Porter, and A.
S. Van Devender. 1990. A report on the conservation status of North Carolina's
freshwater and terrestrial molluscan fauna. N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission,
Raleigh. 246 pp, Appendix A, 37 pp.
Alderman, J. M. 1995. Monitoring the Swift Creek Freshwater mussel community. Unpublished
report presented at the UMRCC symposium on the Conservation and Management of
Freshwater Mussels II Initiative for the Future. Rock Island, IL, UMRCC.
Bogan, A.E. 2002. Workbook and key to the freshwater bivalves of North Carolina. North
Carolina Freshwater Mussel Conservation Partnership, Raleigh, NC, 101 pp, 10 color
plates.
Clarke, A.H. 1981. The tribe Alasmidontini (Unionidae: Anodontinae), Part I: Pegias,
Alasmidonta, and Arcidens. Smithsonian Contributions to Zoology 326:1-101.
Clarke, A.H. 1985. The tribe Alasmidontini (Unionidae: Anodontinae), Part II: Lasmigona and
Simpsonaias. Smithsonian Contributions to Zoology, 399: 75.
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. Additions to, and corrections of, the Catalogue of species of American
Naiades, with descriptions of new species and varieties of Fresh Water Shells. Pp. 1-8, 9.
Appendix to: Synoptical table to New freshwater shells of the United States, with
ccoloured illustrations; and a monograph of the genus Anculotus of Say; also a synopsis
of the American naiades. J. Dobson, 108 Chestnut Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
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. 1977. Freshwater and terrestrial mollusks. In: John E. Cooper, Sarah S.Robinson,
John B. Fundeburg (eds.) Endangered and Threatened Plants and Animals of North
Carolina. North Carolina State Museum of Natural History, Raleigh.
Fuller, S. L. H. and C. E. Powell. 1973. Range extensions of Corbicula manilensis (Philippi) in
the Atlantic drainage of the United States. Nautilus 87(2): 59.
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. USFWS: 128 pp.
B-5795 Lanes Creek Mussel Survey Report March 2019
Job# 18-316 Page 10

Johnson, R.I. 1970. The systematics and zoogeography of the Unionidae (Mollusca: Bivalvia) of
the southern Atlantic slope region. Bulletin of the Museum of Comparative Zoology.
140: 263-449.
Keferl, E.P. 1991. "A status survey for the Carolina heelsplitter (Lasmigona decorata). A
freshwater mussel endemic to the Carolinas." Unpublished report to US Fish and Wildlife
Service.
Keferl, E.P. and R.M. Shelly 1988. The Final Report on a Status Survey of the Carolina
Heelsplitter, (Lasmigona decorata), and the Carolina elktoe, (Alasmidonta robusta),
Unpublished Report to the U.S. Dept of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service: 47.
Lamarck, J.B.P.A. 1815-1822. Histoire naturelle des Animaux sans Vert6bres. 8 volumes.
Lea, I. 1852. Descriptions of new species of the family Unionidae. Transactions of the American
Philosophical Society, 10 (New Series): 253-294, 218 plates.
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.
Master, L. 1986. Alasmidonta heterodon: results of a global status survey and proposal to list as
an endangered species. A report submitted to Region 5 of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service. 10 pp. and appendices.
McMahon, R. F. and A. E. Bogan. 2001. Mollusca: Bivalvia. Pp. 331-429. IN: J.H.
Thorpe and A.P. Covich. Ecology and classification of North American
freshwater invertebrates. 2"dedition. Academic Press.
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. American Malacological Bulletin 1(5): 1-
7.
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (NCDEQ) - Division of Water Resources.
2019a. 2016 North Carolina 303(d) List. https:Hdeq.nc.gov/about/divisions/water-
resources/planning/modeling-assessment/water-quality-data-assessment/integrated-
report-files
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (NCDEQ) - Division of Water Resources.
2019b. NPDES Wastewater Facilities. Accessed January 23, 2019.
https://ncdenr.maps. arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=4ca77e79b68 e466cbc
ae9713a28dde7d
B-5795 Lanes Creek Mussel Survey Report March 2019
Job# 18-316 Page 11

North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP). 2019. Biotics Database. Division of Land
and Water Stewardship. Department of Natural and Cultural Resources. January 2019
version.
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.
Ortmann, A.E. 1919. A monograph of the naiades of Pennsylvania. Part III: Systematic account
of the genera and species. Memoirs of the Carnegie Museum 8(1):xvi-384, 21 pls.
Pennak, R. W. 1989. Fresh -water Invertebrates of the United States, Protozoa to Mollusca. New
York, John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
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 theScientific Council on Freshwater and
Teresstrial Mollusks. 177pp.
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.
Starnes, W.C. and G.M. Hogue 2005. Investigations into potential fish hosts for the Carolina
Heelsplitter Mussel (Lasmigona decorata). Final Draft Unpub. Report to U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Asheville, NC. 29 pp. plus appendices.
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.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1992a. Special report on the status of freshwater
mussels.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1992b. Endangered and Threatened species of the
southeast United States (The Red Book). FWS, Ecological Services, Div. of Endangered
Species, Southeast Region. Govt Printing Office, Wash, DC: 1,070.
B-5795 Lanes Creek Mussel Survey Report March 2019
Job# 18-316 Page 12

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). 2002. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants;
Designation of Critical Habitat for the Carolina Heelsplitter; Final Rule, Dept of the
Interior. Federal Register 67(127):44501-44522.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 2007. Draft Carolina Heelsplitter (Lasmigona decorata)
5-Year Review: Summary and Evaluation, Asheville, NC, 34 pp
Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries (VDGIF). 2014. Atlantic Pigtoe
Conservation Plan. Bureau of Wildlife Resources. VDGIF, Richmond, VA. 31 pp.
Williams, J.D., M.L. Warren Jr., K.S. Cummings, J.L. Harris, and R.J. Neves. 1993.Conservation
status of the freshwater mussels in the United States and Canada. Fisheries 18(9):6-22.
Wolf, E.D. 2012. Propagation, Culture, and Recovery of Species at Risk Atlantic Pigtoe.
Virginia Tech Conservation Management Institute, Project No. 11-108. 55pp.
B-5795 Lanes Creek Mussel Survey Report March 2019
Job# 18-316 Page 13

APPENDIX A
Figures
B-5795 Lanes Creek Mussel Survey Report March 2019
Job# 18-316 Page 14

i N
STANLY COUNTY � MONTGOMERY
COUNTY
UNION
COUNTY `^ f
t _
1 RICHMOND-,
COUNTY
I S
ANSON COUNTY
J
�+ Q Open StreetMap (and)
contributaf9,4JEsAyDSADUNTY r
(7,RT •_
Bridge No. 217
Actual Survey Reach
Roads
Stream'
L---� County Boundary r
Prepared For. Hate- Freshwater Mussel Survey January
2019
Job# 18-316 Page 15

+
Fc II Orr
A irfe
f
It
ea
L
L
rl-
NC 24
W 27
EO',]D" 22087 %
�k
us 601
jol
00
J, A
21454
"d
Mc Gee
;se C—k Fe
0-
elf
V
11 It.
C
. . . . . . Pet Dee
Navo-,"I
-'u Edwo s
,P I +
A, rr Mc DC
4, AM,
E L D: 21776
T
6-A
M
Bridge 217
P Element Occurrence
Carolina Heelsplitter
Atlantic Pigtoe
Brook Floater
Stream
County Boundary
Prepared For:
%OHIO
or 1W
r 4
�j
e
7 1 1A
j,
131 el ke
A
A
fi, EO ID:,22093
AL
u7
"contribors, CCBYmSA
00penSteb Map a N
Freshwater Mussel Survey
B-5795: Bridge No. 217 on SR 1654
over Lanes Creek
NCNHP Element Occurrences
Anson County, North Carolina
gate_January 2019
Scale
1 2 Mfl—
Job No 18-316
Ofawn By —
Gle,170,
LSC
F TD
Figure
2

II
Bridge 217
NPDES Discharge
Major
Minor
303(d) Listed Streams
Stream
E Efte ol
woRry
NW
N4
5�N "'d �TP Vl
JX
Al
A A
ti
(u, OpenStreetMa'Q (and)
Freshwater Mussel Survey
B-5795: Bridge No. 217 on SIR 1654
over Lanes Creek
303(d) Listed Streams and
NPDES Discharges
Anson County. North Carolina
Date- January 2019
Scale
a 0.5 1 Miles
I I
Job No 18-316
Drawn By.
Checked By'
(1— 1-
Pce Dee
Vateonal
W;Uefe
Figure
3