20191562 Ver 1_B-5664 Swift Creek Mussel & Fish Survey Report_20191114

Freshwater Mussel & Fish Survey Report
Replacement of Bridge No. 145
Swift Creek on SR 1555
TIP # B-5664
Johnston County, North Carolina
WBS Element # 45619.1.1
Swift Creek during the survey efforts
Prepared For:
NC Department of Transportation
Raleigh, North Carolina

Contact Person:

Mike Sanderson
Senior Environmental Scientist
Biological Surveys Group
North Carolina Department of Transportation
[e-mail]
1598 Mail Service Center
Raleigh NC 27699-1598
June 30, 2016

Prepared by:

1000 Corporate Drive, Suite 101
Hillsborough, NC 27278

Contact Person:

Tom Dickinson
Senior Project Manager
[e-mail]
919-732-1300

Table of Contents
1.0 Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 1
2.0 Waters Impacted .................................................................................................................. 1
2.1 303(d) Classification ........................................................................................................ 1
2.2 NPDES dischargers .......................................................................................................... 2
3.0 Target Federally Protected Species Descriptions ................................................................ 2
3.1 Alasmidonta heterodon (Dwarf Wedgemussel) ............................................................... 2
3.1.1. Species Characteristics.............................................................................................. 2
3.1.2. Distribution and Habitat Requirements .................................................................... 3
3.1.3. Threats to Species ..................................................................................................... 3
3.2 Elliptio steinstansana (Tar River Spinymussel)............................................................... 4
3.2.1. Species Characteristics.............................................................................................. 4
3.2.2. Distribution and Habitat Requirements .................................................................... 5
3.2.3. Threats to Species ..................................................................................................... 6
4.0 Other Target Species Descriptions....................................................................................... 6
4.1 Fusconaia masoni (Atlantic Pigtoe) ................................................................................. 6
4.1.1. Species Characteristics.............................................................................................. 6
4.1.2. Distribution and Habitat Requirements .................................................................... 6
4.1.3. Threats to Species ..................................................................................................... 6
4.2 Lasmigona subviridis (Green Floater) ............................................................................. 7
4.2.1. Species Characteristics.............................................................................................. 7
4.2.2. Distribution and Habitat Requirements .................................................................... 7
4.2.3. Threats to Species ..................................................................................................... 7
4.3 Elliptio lanceolata (Yellow Lance) .................................................................................. 7
4.3.1. Species Characteristics.............................................................................................. 7
4.3.2. Distribution and Habitat Requirements .................................................................... 8
4.3.3. Threats to Species ..................................................................................................... 8
4.4 Noturus furiosus (Carolina Madtom) ............................................................................... 8
4.4.1. Species Characteristics.............................................................................................. 8
4.4.2. Distribution and Habitat Requirements .................................................................... 8
4.4.3. Threats to Species ..................................................................................................... 8
5.0 Survey Efforts ...................................................................................................................... 8
5.1 Stream Conditions at Time of Survey: Swift Creek ......................................................... 9
5.2 Methodology .................................................................................................................... 9
6.0 Results .................................................................................................................................. 9
7.0 Discussion/Conclusions ..................................................................................................... 10
8.0 Literature Cited .................................................................................................................. 12

Appendix A . Figures:
Figure 1: Project Vicinity & Survey Reach
Figure 2: NCNHP Element Occurrences
Figure 3: 303(d) Listed Streams and NPDES Discharges

B-5664 Swift Creek Mussel & Fish Survey Report June 2016
Job# 16-306 Page 1
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes the replacement of bridge
number 145 over Swift Creek on SR 1555 in Johnston County (Appendix A, Figure 1). The
project will impact Swift Creek of the Neuse River basin. The Federally Endangered Dwarf
Wedgemussel (Alasmidonta heterodon, DWM) and Tar River Spinymussel (Elliptio
steinstansana, TSM) are listed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) for Johnston
County. Additionally, the Atlantic Pigtoe (Fusconaia masoni), Green Floater (Lasmigona
subviridis), Yellow Lance (Elliptio lanceolata), Carolina Madtom (Noturus furiosus), and Neuse
River Waterdog (Necturus lewisi) are being considered for listing by the USFWS and occur in
Johnston County. The Neuse River Waterdog was discussed in a separate report detailing
targeted trapping surveys dated March 29, 2016 which captured the species in the project study
area.
According to the NC Natural Heritage Program database (NCNHP 2015), accessed April 29,
2016, the nearest element occurrence (EO) for DWM is located in White Oak Creek/Swift
Creek/Middle Creek within the study area (Figure 2-1). This EO is approximately 55 river miles
(RM) in length. It was first observed in March 1991 and last observed in March 2012. The
nearest EO for TSM is located in Little River approximately 16 miles east of the study area
(Figure 2-2). This EO is approximately 8.2 RM in length. It was first observed in August 1998
and last observed in September 2011. The nearest EO for Atlantic Pigtoe is located in White
Oak Creek/Swift Creek within the study area (Figure 2-3). This EO is approximately 40 RM in
length. It was first observed in March 1991 and last observed in May 2012. The nearest EO for
Green Floater is located in Swift Creek within the study area (Figure 2-4). This EO is
approximately 1.2 RM in length. It was first observed in April 1991 and has not been observed
since then. The nearest EO for Yellow Lance is located in Swift Creek approximately 1.8 RM
upstream of the study area (Figure 2-5). This EO is approximately 8.5 RM in length. It was first
observed in August 1992 and last observed in May 2012. The nearest EO for Carolina Madtom
is located in Swift Creek/Middle Creek approximately 10 RM downstream of the study area
(Figure 2-6). This EO is approximately 8.4 RM in length. It was first observed in June 1961 and
last observed in May 1985.
As part of the federal permitting process that requires an evaluation of potential project-related
impacts to federally protected species, Three Oaks Engineering (3Oaks) was contracted by
NCDOT to conduct surveys targeting DWM, TSM, Atlantic Pigtoe, Green Floater, Yellow
Lance, and Carolina Madtom.
2.0 WATERS IMPACTED
Swift Creek is located in the Upper Neuse River subbasin of the Neuse River basin (HUC#
03020201). Swift Creek flows approximately 17 RM from the subject bridge to Neuse River.
2.1 303(d) Classification
Swift Creek is on the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (NCDEQ, formerly
NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources, NCDENR) - Division of Water

B-5664 Swift Creek Mussel & Fish Survey Report June 2016
Job# 16-306 Page 2
Resources 2014 Final 303(d) list of impaired streams at the subject bridge. Swift Creek is listed
as impaired from the dam at Lake Benson down to the confluence with Little Creek (about 20
RM; NCDENR 2014). It is impaired based due to fair benthos (Figure 3).
2.2 NPDES dischargers
There is a permitted NPDES discharge on Swift Creek (USEPA 2016); Dempsey E. Benton
Water Treatment Plant (NPDES Permit # NC0088285) is approximately 14 RM miles upstream
of the study area. There are also several general stormwater NPDES permitted discharges in the
vicinity (Figure 3).
3.0 TARGET FEDERALLY PROTECTED SPECIES DESCRIPTIONS
3.1 Alasmidonta heterodon (Dwarf Wedgemussel)
3.1.1. Species Characteristics
The DWM was originally described as Unio heterodon (Lea 1829). Simpson (1914)
subsequently placed it in the genus Alasmidonta. Ortmann (1919) placed it in a monotypic
subgenus Prolasmidonta, based on the unique soft-tissue anatomy and conchology. Fuller
(1977) believed the characteristics of Prolasmidonta warranted elevation to full generic rank and
renamed the species Prolasmidonta heterodon. Clarke (1981) retained the genus name
Alasmidonta and considered Prolasmidonta to be a subjective synonym of the subgenus
Pressodonta (Simpson 1900).
The specific epithet heterodon refers to the chief distinguishing characteristic of this species,
which is the only North American freshwater mussel that consistently has two lateral teeth on the
right valve and only one on the left (Fuller 1977). All other laterally dentate freshwater mussels
in North America normally have two lateral teeth on the left valve and one on the right. The
DWM is generally small, with a shell length ranging between 25 mm (1.0 inch) and 38 mm (1.5
inches). The largest specimen reported by Clarke (1981) was 56.5 mm (2.2 inches) long, taken
from the Ashuelot River in New Hampshire. The periostracum is generally olive green to dark
brown; nacre bluish to silvery white, turning to cream or salmon colored towards the umbonal
cavities. Sexual dimorphism occurs in DWM, with the females having a swollen region on the
posterior slope, and the males are generally flattened. Clarke (1981) provides a detailed
description of the species.
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. Based upon laboratory
infestation experiments, Michaelson and Neves (1995) determined that potential fish hosts for
the DWM in North Carolina include the Tessellated Darter (Etheostoma olmstedi) and the
Johnny Darter (E. nigrum). McMahon and Bogan (2001) and Pennak (1989) should be consulted
for a general overview of freshwater mussel reproductive biology.

B-5664 Swift Creek Mussel & Fish Survey Report June 2016
Job# 16-306 Page 3
3.1.2. Distribution and Habitat Requirements
The historic range of the DWM is confined to Atlantic slope drainages from the Peticodiac River
in New Brunswick, Canada, south to the Neuse River, North Carolina. Occurrence records exist
from at least 70 locations, encompassing 15 major drainages, in 11 states and 1 Canadian
Province (USFWS 1993). When the recovery plan for this species was written, the DWM was
believed to have been extirpated from all but 36 localities, 14 of them in North Carolina
(USFWS 1993). The most recent assessment (2013 5-Year Review) indicates that the DWM is
currently found in 16 major drainages, comprising approximately 75 "sites" (one site may have
multiple occurrences). At least 45 of these sites are based on less than five individuals or solely
on relict shells. It appears that the populations in North Carolina, Virginia, and Maryland are
declining as evidenced by low densities, lack of reproduction, or inability to relocate any
individuals in follow-up surveys. Populations in New Hampshire, Massachusetts, and
Connecticut appear to be stable, while the status of populations in the Delaware River watershed
affected by the recent floods of 2005 are still being studied (USFWS 2013).
Strayer et al. (1996) conducted range-wide assessments of remaining DWM populations, and
assigned a population status to each of the populations. The status rating is based on range size,
number of individuals and evidence of reproduction. Seven of the 20 populations assessed were
considered “poor,” and two others are considered “poor to fair” and “fair to poor,” respectively.
In North Carolina, populations are found in portions of the Neuse and Tar River basins; however,
they are believed to have been extirpated from the main-stem of the Neuse River.
The DWM inhabits creeks and rivers of varying sizes (down to approximately two meters wide),
with slow to moderate flow. A variety of preferred substrates have been described that range
from coarse sand, to firm muddy sand to gravel (USFWS 1993). In North Carolina, DWM often
occur within submerged root mats along stable streambanks. The wide range of substrate types
used by this species suggests that the stability of the substrate is likely as important as the
composition.
3.1.3. Threats to Species
The cumulative effects of several factors, including sedimentation, point and non-point
discharge, and stream modifications (impoundments, channelization, etc.) have contributed to the
decline of this species throughout its range. With the exception of the Neversink River
population in New York, which has an estimated population of over 80,000 DWM individuals,
all of the other 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 (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

B-5664 Swift Creek Mussel & Fish Survey Report June 2016
Job# 16-306 Page 4
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 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 DWM’s range have been impounded and this is believed to 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 surviving
populations of the DWM. 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 supporting
DWM population, nor the Neuse River basin.
3.2 Elliptio steinstansana (Tar River Spinymussel)
3.2.1. Species Characteristics
The TSM grows to a maximum length of 60 millimeters. Short spines are arranged in a radial
row anterior to the posterior ridge on one valve and symmetrical to the other valve. The shell is
generally smooth in texture with as many as 12 spines that project perpendicularly from the
surface and curve slightly ventrally. However, adult specimens tend to lose their spines as they
mature (USFWS 1992a). The smooth, orange-brown to dark brown periostracum may be rayed
in younger individuals. The shell is significantly thicker toward the anterior end and the nacre is
usually pink in this area. The posterior end of the shell is thinner with an iridescent bluish white

B-5664 Swift Creek Mussel & Fish Survey Report June 2016
Job# 16-306 Page 5
color. Two or more linear ridges, originating within the beak cavity and extending to the ventral
margin, can be found on the interior surface of the shell. The distance between these ridges
widens toward the ventral margin. Johnson and Clarke (1983) provide additional descriptive
material.
Little is known about the reproductive biology of the TSM (USFWS 1992c); however, nearly all
freshwater mussel species have similar reproductive strategies, which involve a larval stage
(glochidium) that becomes a temporary obligatory parasite on a fish. Many mussel species have
specific fish hosts, which must be present to complete their life cycle. The TSM is probably a
tachytictic reproducer with gravid females present at some time from April through August
(Widlak 1987). The glochidia have not been described. Eads and Levine (2008), and Eads et al.
(2008) identified the following fish species as suitable hosts: Bluehead Chub (Nocomis
leptocephalus), Pinewoods Shiner (Lythrurus matutinus), Satinfin Shiner (Cyprinella
analostana), and White Shiner (Luxilus albeolus). McMahon and Bogan (2001) and Pennak
(1989) should be consulted for a general overview of freshwater mussel reproductive biology.
3.2.2. Distribution and Habitat Requirements
Previously this mussel was believed to be endemic to the Tar-Pamlico River basin and probably
ranged throughout most of the basin before the area was settled during the 1700s (NC Scientific
Council on Mollusks 2011). Historically, the TSM was collected in the Tar River from near
Louisburg in Franklin County to Falkland in Pitt County (approximately 78 RM). By the mid-
1960s, its known range had been reduced to the main channel of the Tar River from Spring Hope
in Nash County to Falkland in Pitt County (Shelley 1972, Clarke 1983). By the early 1980s, its
range in the Tar River was restricted to only 12 miles of the river in Edgecombe County (Clarke
1983). It was last observed (2 individuals) in the river in 2001 within an extensive sandbar
habitat in Edgecombe County (unpublished data, NCWRC Aquatics Database). It is currently
found in three streams, Shocco, Sandy/Swift, and Fishing/Little Fishing creeks in the Tar-
Pamlico River basin (unpublished data, NCWRC Aquatics Database). In 1998, the species was
found in Johnston County in the Little River, a tributary to the Neuse River. Only a few
individuals have been found in the Little River in subsequent years (unpublished data, NCWRC
Aquatics Database).
The preferred habitat of the TSM in the Tar-Pamlico River basin was described as relatively fast
flowing, well-oxygenated, circumneutral pH water in sites prone to significant swings in water
velocity, with a substrate comprised of relatively silt-free loose gravel and/or coarse sand
(Adams et al., 1990). Various species associates, which are good indicators for the presence of
the TSM, include (in decreasing order of association) the Atlantic Pigtoe, Yellow Lance, Yellow
Lampmussel (Lampsilis cariosa), Notched Rainbow (Villosa constricta), Triangle Floater
(Alasmidonta undulata), and Creeper (Strophitus undulatus; Adams et al., 1990). Johnson
(1970) stated that the Atlantic Pigtoe appeared to be closely associated with the James River
Spinymussel (Pleurobema collina) in the James River basin. This same close association is true
for the TSM and Atlantic Pigtoe. In habitats which have not been significantly degraded in the
Tar-Pamlico River basin, the presence of Atlantic Pigtoe is the best indicator of the potential
presence of TSM (NC Scientific Council on Mollusks 2011).

B-5664 Swift Creek Mussel & Fish Survey Report June 2016
Job# 16-306 Page 6
3.2.3. Threats to Species
Threats to the TSM are similar to those described for the DWM and have contributed to the
decline of this species throughout its range. All of the remaining TSM 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 OTHER TARGET SPECIES DESCRIPTIONS
4.1 Fusconaia masoni (Atlantic Pigtoe)
4.1.1. 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 in length.
Except in headwater stream reaches, where specimens may be elongated, this species is tall
relative to its length. 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 4 demibranchs to brood glochidia (VDGIF 2014).
4.1.2. Distribution and Habitat Requirements
The Atlantic Pigtoe range extends from the Ogeechee River Basin in Georgia north to the James
River Basin in Virginia (Johnson 1970). The general pattern of distribution indicates that the
species is currently limited to headwater areas of drainages and most populations are represented
by few individuals. In North Carolina, it was once found in every Atlantic Slope river basin with
the exception of the Waccamaw. With the exception of the Tar River, it has not been found in
the mainstem of these rivers in recent years (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 G2 (imperiled).
The Atlantic Pigtoe occurs in medium size streams to large rivers, but has experienced major
declines throughout its entire range. 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 habitat conditions.
4.1.3. Threats to Species
Threats to the Atlantic Pigtoe are similar to those described for the DWM and have contributed
to the decline of this species throughout its range. All of the remaining Atlantic Pigtoe

B-5664 Swift Creek Mussel & Fish Survey Report June 2016
Job# 16-306 Page 7
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.
4.2 Lasmigona subviridis (Green Floater)
4.2.1. Species Characteristics
The Green Floater was described by Conrad (1835) from the Schuykill River in Lancaster
County, Pennsylvania. The 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.
4.2.2. 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.
4.2.3. Threats to Species
Threats to the Green Floater are similar to those described for the DWM and have contributed to
the decline of this species throughout its range. All of the remaining Green 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.
4.3 Elliptio lanceolata (Yellow Lance)
4.3.1. Species Characteristics
The Yellow Lance was described from the Tar River at Tarboro, North Carolina by I. Lea in
1828. This species differs from other lance-shaped Elliptios by having a “waxy” bright yellow
periostracum that lacks rays. The posterior ridge is distinctly rounded and curves dorsally
towards the posterior end.

B-5664 Swift Creek Mussel & Fish Survey Report June 2016
Job# 16-306 Page 8
4.3.2. Distribution and Habitat Requirements
This species is distributed from the Neuse River Basin north to the Rappahannock. It is in
considerable decline throughout its range. Extant populations occur in the Neuse, Tar/Pamlico,
Chowan and York River basins. This species is found in small streams to large rivers in
substrates primarily consisting of clean sand, and occasionally gravel.
4.3.3. Threats to Species
Threats to the Yellow Lance and many other species are similar to those described above for the
DWM. This species is a Federal Species of Concern and is listed as Endangered in North
Carolina. Williams et al. (1993) list this species as Endangered. There appears to be sufficient
data to warrant elevation of the Yellow Lance to Candidate status in the very near future (John
Fridell, Recovery Biologist USFWS, Personal Communication).
4.4 Noturus furiosus (Carolina Madtom)
4.4.1. Species Characteristics
The Carolina Madtom (a small catfish) was described at Millburnie, near Raleigh, NC in the
Neuse River (Jordan 1889). The Carolina Madtom reaches a maximum size of 132 mm (5.2
inches). Compared to other madtoms within its range, it has a relatively short stout body and a
distinctive color pattern of 3-4 dark saddles along its back that connect a long black stripe on the
side running from the snout to the tail.
4.4.2. Distribution and Habitat Requirements
The Carolina Madtom is endemic to the Piedmont/Inner Coastal Plain portion of the Tar/Pamlico
and Neuse River basins. It occurs in creeks and small rivers in habitats generally consisting of
very shallow riffles with little current over coarse sand and gravel substrate (Lee et al. 1980). It
is generally rare throughout its range and is apparently in decline.
4.4.3. Threats to Species
Because of its limited distribution, the Carolina Madtom is listed as Special Concern and is
Proposed Threatened in North Carolina. Identified threats to the species include water pollution
and construction of impoundments (Burr et al. 1989).
5.0 SURVEY EFFORTS
Surveys were conducted by 3Oaks personnel Tom Dickinson (Permit # 16-ES00343), Nancy
Scott, Chris Sheats, and Evan Morgan on May 16, 2016.

B-5664 Swift Creek Mussel & Fish Survey Report June 2016
Job# 16-306 Page 9
5.1 Stream Conditions at Time of Survey: Swift Creek
This section of Swift Creek consisted primarily of deeper run and pool habitat ranging from 2-6
feet deep with limited areas of riffle habitat underneath the bridge and below log jams. The
channel ranged from 25-30 feet wide with stream banks 8-12 feet high, which exhibited signs of
erosion and scour in areas. Run and pool substrate was dominated by cobble, sand and gravel.
Bank habitat consisted of clay and rootmats.
5.2 Methodology
Mussel surveys were conducted from approximately 1,312 feet (400 meters) downstream of the
respective bridge crossing to approximately 328 feet (100 meters) upstream of the crossing 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. 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.

During the mussel survey effort, the presence of preferred habitats for the Carolina Madtom were
assessed and if conditions were appropriate, targeted visual surveys were conducted by
overturning rocks and debris in these areas.
6.0 RESULTS
A total of 6.7 person hours of survey time were spent in the reach, with nine species of
freshwater mussel being found (Table 1). Other mollusk species found during the survey
included the Asian Clam (Corbicula fluminea) and the aquatic snail Pointed Campeloma
(Campeloma decisum).
Table 1. CPUE for Freshwater Mussels in Swift Creek
Scientific Name Common Name # live
Abundance/
CPUE
Freshwater Mussels CPUE
Alasmidonta undulata Triangle Floater 3 0.45/hr
Elliptio congaraea Carolina Slabshell 59 8.81/hr
Elliptio complanata Eastern Elliptio 506 75.52/hr

B-5664 Swift Creek Mussel & Fish Survey Report June 2016
Job# 16-306 Page 10
Scientific Name Common Name # live
Abundance/
CPUE
Elliptio icterina Variable Spike 58 8.67/hr
Elliptio roanokensis Roanoke Slabshell 34 5.07/hr
Elliptio sp. c.f. mediocris No common name 41 6.12/hr
Fusconaia masoni Atlantic Pigtoe 3 0.45/hr
Lampsilis radiata Eastern Lampmussel 4 0.59/hr
Strophitus undulatus Creeper 1 0.15/hr
Freshwater Snails and Clams
Relative
Abundance
Corbicula fluminea Asian Clam ~ A
Campeloma decisum Pointed Campeloma ~ P-C
7.0 DISCUSSION/CONCLUSIONS
The results indicate that the study area supports a diverse freshwater mussel and fish fauna.
While neither the DWM nor TSM were found during these surveys, the DWM is known from the
study area in addition to the majority of the target species (Section 1.0), one of which, the
Atlantic Pigtoe, was confirmed during these efforts. While other target species were not found
during these surveys, appropriate habitat is present; thus there is the potential for additional
species to occur within the study area.
Based on the species records and these survey results, impacts may 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 to the 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.
Biological Conclusion Dwarf Wedgemussel: Unresolved
Biological Conclusion Tar River Spinymussel: Unresolved
While the following species are not currently federally protected and biological conclusions are
not necessary at the time of the writing of this report, if these species were to receive federal
protection, appropriate biological conclusions are as follows:
Biological Conclusion Atlantic Pigtoe: Unresolved
Biological Conclusion Green Floater: Unresolved
Biological Conclusion Yellow Lance: Unresolved
Biological Conclusion Carolina Madtom: Unresolved

B-5664 Swift Creek Mussel & Fish Survey Report June 2016
Job# 16-306 Page 11

B-5664 Swift Creek Mussel & Fish Survey Report June 2016
Job# 16-306 Page 12
8.0 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.
Burr, B. M., B.R. Kuhajda, W.W. Dimmick and J.M. Grady 1989. Distribution, biology, and
conservation status of the Carolina madtom (Noturus furiosus, an endemic North Carolina
catfish. Brimleyana 15:57-86.
Clarke, A. H. 1981. The Tribe Alasmidontini (Unionidae: Anodontinae), Part I: Pegias, Alasmidonta,
and Arcidens. Smithsonian Contributions to Zoology, No. 326. 101 pp.
Clarke, A. H. 1983. Status survey of the Tar River spiny mussel. Final Report to U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service with supplement. 63 pp.
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.
Eads, C. B. and J.F. Levine. 2008. Carolina Heelsplitter (Lasmigona decorata) and Tar River
Spinymussel (Elliptio steinstansana) Conservation Research: July 2007-June 2008. Final
report submitted to the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission. Raleigh,
NC. 18 pp.
Eads, C.B., R. Nichols, C.J. Woods, and J.F. Levine. 2008. Captive spawning and host
determination of the federally endangered Tar River spinymussel (Elliptio steinstansana).
Ellipsaria, 10(2):7-8.
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.

B-5664 Swift Creek Mussel & Fish Survey Report June 2016
Job# 16-306 Page 13
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.
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.
Johnson, R.I. and A.H. Clarke. 1983. A new spiny mussel, Elliptio (Canthyria) steinstansana
(Bivalvia: Unionidae), from the Tar River, North Carolina. Occasional Papers on
Mollusks, Museum of Comparative Zoology, Harvard University, 4(61): 289-298.
Jordan, D.S. 1889. Descriptions of fourteen species of freshwater fishes collected by the U.S.
Fish Commission in the summer of 1888. Proceedings of the United States National
Museum 11:351-362.
Lea, I. 1828. Description of six new species of the genus Unio, embracing the anatomy of the
oviduct of one of them, together with some anatomical observations on the genus.
Transactions of the American Philosophical Society 3(N.S.):259-273 + plates iii-vi.
Lea, I. 1829. Description of a new genus of the family of naïades, including eight species, four of
which are new; also the description of eleven new species of the genus Unio from the
rivers of the United States: with observations on some of the characters of the naïades.
Transactions of the American Philosophical Society 3[New Series]:403–457, pls. 7–14.
Lee, D.S., C.R. Gilbert, C.H. Hocutt, R.E. Jenkins, D.E. McAllister, and J.R. Stauffer. 1980.
Atlas of North American freshwater fishes. North Carolina State Museum of Natural
History, Raleigh.
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. 2ndedition. Academic Press.
Michaelson, D.L. and R.J. Neves. (1995). Life history and habitat of the endangered dwarf
wedgemussel Alasmidonta heterodon (Bivalvia: Unionidae). Journal of the North
American Benthological Society 14(2):324-340.

B-5664 Swift Creek Mussel & Fish Survey Report June 2016
Job# 16-306 Page 14
NatureServe. 2015. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application].
Version 7.1. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available http://explorer.natureserve.org.
(Accessed: May 23, 2016 ).
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.
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.
North Carolina Department of Natural Resources (NCDENR) - Division of Water Resources.
2014. Final 2014 North Carolina 303(d) List.
http://portal.ncdenr.org/web/wq/ps/mtu/assessment
North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP). 2015. nheo-2015-10. Natural Heritage
Element Occurrence polygon shapefile. October 2015 version.
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission. Unpublished Aquatics Database.
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 the Scientific Council on Freshwater and
Teresstrial Mollusks. 177pp.
Shelley, R.M. 1972. In defense of naiades. Wildlife in North Carolina. March: 1-7.
Simpson, C.T. 1900. Synopsis of the naiades, or pearly fresh-water mussels. Proceedings of the
United States National Museum 22(1205):501–1044.
Simpson, C.T. 1914. A descriptive catalogue of the naiades, or pearly fresh-water mussels. Parts
I–III. Bryant Walker, Detroit, Michigan, xii + 1540 pp.

B-5664 Swift Creek Mussel & Fish Survey Report June 2016
Job# 16-306 Page 15
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.
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. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water. NPDES facilities by permit type.
NPDESPERMIT_WMERC. Accessed April 29, 2016.
https://watersgeo.epa.gov/arcgis/rest/services/OWPROGRAM/NPDESPERMIT_WMER
C/MapServer
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.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1992c. Tar Spinymussel (Elliptio (Cathyria)
steinstansana) Recovery Plan. Atlanta, Georgia. 34 pp.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1993. Dwarf Wedgemussel (Alasmidonta
heterodon) Recovery Plan. Hadley, Massachusetts. 527 pp.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2013. Dwarf Wedgemussel Alasmidonta heterodon 5-
Year Review: Summary and Evaluation, Susi vonOettingen, FWS, Concord, NH.
Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries (VDGIF). 2014. Atlantic Pigtoe
Conservation Plan. Bureau of Wildlife Resources. VDGIF, Richmond, VA. 31 pp.
Widlak, J.C. 1987. Recovery Plan for the Tar River spiny mussel (Elliptio (Canthyria)
steinstansana) Johnson and Clarke. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Williams, J. D., M. L. Warren, Jr., K. S. Cummings, J. L. Harris, and R. J. Neves. 1993.
Conservation status of the freshwater mussels of the United States and Canada. Fisheries
18 (9): 6-22.

B-5664 Swift Creek Mussel & Fish Survey Report June 2016
Job# 16-306 Page 16

APPENDIX A

Figures

B-5664 Swift Creek Mussel & Fish Survey Report June 2016
Job# 16-306 Page 17

B-5664 Swift Creek Mussel & Fish Survey Report June 2016
Job# 16-306 Page 18

B-5664 Swift Creek Mussel & Fish Survey Report June 2016
Job# 16-306 Page 19

B-5664 Swift Creek Mussel & Fish Survey Report June 2016
Job# 16-306 Page 20

B-5664 Swift Creek Mussel & Fish Survey Report June 2016
Job# 16-306 Page 21

B-5664 Swift Creek Mussel & Fish Survey Report June 2016
Job# 16-306 Page 22

B-5664 Swift Creek Mussel & Fish Survey Report June 2016
Job# 16-306 Page 23

B-5664 Swift Creek Mussel & Fish Survey Report June 2016
Job# 16-306 Page 24