20090266 Ver 10_GUC WTP Tar River Mussel Survey Report 2023_20231031

Freshwater Mussel Survey Report
Greenville Utilities Commission Water Treatment Plant Project

Pitt County, North Carolina

Tar River in survey reach

Prepared For:

October 26, 2023

Prepared by:

324 Blackwell Street, Suite 1200
Durham, NC 27701

Contact Person:

Tom Dickinson
[e-mail]
919-732-1300

Table of Contents
1.0 Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 1
2.0 Waters Impacted .................................................................................................................. 1
3.0 Target Federally Protected Species Descriptions ................................................................ 2
3.1 Parvaspina steinstansana (Tar River Spinymussel) ........................................................ 2
3.1.1. Species Characteristics .............................................................................................. 2
3.1.2. Distribution, Habitat Requirements, and Status ........................................................ 2
3.1.3. Threats to Species ..................................................................................................... 3
3.1.4. Designated Critical Habitat ....................................................................................... 3
3.2 Fusconaia masoni (Atlantic Pigtoe) ................................................................................. 4
3.2.1. Species Characteristics .............................................................................................. 4
3.2.2. Distribution, Habitat Requirements, and Status ........................................................ 4
3.2.3. Threats to Species ..................................................................................................... 5
3.2.4. Designated Critical Habitat ....................................................................................... 5
4.0 Survey Efforts ...................................................................................................................... 5
4.1 Stream Conditions at Time of Survey: Tar River ............................................................ 6
4.2 Methodology .................................................................................................................... 6
4.2.1. Mussel Surveys ......................................................................................................... 6
5.0 Results .................................................................................................................................. 6
5.1 Mussel Survey Results ..................................................................................................... 6
6.0 Discussion/Conclusions ....................................................................................................... 7
7.0 Literature Cited .................................................................................................................... 8

Appendix A. Figures:
Figure 1: Project Vicinity & Survey Reach
Figures 2-1 and 2-2: NCNHP Element Occurrences and Critical Habitat
GUC WTP Tar River Mussel Survey Report October 2023
Job# 23-331 Page 1
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The Greenville Utilities Commission (GUC) is planning maintenance activities in the Tar River
for their Water Treatment Plant (WTP) in Pitt County (Appendix A, Figure 1). As part of the
project permitting, a freshwater mussel survey was requested by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (USFWS) in coordination with Hazen, the primary environmental consultant for the
project. The Federally Endangered Tar River Spinymussel (Parvaspina steinstansana, [formerly
Elliptio steinstansana (Perkins et al. 2017)]) and the Federally Threatened Atlantic Pigtoe
(Fusconaia masoni) are listed by the USFWS Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC)
system as freshwater mussel species that may be potentially affected in the project area.
Table 1 lists the nearest element occurrence (EO) in approximate river miles (RM) for targeted
freshwater mussel species for the project area. Data is according to the NC Natural Heritage
Program database (NCNHP 2023) most recently updated in July 2023.
Table 1 –Element Occurrences
Species Name EO ID
EO
Waterbody
Distance
from
crossing
(RM)
First
Observed
Last
Observed
EO
Status* Figure
Tar River
Spinymussel
16980 Tar River 5.0 1963 September
1978 H
2-1
21438 Tar River 15.7 May 1977 October
2001 C
Atlantic Pigtoe 12291 Tar River 5.8 September
1982
October
2002 C 2-2
*: C – NCNHP Current; H –NCNHP Historic
To evaluate potential project-related impacts, Three Oaks Engineering (Three Oaks) was
contracted by Hazen to conduct surveys targeting protected mussel species.
2.0 WATERS IMPACTED
This section of the river is in the Lower Tar Subbasin (HUC# 03020103). The Tar River flows
approximately 22.0 RM to its confluence with the Pamlico River near Washington, NC.

GUC WTP Tar River Mussel Survey Report October 2023
Job# 23-331 Page 2
3.0 TARGET FEDERALLY PROTECTED SPECIES DESCRIPTIONS
3.1 Parvaspina steinstansana (Tar River Spinymussel)
3.1.1. Species Characteristics
The Tar River Spinymussel 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
1992). 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 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 Tar River Spinymussel (USFWS 1992);
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. It is
believed that due to the extremely small size of all surviving populations that in all but the Little
Fishing/Fishing Creek subpopulations, the rate of reproduction is likely to be lower than what is
necessary to sustain the population. Many mussel species have specific fish hosts, which must be
present to complete their life cycle. The Tar River Spinymussel is probably a tachytictic (short-
term) 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). Two additional species, the Creek Chub (Semotilus atromaculatus)
and the Swallowtail Shiner (Notropis procne) have been identified as “marginal hosts” in a lab
glochidia transfer setting (USFWS 2020).
3.1.2. Distribution, Habitat Requirements, and Status
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 Tar River Spinymussel 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). The species has not been observed in the Tar River in Pitt

GUC WTP Tar River Mussel Survey Report October 2023
Job# 23-331 Page 3
County since 1978, where it was found near the NC 222 crossing, approximately 7.9 RM
upstream of the project area (NCWRC Unpublished Database). The North Carolina Wildlife
Resources Commission (NCWRC) identifies only six known populations within five counties as
the Tar River Spinymussel’s current distribution. The remaining Tar River Spinymussel
populations are small, fragmented, and in decline. Additionally, all known populations are
disconnected from each other via impoundments or extensive unoccupied stream reaches
(USFWS 2020). The following is a list of the currently identified subbasins that the Tar River
Spinymussel is known to inhabit (NCWRC Species Profile).
Tar River Basin:
1. Shocco Creek Subbasin: Franklin County, NC (Possibly Extirpated)
2. Sandy Creek Subbasin: Franklin County, NC
3. Swift Creek Subbasin: Nash/Edgecombe counties, NC
4. Tar River Subbasin: Nash/Edgecombe counties, NC (Possibly Extirpated)
5. Little Fishing Creek Subbasin: Halifax County, NC
The preferred habitat of the Tar River Spinymussel 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 Tar River Spinymussel, include (in decreasing order of association) Atlantic
Pigtoe, Yellow Lance, Yellow Lampmussel (Lampsilis cariosa), Notched Rainbow
(Venustaconcha 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 (Parvaspina collina) in the James River
Basin. This same close association is true for the Tar River Spinymussel and Atlantic Pigtoe. In
habitats which have not been significantly degraded in the Tar-Pamlico River Basin, the presence
of the other target mussel species, the Atlantic Pigtoe, is the best indicator of the potential
presence of Tar River Spinymussel (NC Scientific Council on Mollusks 2011).
3.1.3. Threats to Species
The cumulative effects of several factors, including sedimentation/siltation, point and non-point
discharge, stream modifications (impoundments, channelization, etc.), and introduction of exotic
species have contributed to the decline of this species throughout its range. All of the remaining
Tar River Spinymussel populations are generally small in numbers and restricted to short reaches
of isolated streams. When mussel populations are reduced to a small number of individuals
within short reaches of isolated streams, they are especially vulnerable to extirpation from single
catastrophic events (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.
3.1.4. Designated Critical Habitat
There is currently no Critical Habitat designated for the Tar River Spinymussel.

GUC WTP Tar River Mussel Survey Report October 2023
Job# 23-331 Page 4
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
(Percina peltata) have been identified as potential fish hosts for this species (O’Dee and Waters
2000). Additional research has found Rosefin Shiner (Lythrurus ardens), Creek Chub (Semotilus
atromaculatus), and Longnose Dace (Rhinichthys cataractae) are also suitable hosts (Wolf
2012). Eads and Levine (2012) found White Shiner (Luxilus albeolus), Satinfin Shiner
(Cyprinella analostana), Bluehead Chub (Nocomis leptocephalus), Rosyside Dace (Clinostomus
funduloides), Pinewoods Shiner (Lythrurus matutinus), Swallowtail Shiner (Notropis procne),
and Mountain Redbelly Dace (Chrosomus oreas) to also be suitable hosts for Atlantic Pigtoe.
3.2.2. Distribution, Habitat Requirements, and Status
Johnson (1970) reported the range of the Atlantic Pigtoe extended from the Ogeechee River
Basin in Georgia north to the James River Basin in Virginia; however, recent curation of the H.
D. Athearn collection uncovered valid specimens from the Altamaha River in Georgia (USFWS
2021a). The general pattern of its current distribution indicates that the species is currently
limited to headwater areas of drainages and most populations are represented by few individuals.
In North Carolina, aside from the Waccamaw River, it was once found in every Atlantic Slope
River basin. Except for the Tar River, it is no longer found in the mainstem of the rivers within
its historic range within North Carolina (Savidge et al. 2011).
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

GUC WTP Tar River Mussel Survey Report October 2023
Job# 23-331 Page 5
sand, usually at the base of riffles; however, it can be found in a variety of other substrates and
lotic habitat conditions.
The 2021 species status assessment outlines the overall health of the currently known
populations of Atlantic Pigtoe in terms of population and habitat factors. Population factors
include Management Unit (MU) Occupancy, Approximate Abundance, and Reproduction.
Habitat Factors include Water Quality, Water Quantity, Connectivity, and Instream Habitat
(Substrate). Each factor is evaluated on a scale ranging from High-Moderate-Low-Very Low- Ø.
Categories labeled Ø indicate either likely extirpation or a lack of data. The list below outlines
the resiliency of the Tar River Basin Atlantic Pigtoe MU’s, where the evaluated factors are listed
by Combined Population, Combined Habitat, and Overall Resiliency, respectively (USFWS
2021a):
Tar River Basin (High, Moderate, High):
1. Upper/Middle Tar –Granville/ Franklin/ Nash/ Person/ Vance counties, NC (High,
Moderate, High)
2. Lower Tar- Beaufort/Edgecombe/Pitt counties, NC (Low, Moderate, Low)
3. Fishing Creek Subbasin – Franklin/Halifax/Nash/Warren counties, NC (High,
Moderate, High)
4. Sandy Swift Creek – Edgecombe/Franklin/Nash counties, NC (High, Moderate, High)
3.2.3. Threats to Species
Atlantic Pigtoe appears to be particularly sensitive to pollutants and requires clean, oxygen-rich
water for all stages of life. Similar to the Tar River Spinymussel, all the remaining Atlantic
Pigtoe populations are generally small in numbers and restricted to short reaches of isolated
streams. The low numbers of individuals and the restricted range of most of the surviving
populations make them extremely vulnerable to extirpation from a single catastrophic event.
3.2.4. Designated Critical Habitat
The Atlantic Pigtoe is listed as a Federally Threatened Species under the Endangered Species
Act (ESA) with Section 4(d) Rule and Critical Habitat Designation. The listing was published in
the Federal Register on November 16, 2021 (86 FR 64000) and Critical Habitat was revised with
the listing (USFWS 2021b). Critical Habitat Unit 12 occurs 13.5 RM upstream of the project
area in the Tar River.
4.0 SURVEY EFFORTS
Surveys were conducted on September 21, 2023 by Tom Dickinson (Permit # 23-ES00343), Tim
Savidge (Permit # 23-ES0034), Nathan Howell, and Trevor Hall.

GUC WTP Tar River Mussel Survey Report October 2023
Job# 23-331 Page 6
4.1 Stream Conditions at Time of Survey: Tar River
Habitat consisted mostly of deep run, with areas of slackwater, and shallow sand bar margins.
The channel ranged from 45 to 80 meters wide with banks one to four meters high that generally
exhibited some erosion and undercutting. A portion of the riverbank close to the project area was
stabilized with concrete. The substrate was dominated by coarse sand across the majority of the
channel with stable gravel and cobble in the thalweg run. Banks were predominately composed
of clay, silt, and root mats. Woody debris was common. The river was at a normal level with a
slightly tannic clarity. Surveys were conducted from shoreline bars to depths of approximately
4.5 meters in the deepest thalweg run.
4.2 Methodology
4.2.1. Mussel Surveys
Mussel surveys were conducted from approximately 1,312 feet (400 meters) downstream of the
project impact areas (totaling 642 feet [196 meters] in length) to approximately 328 feet (100
meters) upstream for a total distance of approximately 2,282 feet (696 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 river into survey lanes. Visual surveys were
conducted using SCUBA in deeper run habitat. Tactile methods were employed along shallow
flats and sandbars. 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.

5.0 RESULTS
5.1 Mussel Survey Results
A total of 13.33 person hours of survey time were spent in the reach, with nine species of
freshwater mussel being found (Table 2). Other mollusk species located during the surveys
include the Asian Clam (Corbicula fluminea) and the aquatic snail Pointed Campeloma
(Campeloma decisum).

GUC WTP Tar River Mussel Survey Report October 2023
Job# 23-331 Page 7
Table 2. CPUE for Freshwater Mussels in Tar River GUC WTP Site
Scientific Name Common Name # live Abundance/
CPUE
Freshwater Mussels CPUE
Alasmidonta undulata Triangle Floater 1 0.1/hr
Atlanticoncha ochracea Tidewater Mucket 7 0.5/hr
Elliptio cistellaeformis Box Spike 47 3.5/hr
Elliptio complanata Eastern Elliptio 762 57.2/hr
Elliptio congaraea Carolina Slabshell 466 35.0/hr
Elliptio fisheriana Northern Lance 6 0.5/hr
Elliptio icterina Variable Spike 339 25.4/hr
Elliptio roanokensis Roanoke Slabshell 472 35.4/hr
Lampsilis radiata Eastern Lampmussel 3 0.2/hr
Freshwater Snails and Clams Relative
Abundance
Campeloma decisum Pointed Campeloma ~ U
Corbicula fluminea Asian Clam ~ A

Several Neuse River Waterdog (Necturus lewisi), a federally Threatened aquatic salamander
species, were observed in deeper run habitat during the mussel survey efforts.
6.0 DISCUSSION/CONCLUSIONS
The results indicate the study area supports freshwater mussel fauna of at least nine mussel
species. Neither the Tar River Spinymussel nor Atlantic Pigtoe were found during the surveys.
While the target species were not located, appropriate habitat is present; thus, the presence of
additional species cannot be altogether ruled out. Based on these survey results, adverse effects
to target federally protected mussel species are unlikely to result from project construction but
cannot be entirely discounted.

GUC WTP Tar River Mussel Survey Report October 2023
Job# 23-331 Page 8
7.0 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.
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.
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. and J.F. Levine. 2012. Refinement of Growout Techniques for Four Freshwater
Mussel Species. Final Report submitted to NC Wildlife Resources Commission, Raleigh,
NC. 15pp.
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.
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.
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.
North Carolina Natural Heritage Program. 2023. Biotics Database. Division of Land and Water
Stewardship. Department of Natural and Cultural Resources, Raleigh, North Carolina.
July 2023 version.
North Carolina Scientific Council on Mollusks. 2011. Reevaluation of Status Listings for
Jeopardized Freshwater and Terrestrial Mollusks in North Carolina. Report of the
Scientific Council on Freshwater and Terrestrial Mollusks, 38 p.

GUC WTP Tar River Mussel Survey Report October 2023
Job# 23-331 Page 9
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC). Unpublished Aquatics Database.
North Carolina Wildlife Resource Commission (NCWRC). Species Profile for the Tar River
Spinymussel. Accessed September 2023.
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.
Pennak, R. W. 1989. Fresh-water Invertebrates of the United States, Protozoa to Mollusca. New
York, John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Perkins, M.A., N.A. Johnson, and M.M. Gangloff. 2017. Molecular systematics of the
critically-endangered North American spinymussels (Unionidae: Elliptio and
Pleurobema) and description of Parvaspina gen. nov. Conservation Genetics (2017).
doi:10.1007/s10592-017-0924-z
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.
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.
United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1992. 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.
United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2020. Five-Year Review: Summary and
Evaluation for the Tar River Spinymussel (Parvaspina (=Elliptio) steintansana).
https://ecosphere-documents-production-
public.s3.amazonaws.com/sams/public_docs/species_nonpublish/3208.pdf
United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2021a. Species Status Assessment Report for
the Atlantic Pigtoe (Fusconaia masoni) Version 1.4.

GUC WTP Tar River Mussel Survey Report October 2023
Job# 23-331 Page 10
United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2021b. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
and Plants: Threatened Species Status with Section 4(d) Rule and Designation of Critical
Habitat for Atlantic Pigtoe. 50 CFR 17:86 FR 64000, 64000-64053. Docket Nos. FWS-
R4-ES-2018-0046FF09E21000 FXES1111090FEDR 223.
United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2023. USFWS Information for Planning and
Conservation (IPAC). Accessed September 2023.
https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/6TQORDYPPNCQFJQOIUCI5VGF54/resources
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.
Wolf, E.D. 2012. Propagation, Culture, and Recovery of Species at Risk Atlantic Pigtoe.
Virginia Tech Conservation Management Institute, Project No. 11-108. 55pp.

GUC WTP Tar River Mussel Survey Report October 2023
Job# 23-331 Page 11

APPENDIX A

Figures

GUC WTP Tar River Mussel Survey Report October 2023
Job# 23-331 Page 12
A

GUC WTP Tar River Mussel Survey Report October 2023
Job# 23-331 Page 13

GUC WTP Tar River Mussel Survey Report October 2023
Job# 23-331 Page 14