20150887 Ver 1_Wildlife Resource Comments_20151119

United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
a e Asheville Field Office
160 Zillicoa Street
Asheville, North Carolina. 28801
November .19, 2015'
Mr. Scott. Jones
Asheville Regulatory Field Office
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
151 Patton. Avenue, Room 208
Asheville, North Carolina 28801-5006
Dear. Mr. Jones:
Subject:, Biological Opinion, Neely Road Pump Station: and Equalization Improvements
Project, City of Brevard, Transylvania County, North Carolina
This document transmits the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's (Service) Biological Opinion
(Opinion) based on our review of the Section 4041401 Permit Application and Environmental
Assessment (EA), submitted by CDM Smith for the City of Brevard, with regard to the effects of
the subject pump station and equalization improvements project on the: federally endangered
Appalachian elktoe (Alasmidonta. raveneliana) inaccordancewith section 7 of the Endangered
SpeciesActof 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 or seg) (Act).
This Opinion is based on information provided in the August 28, 2015 (received on August 31,
2015), Section 404/101 Permit Application, other available literatures personal communications
with experts on the. federally endangered Appalachian elktoe; meetings, site visits, and other
sources of information. A complete administrative record of this consultation is on file at this
office.
CONSULTATION HISTORY
October 21, 2014 - Service staff attended a meeting at the project site with representatives from
the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC), U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(Corps), and CDM Smith to .discuss the projectand its potential impacts on water quality and:.
federally listed species as well as project alternatives. A part of the project consists of a sewer
line crossing of the French Broad River;. however, CDM Smith indicated that the crossing would
be conducted using directional shilling.

May 18,2015— The Service received a phone call from Ms. Kelly Boone of CDM Smith about
possible changes in plans for the proposed crossing of the French Broad River. After further
assessment concluded that directional drilling would not be practicable due to extremely high.
compressive -strength rock (greater than 27,000 pounds per square inch) at the crossing, the City
of Brevard was looking at other options for the crossing (including aerial crossing and
open-cut/trench),
May 14, 2015 The Service received email correspondence that included rendered photos of a
potential aerial crossing of the French Broad River.
May 27, 2015 — The Service received email correspondence from CDM Smith indicating that the
City of Brevard may go with the open�cutltreruh method for the crossing of the French Broad:
River. The email also requested information about surveys for the Appalachian elktoe that
would be necessary at the crossing site.
May 27, 2015 —The Service provided information (via email) to CDM Smith about survey
requirements for the Appalachian elktoe and conservation measures that would be necessary to
conclude consultation.
June 25, 2015 Jason Mays and Bryan Tompkins; Service biologists, conducted surveys for the
Appalachian elktoe at the proposed French Broad sewer line crossing site. Turbidity levels in the
river were high; therefore, a thorough survey could not be completed.
July 2, 2015 — The Service conducted surveys forthe Appalachian elktoeakthe proposed French
Broad sewer line crossing site, Again, turbidity levels in the river were high, and a thorough
survey could not be completed,
August 11, 2015 —The Service conducted surveys for the Appalachian elktoe at the French
Broad crossing site. Surveys were conducted upstream and downstream of the crossing location,
Habitat for the Appalaciniprr elktoe at the site is suitable, but no individuals were found.
August 11, 2015 — The Service had discussions with CDM Smith regarding conservation
measures to be included in the project plans.
August 18, 2015 — CDM Smith informed the Service that the City of Brevard will provide
handing to the University of North Carolina Asheville (UNCA) to establish a mussel
propagation facility,
August 31, 2015 — The Service received a copy of the Pre -Construction Natification (PPC.N) from.
CDM Smith. The PCN indicates that a "may affect° determination has been established for
potential impacts the project could have on the Appalachian elktoc.
September 17, 2015 — The Service received a letter from the Corps requesting initiation of
formal consultation under section 7 ofthe Act for potential impacts of the proposed project on
the Appalachian elktoe,
2

- September 24, 2015 — The Service provided: a: letter to the Corps initiating formal consultation
' -- for the Neely Road Pump Station and Equalization Improvements Project. --
BIOLOGICAL OPINION
I. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION
As defined in the Service's section 7 regulations (50 CFR 402.02), "action" means "all activities
or programs of any kind authorized, funded, or carried out; inwhole or in part, by federal
agencies in the United States or upon the high seas.." The action area is defined as `tall areas to
be affected directly or indirectly by the federal action and not merely the immediate area
involved in the action." In their 404/401 permit application, CAM Smith outlined the activities
for the construction of Neely Road Pump Station and Equalization Improvements Project.
The project includes, the following components:
• Anew pump station adjacent to the existing pump station on the east side of Neely Road
near LamboCreek..
The installation of aforce main (20 inches in diameter) running 2.3 miles along Neely
Road, Old Hendersonville Highway, and Wilson Road from the new pump station to the
existing wastewater treatment plant (WWTP). The force main will be installed within
North Carolina Department of Transportation road rights -of -ways
• The construction of, a 4.5 -million -gallon equalization tank at the WWTP to store peak
flows in excess of the WWTP's 4.4 -million -gallon -per -day peak. capacity.
• The installationof the force main via open-cut/treach will cross the French Broad River,.
sixunnamed: tributaries to the French Broad River,Lambe Creek, Gilbreath Creek, and
Lamb Creek.
• The crossing of the French Broad River will be conducted by using a portable darn -type
cofferdam system to install the proposed force mainpipe is two phases. Each phase will
isolate about 60 percent of the river width at a time The river will be diverted to drn
remaining 40 percent of channel. The force main will be buried with a minimtun 7 feet
of cover from the bottom of riverbed.
• The restoration of streambanks at all stream-crossinglocations with natural vegetation
after construction.
A. Action Area
The action area should be determined based on consideration of all direct and indirecteffectsof
the proposed action (50 CPR 402,2 and 402.14(h)(2)). The action area for This project is the
location of proposed pump station (adjacent to the existing pump station) on Neely Road, the
entire 2.3:miles of 20 -inch force main that will be installed along Neely Road, Old
3

Hendersonville Highway, and Wilson Road to the existing WWTP. The action area generally
includes the specific locations where construction activities are planned to occur, including the
open-cut/trench crossing of eight tributaries to the. French Broad River and the French Broad
River; At the French Broad River crossing, the action area includes 115 feet upstream of the
proposed crossing and 328 feet downstream of the crossing plus adjacent riparian areas
(extending 200 feet perpendicular to the river in the constriction corridor):
B. Conservation Measures
Conservation measures represent actions, pledged in the project description; that the: action
agency will implement in order to minimize the effects of the proposed action and further the
recovery-ofthe species: under review, The City of Brevard has incorporated measures into the
design and implementation plans for the project, such as increased erosion and sediment controls
and stormwater management, in order to avoid and/or minimize potential impacts to the
Appalachian elktoe.
The following conservation measures are proposed by the City of Brevard to avoid and/ra
minimize potential impacts to the Appalachian elktoe from construction activities. These
measures have been incorporated into the design and implementation plans for the pump station
and equalization improvements project
1, Construction of the French. Broad River crossing will be conducted' using portable
dams, which will allow the work to be completed in the dry and reduce the
amount of sediment released from thework site.
2. Silt fences and check dams will be used :along the pipeline corridor to confine
sediment to the construction area.
3. Erosion -control devices shall be installed immediately following any clearing
operation and before any other work begins.
4. 'Disturbed areas will be reseeded according to the timelines required by the North.
Carolina Division of Water Resources.
S. 9troambanks at all orossh% locations will be reestablished to preconstruction
contours, stabilized with coir matting, and revegetated usingplantings of silky
dogwood and fag alder,
6. All sedimentation- and erosion -control measures throughout the action area must
be cleaned of sediment buildup and maintained in order to ensure proper function
of the measures.
7. The approved erosion -control plan will he in place prior to arty ground
disturbance. When needed, combinations of ernsiou-control measures (such as
silt bags) will be used to ensure that the most protective measures are, being
implemented.

$. A Service biologist will be informed of preconstruetiou meetings and field
inspections to cover permit: conditions and discuss any questions the contractor
:and/or the City of Brevard has regarding: implementation of this project..
9. An additional mussel survey will be conducted (under the supervision of an
individual permitted by the Service or NCWRC to conduct surveys for live
Appalachian elkwes) at the location of the French Broad River crossing within.
30 days of the beginning of its construction.
10.. All material must be removed from the river after construction is complete,
11. The: City of Brevard will financially contribute to the UNCA's freshwater mussel
propagation program to further the efforts of recolomMion of the Appalachian
elktoe in the French Broad River watershed. The City of Brevard has proposeda.
financial contribution of $7,539.30, which will fund the estimated capital cost to
equip the Aquatic Vivarium in the UNCA Biology Department,
11. STATUS OF THE SPECIES AND ITS CRITICAL HABITAT
A. Species Description, Life History, and Critical Habitat Description
The Appalachian elktoehas a thin, kidney -shaped shell, reaching up to about 4 inches
in length. Juveniles generally have a yellowish -brown periostracum (outer shell
surface), while the periostmoum of the adults is usually dark brown to greenish -black in
color. Although rays are prominent on some shells; particularly in the posterior portion
of the shell, many individuals have only obscure greenish rays. The shell nacre (inside
shell surface) is shiny, often white to bluish -white, changing to a salmon, pinkish, or:
brownish color in the central and beak cavity portions of the shelf some specimens
may be marked with irregular brownish blotches..
The Appalachian elktoo has been reported from relatively shallow, medium-sized
creeks and rivers with cool, clean, well -oxygenated, moderate- to fast -flowing water.
The species is most often found in riffles, runs, and shallow flowing pools with stable,
relativelysih-tree, course sand and gravel substrate associated with cobble, boulders,
and/or bedrock (Gordon 1991; Service 1994, 1996, 2.002). Stability of the substrate
appears to be critical to the Appalachianelktoc, and the species is seldom found in
stream reaches with accumulations of silt or shifting sand, gravel, or cobble (Service
2002). Individual specimens that have been encountered in these areas are believed to
have been scoured out of upstream areas duringperiods of heavy rain and have not
been found on subsequent surveys (Service 2002).
Like other freshwater mussels, the Appalachian elkwe feeds; by filtering food; particles
from the water column. Tlie specific food habits of the species are unknown, but other
freshwater mussels have been documented to feed on detritus (decaying organic

matter), diatoms (various: minute algae) and other algae and phytoplankton.
(microscopic floating aquatic plants), and zooplanktou (microscopic floating aquatic
animals). The reproductive cycle of the Appalachian elktoe is similar to that of other
native freshwater mussels. Males release sperm into the water column, and the sperm
are then taken in by the females through their siphons .. during feeding and respiration,.
The females retain the fertilized eggs in their gills until the larvae (gloohidia) fully
develop. The mussol glochidia are released into the water and; within a few days, must
attach to the appropriate species of fish, which they then parasitize for a short time
while they develop into Juvenile mussels. They then detach from their fish host and
Sink to the stream bottom where they continue to develop, provided they land ina.
suitable substrate with the correct water conditions.. The banded seulpin (Cattus
carolinae) was identified as a host species for glochidia of the Appalachian elktoe at
the time the elktoe was listed, and the mottled sculpin (C. bairdel) was identified as a
bust species noon after the listing (Service 2002). Dr; Jim Layzer (Tennessee
Technological University, unpublished data) has recently identified eight additional
.species of fish that successfully transformed glochidia of the Appalachian elktoe into
juveniles under laboratory conditions. These eight species include the wounded darter
(Etheostoma vulneratum), green&n datlor (E. chlorobranchium), greenside darter
(E. blennrades), river chub (Nocomis micropogon)„ northern hogsucker (Hypeniilum
n1gracans), central Aoneroller (Campostoma anomalgm), longuose dace (Rhinichthys
eararactae), and rosyside dace (ClInost©mus funduloides). The life span and many
other aspectsof the Appalachian olktoe's life history are currently unknown.
Critical habitat was designated for the Appalachian elktoe in 2602 (Service 2002). The
areas designated as critical habitat for the Appalachian elktoe total 144.3 miles of
various segments of rivers in North Carolina and one river in Tennessee. Critical
habitat identifies specific areas that are essential to the conservation of a listed species
and that may require special management considerations or protection. Section 7(4)(2),
of -the Act requires that each federal agency shall, in. consultation with the Service,
ensure that ally action authorized, funded, or carried: out by such agency is not likely to
jeopardize the Continued existenceof endangered or threatened species or result in
the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat,
The following constituent elements are part of the critical habitat designation and aro
essential to the conservation of the Appalachian elktoe:
1. Permanent, flowing, cool, clean water;
2.. Qeomorphically stable stream channels and banks
3. Pool, riffle; and run sequences within the channel;
4_ Stable sand, gravel, cobble, and boulder or bedrock substrates with no more than
low amounts of fine sediment;
5� Moderate to high stream gradient;.
0

6. Periodic natural flooding; and
7. Fish hosts, with adequate living, foraging, and spawning areas for them,
In the Nolichucky Rivet basin, critical habitat is designated for the Appalachian elktoe
in the main stem of the Nolichucky River, Cane River, Toe River, South Toe River, and
North Toe River.
B. Status and Distribution
The Appalachian elktoeis known only from the mountain streams of western North
Carolina and eastern Tennessee. Although the complete historical range of the
:Appalachian elktoo is unknown, available information suggests that the species once
lived in the majority of the rivers: and larger creeks of the upper Tennessee River
system in North Carolina,: with the possible exception of the Hiawassee and Watauga
River systems (the species has not been recorded from either of these river systems)„ In
Tennessee, the species is known only from its present range in the main stem of the
Noliohueky River.
Currently, the Appalachian elktoe has a fragmented, relict distribution, The species
survives in scattered pockets of suitable habitat in portions of the Nolichucky Rive
system,. Little Tennessee. River system, Tuckasegee River system,. Pigeon River system;
and Little RiverT reach Broad River system in North Carolina and the Nolichucky
River system in North Carolina and Tennessee.
Nolichucky River, population: In the Nolichucky River system, at the time oflisting,
the Appalachian elktoo: was known to be surviving in only a fewscattered areas of
suitable habitat in the Nolichucky River in North Carolina downstream to the vicinity
of the City of Erwin, Tennessee, and the North Toe River and lower Cane River in
North Carolina (Service 1994). Sine listing, monitoring surveys conducted by the
.Service, NCWRC, North. Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)',Tennessee
Valley Authority, and other researchers have also documented the species: (1) in the
North Toe River (McGrath 1996, 1999;. Service 2002); (2) in the South Toe River
(J. Fridell, Service [retired], personal communication, 1998 and 2000; S. Fraley;
NCWRC, personal communication, 1999; Service 2002); 0) and further up the Caner
"River (Service 2002) in North Carolina.. This represents a significant increase in range
and numbers within the Nolichucky River system for this population. However, in
September 2004, flooding associated with the remnants of Hurricanes Frances, Ivan,
and Joanne' resulted in streambank erosion and stream -channel scour in several areas in
the upper Nolichucky Rivet system, significantly reducing the species' numbers and
distribution at several sites throughout this river system (Fraley and Simmons 2006).
Egaley and Simmons (2006) reported decreases in numbers of the Appalachian elktoe at
nearly all of the sites they surveyed. They also repotted that they failed to detect the
Appalachian elktoo in the Gane and South Too Rivers at sites that' represented the
upstream limit of their distribution prior to flooding, however; they noted that only a

single individual had been. found at each of these sites during previous surveys and that --
- these individuals may have been lost or may not have been detected during the
post -flood surveys, Also,, in. April 2008 The Catona (croup reported an on-going fish
kill in the Cane River below the gumsville W WTP (T, Savidge, The Catena Group,
personal communication, 2008). Available evidence indicates thatthe W WTP had
been experiencing problems with their treatment tank and, had been discharging
. --
untreated wastewater into the river since at least March 2008 (R, Davis, North Carolina
Division of Water Quality, personal communication,"2008). Follow-up surveys; by
biologists with the Servicer NCWRC, and The Catena Group failed to locate any live
musselsin the river for approximately 19 miles below the W WTPdischarge; Only
seven live Appalachian elktoes were found in the river near the confluence of the Cane
and North Tae Rivers (Fraley, personal communication, 2008), and two live
Appalachian elktoes were recorded In the river immediately above the W WTP
discharge (Frideh, personal observation, 2008). An additional five live Appalachian
elktoes were found upstream of the W WTP discharge: in 2014 (J. Mays, Service,
personal observation, 2015).
Little Tennessee River popg1ttikn: The Little Tennessee River population occupies the
reach of the river between the dam at Lake Emory, below the City of Franklin, North
Carolina, and the backwaters of the Fontana Reservoir, North Carolina (Service 1994,
1996,2002; McGrath 1999). Upstream and downstream expansion of this population is
prevented by these reservoirs, At the time of listing and until just recently, this had
been considered the healthiest population of the Appalachian elktoe in terms of overall
numbers, number of year classes represented, quality of habitat, etc. Also, in 2004,
hundreds of Appalachian elktoe and other mussel species were found dead in a short
reach of the river immediately below the dam at Lake Emory (M. Cantrell, Service;
personal: communication, 2004). The cause of this die -off is unknown, but a local
resident reported smelling a strong chlorine odor in the area the day before the die -off
was discovered. However, surveys conducted in 2006 by biologists with the NCWRC
have documented a substantial decline in the numbers of Appalachian elktoes at several
sites scattered throughout the occupied reach of the river (Fraley, personal
communication, 2006). The cause(s) of this decline is(am) presently unknown, but the
decline appearstobe continuing; several weak/dying Appalachian olktoes were
monachus) by the NCWRC; Conservation Fisheries, inc,; and the Service in the spring
of 2008 (Fridell, personal observation, 2008)• In 2015, the Service and NCWRC
conducted surveys for the Appalachian elktoe at multiple sites in the Little Tennessee
River. No Appalachian elktoes Were found during tete surveys, and the Service has
determined that this population of the Appalachian elktoe has declined to a level of
being no longer detectable hi the Little Tennessee River (Mays, personal observation,
2015). A large portion (approximately 4,600 acres) of the, land bordering the reach of
the, Little Tennessee River that supports the Appalachian elktoe was purchased through
a cooperative effort by the Little Tennessee River Watershed Association, NCWRC,
North Carolina Clean Water Management Trust Fund, The Nature Conservancy, the
Service, and other conservation organizations and has been turned over to the NCWRC
to manage, However, tributary headwaters and a long reach of the Little Tennessee
8

River above Lake Emoryarealmost entirely in private ownership; and sedimentation
from development and other land -disturbing activities, and possibly as a result of other
pollutants from wastewater and stormwater discharges, continues to adversely affect the
habitat and water quality in the protected reach of the river.
Tuckasegee River population: Prior to listing, surveys in the Tuckasegee River system.
failed to detect the presence of the Appalachian elktoe; this population was first
discovered in 1996 (Cantrell, personal communication 1996). This populationoccurs
in scattered areas of suitable habitat from below the town of Cullowhee, North
Carolina, downstream to Bryson City, North Carolina (Fridell, personal observation;
1996, 1997; McGrath 1998; Savidge, personal communication, 20,01; Fraley 2002).
Upstream expansion of this populationis restricted by coldwater discharges and
peaking operations from hydropower facilities in the headwaters of the Tuckasegee
River and by the Bryson Dam on the Oconaluftee River; the Bryson Dam presents a
physical barrier short distance upriver from the confluence of the OconalufteeRiver
with the Tuckasegee River (Fraley 2002), Recent surveys conducted by the Service
and NCWRC indicate this population has remained stable or increased in numbers
since its discovery. In addition, through a relieensingagreement with the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission and Duke Power, a small' hydroelectric dam located on
the Tuckasegee River in the city limits of Dillsboro, North Carolina, was removed in
2010. Monitoring indicates the species is beginning to reoccupy the approximately
0,9 -mile reach of the river formerly impounded by the dam.
Cheoah River population: A singles live individual and one shell of the Appalachian.
elktoe was discovered in the Cheoah River in North Carolina, below the Santectlab
Dam, in 2000 (W. Pennington, Pennington and Associates, Itte,, personal
communication, 2000). Subsequent surveys in 2002, 2003, and 2004 by biologists with
the NCDOT, NCWRC, U.S, Forest Service, the Service, and others recorded additional
live individuals from the river below the Santeetlah Dam but less than 20 in each
survey (Savidge, personal: communication, 2002; Fridell, personal observation, 2002;
Cantrell, personal communication, 2005). Upstream expansion of this population is
blocked by the Santeetlah Dam and downstream expansion by a.series of
impoundments on the Little Tennessee haver (including the Calderwood Reservoir, at
the mouth of Cheoah River). Water from the Sameettah Reservoir is piped
(bypassed) downstream to a powerhouse located near the confluence of the Chcoah
River with the Tittle Tennessee River,Suitable Appalachian elktoe habitat in this
bypassed reach of the Chooah was limited by the reduced/altered flows and unsuitable
substrate. Inmost areas of the bypassed reach, the: substrate is comprised primarily of
cobble, boulder, and bedrock, substrates: that are too large for the Appalachian. elktoe.
As a result, this population appears to be very small and restricted primarily to two
short reaches of the river. However, through a recent relicensing agreement, Tap000
Power Company has agreed to maintain minimum flows from the dam that closely
approximate: flows in the river prior to construction of the dam and to add coarse sand
and gravel to the river channel below the dam to help improve the quality of the
substrate. Inaddition, the NCWRC and the Service are working together to augment.
this population though it will likely be several years before it can be determined how

successful these measures will be in improving the Appalachian elktoe population in
the river,
Pigeon River system population: In the Pigeon River system in North Carolina,'a small
population of the Appalachian elktoe occurs at scattered sites in a short reach of the
Pigeon River from Canton, North Carolina, upstream to the confluence of West and
East Fork Pigeon Rivers', upstream a short distance in the East Fork Pigeon River, and
upstream in the West Fork Pigeon River to approximately 2.0 river miles downstream
of the confluence of the Little East Fork River (Fridell, personal observation, 1999;
McGrath 1999; Service 2002; Fraley and Simmons 2006). Additional monitoring: of
this population is needed to determine long-term papulation trends.
Little River/French Broad River nonulad i The Little River population was:
discovered in 2000 (Fridell, personal observation, 2000), and is restricted to the mach
of the river below the powerhouse at Cascade Lake and a reach of the French Broad
River downstream of the mouth of the Little River (Fraley, personal communication,
2005). Additional monitoring surveys ate needed to determine long-term population
trends, but the limited work that has been conducted indicates that this population has
increased in size since it was first discovered.
Mills River popuation: The Mills River population was discovered in 2003 (Savidge,
personal communication, 2003). In the Mills River, the Appalachian elktoe occurs in a
short reach of the river from just above. the Highway 280 Bridge to about 1 river mile
below the bridge (J. Simmons, NCWRC; personal communication, 2004). This appears
to be a small population, occurring only at scattered locations within this river. reach.
One of the sites previously supporting the species was recently disturbed by a trenched
sewer4ine crossing of the river (the species was relocated from this site prior to the
construction). Several sites within the occupied reach were destabilized by the floods
of September 2004, requiring relocation of the species from these general areas to allow
for in -stream restoration activities necessary to repair the storm damage. Additional
'monitoring is needed to determine the success of the relocations and restoration work
and the long-term population trends.
Extirpated Sites.• Historically, the Appalachian elktoc has been recorded from Tulula
Creek (Tennessee River drainage), the main stem of the French Broad River at
Asheville, and the Swannanoa River (French Broad River system) (Clarke 1981), but it
has apparently been eliminated (except from several sections of the main stem of
French Broad River at and upstream of the ponfluence-of the Little River) from these
streams (Service 1994, 1996). There is also ahistorical record of the Appalachian
elktoe from the North Fork Holston River in Tennessee (S. S. Haldeman collection);
however, this; record is believed to represent a mislabeled locality (Gordon 1991), If
the historical record for the species in the North Fork Holston River is accurate, the
species has apparently been eliminated from this river as well.
Available information indicates that several factors have contributed to the decline and
loss of populations of the Appalachian elktoo and threaten the remaining populations. '--
10

These factors include pollutants in wastewater discharges (sewage treatment plants and..
industrial discharges); habitat loss and alteration associated with impoundment's;
channelization, and dredging operations; and the runoff of silt, fertilizers, pesticides,
and other pollutants from land -disturbing activities that were implemented without
adequate measures to control erosion and/or stormwater (Service 1994, 1996), Mussels
are known to be sensitive to numerous pollutants, including, but not limited to, a wide.
Variety of heavy metals, high concentrations of nutrients, ammonia, and chlorme,—
pollutants commonly found in many domestic and industrial effluents (Havlik and
Marking 1.987). In the early 1900s, prtmann (1909) noted that the disappearance of
anionids(mussels) is the first and mostreliableindicator ofstream pollution. feller
and Zorn (1991) concludedthat mussels are more sensitive to meals than commonly
stages especially vulnerable to pesticides andother pollutants (huller 1974, Gardner
or al. 1976, Ingram 1957, Stein 1971). Effluent from sewage treatment facilities can be
a significant source of pollution that can severely affect the diversity and abundance of
aquatic mollusks, The toxicity of chlorinated sewage effluents to aquatic life is
well-documented (Bellanoa and Bailey 1977, Erungs 1976, Goudreau or al. 1988, Tsai
1975); and mussel glochidia (larvae) rank among the most. sensitive invertebrates in
their tolerance of the toxicants present in sewage effluents (Goodman et al. 1988).
Goudreau et al. (1988) found that the recovery of mussel populations may not occur for
up to 2 miles below the discharge points of chlorinated sewage effluent,
hand -clearing and -disturbance activities carried out without proper sedimentation and
stormwater control pose a signi$cantthreat to the Appalachian elktoe and other
.freshwater mussels. Mussels are sedentary and are not able to move long distances to
more suitable areas in response to heavy silt loads. Natural sedimentation resulting
from seasonal storm events probably does not significantly affect mussels, but human
activities often create excessively heavy silt loads that can have severe effects on
mussels and other aquatic organisms. Siltation has been documented to adversely
affect native freshwater mussels, both directly and indirectly (Aldridge of al.1987, Ellis
1936, Rat 1982, Marking and Bilis 1979), Siltation: (1) degrades water and substrate
quality, limiting the available habitat for freshwater mussels (and their fish hosts),
their populations; (2) irritates and clogs the gills of finer-feedhtgmussels, resulting in
reduced feeding and respiration; (3) smothers mussels if sufficient accumulation
.
occurs; and (4) increases the potential exposure of the mussels to other pollutants. Ellis
(1936) found that less than 1 inch of sediment deposition caused high mortality in most
musselspecles, Sediment accumulations that are less than lethal to adults may
adversely affect or prevent the recruitment ofjuvenil'e mussels into the population..
Also, sediment loading in riivers and streams during periods of high discharge is
abrasive to mussel shells. Erosionof the outer shell allows acids to reach and corrode
and layers that are composed primarily of calcium, which dissolves under acid,
conditions (Harman 1974):..
The effects of impoundments on mussels are also well-documented. For the most part,
lakes do not: occur naturally in western North Carolina and: eastern Tennessee (moste£

them are man-made lakes);. and the Appalachian elktoe, like the majority of our other
- - -- _ native mussels, fish, and other aquatic species in these areas, is adapted to streatri
conditions (flowing, highly oxygenated water and coarse sand and gravel bottoms).
Dams change the habitat from flowing to still water. Water depth increases; flow
decreases, and silt accumulates on the bottom (Williams or al. 1992), altering the
quality andstability of the remaining stream reaches by affecting water flow regimes,
velocities, temperature, and chemistry. Gold water released from pear the bottomof
reservoirs lowers the water temperature downstream, changing downstream reaches
:from warm- or -cool -water streams to cold -water streams, affecting their suitability for
many native species that historically inhabited these stream reaches (Miller of al. 1984,
Layzer et al„ 1.993). The effects of impoundments result in changes in fish' communities
(fish host species may be eliminated) (Bricom 199 1) and in mussel communities
(species requiring clean gravel and sand substrates are eliminated) (Bates 1960. • In
addition, dams result in the fragmentation and isolation of populations of species and
act as effective barriers to the natural upstream and downstreamexpansion or
recruitment ofmussel and fish species.
The information available demonstrates that habitat deterioration that occurs as a result
of sedimentation and pollution front numerous point and nonpoiot sources, when
combined with the effects of other factors (including habitat destruction, alteration, and
fragmentation resulting from impoundments, chamtolization projects, etc.), has played
significant role in the decline of the Appalachian elktoe. We believe this is particularly
true of the extirpation of Appalachian elktue from the Swannanoa River most of the
French Broad River, and long reaches of the Pigeon,: tipper Little River, and upper
Little Tennessee River systems. We believe these factors also have contributed tothe
extirpation of the species -from parts of the upper Tuckasegee River, Cheoah River, and
Tulula Creek, though the effects of impoundments are believed to have played an even
more significant role in the loss of the species in the tipper reaches of these streams.
Immediate threats to the remaining populations of the Appalachian elktoe are.
"associated with sedimentation and other pollutants (i.e., fertilizers;, pesticides, heavy,
metals, oil, salts, organic wastes, etc.) from point and nonpoint sources, specifically _
from wastewater treatment plants. Much of theNofickucky River in North Carolina
contains heavy loads of sediment from past and on-going land -disturbing activities.
within its watershed, and suitable habitat for the Appalachian elktoe appears to be
limited to scattered reaches in this river system. The species has not been found in the
Nolichueky River system in substrates with accumulations of silt and shifting sand; it is
restricted to scattered areas of stable, relatively clean, and gravelly substrates.. The
same is true of the other surviving populations of the species..
III. ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE —
Under section 7(a)(2) of Act, when considering the "effects of the action" on federally listed
species, we are required to take into consideration the environmental baseline. The -
environmental baseline includes past and ongoing natural factors and the past and present
12

impacts of all federal,state, or private actions and other activities in the action area (50 CFR
- - --- 402.02); including federal actionsin the area that have already undergone section 7 consultation, -
and the impacts of state or private actions that are contemporaneous with the consultation in
process, The environmental baseline for this Opinion considers all projects approved prior to the
initiation of formal consultation..
Status of the Species Within the Action Area
The project area is a significant portion of the very small known range of the Appalachian elkwe
in the French Broad River. Because this population appears to be relatively small, itis likely
particularly vulnerable to changes in population numbers, and losses of only a few individuals
could result in the loss of the population. Critical habitat has not been designated for the.
Appalachian elktoe in the French: Broad River.
Surveys have been attempted at the location of the proposed French. Broad River crossing on
several occasions Survey conditions were not ideal, and no Appalachian: elktoes were found
during any of the surveys. However, the proposed crossing site contains; suitable habitat of good.
quality, and the Appalachian elkme has been found in close proximity both upstream and
downstream of the proposed French. Broad River crossing location.
Factors Affecting the ,S'pecies' Environment Within the Action Area
Water of the French Broad River within the Action Area is of fair quality. Agriculturalpractices
and increased development in and around the Action Area: have increasedstormwater runoff,
contaminant input from urban stormwater runoff, and streambank destabilization from alack of
adequate riparian buffers with deep-rooted vegetation. Urban and residential development has
had impacts on the riparian buffers and aquatic habitat in the Action Area.
Water quality within the Action Area is also adversely affected by sanitary sewer overflows from
the City ofBrevar'd s sanitary sewer system, which occur asaresult of high inflow and `
infiltration daring rain events and aging/Ming firlastructure. Portions of the City ofBrevard's
wastewater collection system were installed in the 1920s and 1930s, Fecal coliform has been a
persistent problem in the French Broad River. In.rooem years, raw sewage discharges fromtho
pump station at Neely Road has been a major contributor of fecal coliform in the French Broad
River. Infiltration during rain events consistently causes the pump stations to overflow, and.
untreated sewage is discharged into nearby waterways that flew to the French Broad River.
Untreated sewage also contains other components (ammonia, pharmaceuticals, etc.). that can
cause adverse effects to water quality. Over the past 5 years, 66 sanitary sewer overflow events
have been: recorded within the City of Brevard's sewersheds. Most recently, a rain event on
October 7, 2015, caused an overflow at the Neely Pump Station that resulted in the discharge of
over 500,000 gallons of raw sewage. into the French Broad. River.
13

IV. EFFECTS OF THE' ACTION
Under section 7(a)(2) of the Act, "effects of the action" refersto the direct and indirect effects of
an action on the species or critical habitat, together with the effects of other activities that are
interrelated or interdependent with that action. Indirect effects are those caused by the proposed
action that occur later in time but that are still reasonably certain to occur (5'0 CFR 402.02),
The federal, action agency is responsible for analyzing these effects. The effects of the proposed
action are added to the environmental baseline to determine the future baseline, which serves as
the basis for the determination in this Opinion. Should the effects of the federal action result in
situation that would jeoparddize thecontinuedexistence of the species, we may propose
reasonable and prudent alternatives that the federal action agency can take to avoid a violation of
section 7(a)(2). Within the action area, the project will primarily impact (directly and indirectly)
Lambe Greek, Gilbreath. Branch, Lamb Creek, the French Broad River, and several unnamed
tributaries to the French Broad River, The discussion that follows is our evaluation of the
anticipateddirect and indirect effects of the City of Brevard's pump station and equalization.
improvements project..
A,Factors to be Considered
Proximity of the Action —The highest potential. for direct impacts to the Appalachian elktoe will
occur during the construction of the open-cut/trenched sewer line crossing of the French Broad
River. The crossing location contains suitable habitat for the. Appalachian elktoe that is of good
quality. Although measures to avoid and minimize impacts to the French Broad River and the
Appalachian elktoe are included in the project plans, implementation of this projectmayresult in
unavoidable impacts to the river's: habitat and to individual mussels.
Nature of the Effect— Sewer line rstream crossings will be trenched across the streams. This
could discharge sediment into the streams and create areas of streambank destabilization at the.
crossing sites.
Disturbance Duration, Frequency, and Intensity - Disturbance from the construction of the
project will occur over relatively short period of time. Measures will be installed to minimize
the release of sediment during stream crossings, and work will be conducted during periods of
low stream flow. Riparian vegetation removal will be conducted and stabilized through
erosion -control measures and a combination of hardened work pads, immediate seeding and
mulching, orinatting.
Critical Habits — The project will not impact any areas designated as critical habitat for the
Appalachian elktoe.
B, Analyses of Effects of the Action
River.
— The.: project will benefit overall water quality within the French.
Nastewater discharges' from overflows in the sanitary sewer system.
I to dramatically lower the fecal col'aforrn counts in the French Broad
14

- Directliffeets—The highest potential for direct impacts tothe Appalachian elkme,will occur
during the construction of the open-cut/treach sewer line crossing of the French Broad River,
Portable dams will be placed in the river to dewater the construction area The sewer line will be
installed in the bed.of`the river at a depth of about 7 feet below the streambed. These activities
have the potential to kill or injure mussels by crushing them during construction of the sewer line.
crossing. These actions may result in direct harm to individuals or negative changes in currently
suitable Habitat.
Indirect Effects - Indirect effects are defined as those that are caused by the proposed action and
are later in time but are still reasonably certainto occur (50 CFR 402.02'). Indirect effects to the
Appalachian elktoe may include increased sedimentation from streambank destabilizationand
sediment discharge associated with the sewer line stream crossings,
CUMULATIVE EFFECTS
Cumulative Effects in the Action Area - Cumulative effects include the combined effects of any
future state, local, or private actions that are reasonably certain to occur within the action area
covered in this Opinion. Future federal actions that are unrelated to the proposed action are not
considered in this section because they require separate consultation pursuant to section 7 of the
Act. The Service Is not aware of any future state, local, or private actionsthat are reasonably
certain to occur within the action area and which would not be subject to the Service's section 7
review; therefore, cumulative effects; as defined by the Act, will not occur and will not be
addressed further in. this Opinion.
outlined in the EA are likely or not likely to jeopardize the continued' existence of the
Appalachian elktoe, we must factor into our analysis previous biological opinions issued
involving the species, especially those opinions where incidental take was presented as the area
of habitat disturbed. Formal consultations involving the Appalachian elktoe include the
following: (1) In 2005; Emergency Watershed Protection projects in the Mills River and the
Pigeon River; (2) In 2006, two bridge replacements on the Toe River in Mitchell and Yancey
Counties; (3) In 2008, U.S. 19 widening and bridge replacement over the Cane River, (4) In
2010, a bridge replacement over the Pigeon River in Canton;. and (5) Iii 2015, a bridge
replacement (TIP No. B-3868) over the Little Tonnessee liiveG All of these were non -jeopardy
opinionsthat assessedthe amount of take to be "minimal.
CONCLUSION
After reviewiog the current status of the Appalachian elldoe; the environmental baseline for the
action area; the effects of implementation of the proposed action; measures identified in the City
of Erevar&s 404/401 Permit Application and EA. to help minimize the potential impacts of the
proposed project; previously issued Service biological opinions; any potential interrelated and
interdependent actions associated with the proposed action; and any potential cumulative effects;
it is the. Service's biological opinion that this project is not likely to jeopardize the continued
15

existence of the Appalachian elktoe and is not likely to result in destruction or adverse
modification of critical habitat,
INCIDENTAL TAKE STATEMENT
Section 9 o the Act and federal regulations pursuant to section 4(d) of the Act prohibit: the
taking of endangeredand threatened .species, respectively, without special exemption. Take is
defined as to harass, harm, pursue,. hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or attemptto.
engage in any such. conduct. Harm is further defined by the Service to include significant habitat
modification or degradation that results in death or injury to listed species by significantly
impairing essential behavioral patterns, such as breeding, feeding, or sheltering. Hamss'is
defined by the Service as intentional: or negligent actions that create the likelihood of Injury to
listed species to such an extent as to significantly disrupt normal behavior patterns that include;
but are not limited to, breeding, feeding, or sheltering. Incidental take is defined as take that is
incidental to, and not for the purpose of, the carrying out of an otherwise; lawful activity. Under
the terms of section 7(b)(4) and section 7(o)(2), tatting that is incidental to and not intended as
part of the agency action is not considered to he prohibited under the Act, provided that such
taking is in compliance with the terms and conditions of this incidental take statement The
measures described below are nomdiscretionary and must be undertaken by the Corps so that they
become binding conditions for the exemption in section 7(o)(2) to apply. The Corpshas a
continuing duty to regulate the activity covered by this incidental take statement. If the Corps
(I) fails to assume and implement the terms and conditions or (2) tails to require the City of
Brevard toadhere to the terms and conditions of the incidentaltake statement through
enforceable terms that are added to any permit or grantdocument, the protective coverage'. of
section 7(o)(2) may lapse. In order to monitor the impact ofincidental take, the Corps orthe
City of Brevard must report the progress of the action and its impact on the species to the Service
as succified in the incidental take statement (50 GFR 6402.14(i VIA
Amount of Take Anticipated
The Service anticipates that incidental take, of the Appalachian elktoc may occur as a result of the
construction of this project, During construction, Individual mussels may be crushed, hammed by
siltation or other water -quality degradation, or dislocated because of physical changes in their
habitat. The project will involve the disturbance of about an acre of land adjacent to the river;
about 170 linear feet of temporary impacts to stream channels;, and 12,630 square feet of the
streambed (French Broad River) will be temporarily affected by the construction of the
open-cut/trench sower line crossing,. The NCWRC and the Service will coordinate a
preeonstruction survey to ensure that any individual mussels that are within the area of the
crossing of the French Broad River that will be dewatered are moved to a safe location in an
effort to minimize lethal take. An area of nonlethal disturbance is expected to extend up to
328 feet downstream from the sower line crossing of the French Broad River, where mussels or
fish will be harmed by disturbance. We anticipate this take to be a short-term disruption of their
normal life history. Cumulative effects may have harmful effects throughoutthe watershed,: but
we expect these effects to be below ameasureable threshold. These assumptions are made based.
on the project being constructed as planned; :with careful adherence to conservation measures,
other environmental regulations and best management practices; and without unforeseen
16

circumstances or accidents that may have agreater affect than that which is considered in this
- - - document, -I£ project effects extend beyond the expected disturbance distances considered or if - -
incidental take is exceeded, all work should stop, and the Service should be contacted
immediately.
EFFECT OF THE TAKE
In this Opinion the Service has determined that this level of take is not likely to result in jeopardy
to the Appalachian eMoe or destruction or adverse modification of its critical habitat,
Reasonable and Prudent Measures
The Service believes the following reasonable and prudent measures axe necessary and
appropriate: to further minimize take of the Appalachian elktce. These nondiscretionary
measures Include, but are not limited, to, the terms and conditions outlined in this Opinion.
1. The City of Brevard will ensure that the contractor understands and follows the
measures listed in the "Conservation Measures," "Reasonable and Prudent
Measures," and "Terms and Conditions" sections of this Opinion.
Z. The City ofBrevardwill ensure that the project will not cause stresmbank
destabilization at locations where impacts to aquatic resources occur (sewer line
stream crossings and equalization tank construction),
3. The current levelof water quality in the French Broad River will not be.
diminished.
4. Construction activities willbe implemented consistent with measures developed to
protect the Appalachian elktoe,
5. Sediment- and erosion -control measures will be implemented to ensure that sediment
does not enter surface waters.
Terms and Conditions
In order to be exempt from the prohibitions of section 9 of the Act, the City of Brevard must
comply with the following terms and conditions, Which implement the reasonable and prudent
measures'. described previously and outline required reporting and/or monitoring requirements.
These terms and conditions are nondiscretionary and apply to the remaining construction
activities associated with this project,
1. The City of Brevard will ensure that the procedures listed in the ".Conservation
Measures," "Reasonable and Prudent Measures," and "Terms and Conditions"
sections oftbis Opinion are being implemented and that all project plans are being
implemented in a manner that ensures the conditions of the Opinion are met.
17

2. The City of Brevard will iaferm the Service about the construction date for the
sower line crossing of the French Broad River. If possible, a Service biologist
will be present' during the construction of the sewer line crossing. (including the
installation and removal of any portable dams) that will be installed in the French
Broad River to ensure that construction activities remain within the designated
construction boundaries,
3. Sedimentation- and erosion -control devices shall. be planned and constructed in a
manner that. provides protection from the runoff of a 25 -year storm event.
Erosion -control measures will remain in place until riparian vegetation is
reestablished at all construction areas. Where riparian areas are disturbed, they
will be reseeded with native species and stabilized with straw within 48 hours of
construction completion.
4. Equipment should be kept out of the stream by operating from the banks
whenever possible and in a fashion that minimizes disturbance to woody
vegetation. The equipment shotdd be inspected daily and should be -maintained in
order to prevent the contamination of surface waters from leaking fuels,
lubricants,hydraulic fluids, or other toxic materials, All fuels, lubricants, and
other toxic materials should be stored outside of a 200 -foot riparian buffer or the
I00 year floodplain (whichever is greater) of the stream, in a location where
materials can be contained. Equipment, should be checked for leaks of hydraulic
fluids, cooling system liquids, and fuel and should be cleaned before fording any
stream. All fueling operations should be accomplished outside of riparian.
management area.
5. Streambanks should be monitored for destabilization at and within the areas of the
newly constructed sewer line stream crossings, Monitoring should be conducted
after storm events that result in bank -full flow for a period of I year, If
strearnbank destabilization occurs, the applicant will contact the Service
immediately and coordinate with the Corps and the Service regarding the repair
method and any related activities.
6. Construction will be accomplished in a manner that prohibits wet concrete from
coming in contact with water as it enters or flows in the river,
7, If a conservation measure is not or eannotbe met, the Service should be contacted
immediately to discuss options and to help determine whetter reinitiation of
consultation. is necessary.
CONSERVATION RECOMMENDATIONS
Section 7(a)(1) of the Act directs federal agencies to use their authorities to further the purposes.
of the Act by carrying out conservation programs for the benefit of endangered and threatened
species The following conservation recommendations are discretionary agency activities for the
18

purpose of minimizing or avoiding any adverse effects of a proposed action on listed species or
critical habitat, to help implement recovery plans, or to develop information:
1. Where opportunities exist, work with landowners, the general public, and other
agencies to promote education and the dissemination: of information about
endangered mussels and their conservation.
2. Explore opportunities to locate areas with destabilized streambanks in the French
Broad River watershed and actively work to fund, restore, and protect any
destabilized areas. -
3. Pursue opportunities to restore and conserve riparian buffers along the main stem
of French Broad River and its tributaries, either individually or in concert with
other conservation organizations.
4. Explore opportunities to work with local and state water -quality officials in order
to minimize or eliminate sources of pollution, including wastewater and
stormwater discharges in the French Broad River watershed.
5.. Pursue opportunities and funding to mitigate for impervious surface area in the
watershed and implement measures that reduce the adverse effects from
uncontrolled stormwater runoff.
6, .Consult with. the Service on projects that affect aquatic habitat in the French
Broad River drainage, regardless of the funding source, to ensure compliances with
all provisions of the Act.
7. -Continue to pursue opportunities and funding to further improve the W WTP and
sewer system in order to prevent further contamination of streams from releases
of untreated wastewater.
In order for the Service to be kept informed about actions that minimize or avoid adverse effects
or that benefit listed species or their habitats,. we `request notification of the implementation of
any conservation recommendations.
REINITIATION/CLOSING STATEMENT
This concludes formal consultation on the actions outlined in your EA, requesting formal
consultation As provided in 50 GFR 402.16, the reinitiation of formal consultation is required
where discretionary federal agency involvement or control over the action has been retained (or
is authorized by law) and if:. (1) the amount orextent of incidental take is exceeded, (2) now
information reveals effects of the action that may affect listed species or critical habitat in
a manner or to an extent not considered in this Opinion, (3) the agency action is subsequently
modified in a manner that causes an effect to the listed speciesor critical habitat not considered
In this Opinion, or (4) anow species is listed or critical habitat is designated that may be affected.
19

by the action,. In instances where the amount orextent of incidental take is exceeded, any
operation causing such take must cease, pendingreinitiation. - - - - -
Consultation should also be reinitiated if new biological information comes to light that
invalidatestheassumptions made regarding the biology or distribution of the Appalachian elktoe
in the French Broad River in North: Carolina.
If there are any questions, please contact Mr. Bryan Tompkins of our staff at 828/258-3959,
Ext. 240, or me, Ext. 223. We have assigned our log number 4.2•.14-394 to this consultation;
please refer to this number in any future correspondence concerning this matter.
Sincerely,
suet A. Mizzi
Field Supervisor
Electronic. copy to:
Regional Director, PWS, Atlanta; GA (ES, Attention; Mr. Jerry Ziewitz).
Ms. Kelly R. Boone, P.E., CDM Smith, Inc., 5400 Glenwood Avenue, Raleigh, NC 27612
McDavid Lutz, Public. Works Director, City of Brevard, 232 Cashiers Valley Road,
Brevard; NC 28712

Literature Citedt
Aldridge, D, W., B. S. Payne, and A. C. Millett, 1987, The effects on intermittent exposure to
suspended solids and turbulence on three species of freshwater mussels. Environmental
Pollution 1987:17-28,
Bates, J,.A 1962. The impacts of impoundment on the mussel Panna of Kentucky Reservoir,
Tennessee River: Am. Midl. Nat. 68:232=236.
Bellanca,..M..A,, and D. S. Bailey. 1977. Effects of chlorinated effluentson aquatic ecosystems
in the lower .lames River. dour, of Water Pollution Control Federation 49(4):639-645,
Brimm, J. 1991. Coastal plain fishes: Floodplain utilization and the effects of impoundments,
M.& thesis, University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC. 98 pp;.
Brungs, W. A. 1976, Effects of wastewater and cooling water chlorination on aquatic life.
EPA -600/3-76-098. Nat. Tech. Info. Serv, Springfield, VA. 45 pp,
Clarke, A. It, 198I The Tribe Alasmidontim (Unioniidae: Anodontmao),Part 1: Pegias,
Alasmicionta, and Arcidens.. Smithsonian Contributions to Zoology, 326:1»101.
E1Gs, M.M. 1936. Erosion silt asafactor in aquatic environments. Ecology. 17.29.42.
Fraley, S, J, 2002. Mussel surveys associated with puke Powcr Nantahala Area projects in the
Little Tennessee and Hiwasseeriver system Prepared for Duke Power Engineering ..&
Services, Charlotte, NC. Tennessee Valley Authority, Resource Stewardship,
Norris, TN. 37 pp.
Fraley, S. J„ and J. W. Simmons, 2006. An Assessment of Selected Rare Mussel Populations in
Western North Carolina Following Extraordinary Floods of September 2004. North
Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission, 40 pp.
Fuller, S. L, 11. 1974. Clams and mussels (Mollusca: Bivalvia). Pp. 215-273 in C. W. Hart, Jr,,
and. S. L. H. Fuller (eds.), Pollution Ecology of freshwater invertebrates, Academic
Press, NY.
Gaudreau, S. E, R. L Neves, and R, J. Sheehan. 1988. Effects of sewage treatment effluents on
mollusks andfish of the Clinch River in Tazewell County, Virginia, Final: Rep.,
U.S. Fish and Wildl. Serv. 128 pp,:
Harman, W. N. 1974.. The effects of reservoir construction and channelizafion on the mollusks
of the upper Delaware watershed. Bull. Am. Malac. Union 1973:12-14.
Havlik, M. E., and L. L. Marking.. 1987. Effects of contaminants on Naiad Mollusks
(Unionidae): A Review. U,S. Dept. of the lot., Fish and Wildl. Serv., Resource
Publ. 164, Washington, DC. 20 pp.
21

- Ingram, W, M. 1957. Use and value of biological indicators of pollution: Freshwater clams and
snails. Pp. 94-135 in C. M. Tarzwell (ed:). Biological problems in water pollution,
USDIIEW, PHS, R.A. Taft Sanitary Engineering Center, Cincinnati, OH.
Gardner, J. A„ W. R, Woodall, Jr., A. A. Smats, Jr, and J. F. Napoli 1976. The invasion of the
Asiatic clam in the Altamaha River, Georgia. ,Nautilus. 90(3):117-125. _
Gordon, M. E. 1991, Species account for the Appalachian elkwe (Alasmidonta raveneliana),
Unpublished report to The Nature Conservancy. 5 pp.
Keller, A. E., and S. G. Zam. 1991. The acute toxicity of selected metal's to the freshwater
mussel, Anodonia imbelecilis. Environ. Toxicol. Chem, 10.539-546,.
Layzer,:J. B, M. E. Gordon, and R. M, Anderson. 1993 Mussels: the forgotten fauna of
regulated rivers. A case study of the Caney Fork River. Regulated Rivers: Research and
Management 8:63=71,
Marking, L. L., and T„D. Bills. 1979. Acuteeffects 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,
McGrath,. C 1996. Mountain Aquatic Survey:. Pp. 22-26 in Annual Performance Report
Vol. V, July 1995 - June 1996, Nongame and Endangered Wildlife Program, North
Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission, 185 pp,
--. 1998. Mountain Aquatic Survey. Pp. 12-16 in Annual Performance Report Vol. VII, July
1947 - June 1998, Nongame and Endangered Wildlife Program, North Carolina Wildlife
Resources Commission. 184 pp.
....... 1999. Mountain, Aquatic Survey. Pp. 28-36 in Annual Performance Report Vol, VIII,
.July 1998 . June 1999, Nongame and Endangered Wildlife Program, North Carolina
Wildlife Resources Commission. 225 pp.
Miller, A. C., L. Rhodes, and R. Tippit. 1984. Changes in the naiad fauna of the Cumberland
River below Lake Cumberland in central Kentucky.. The Nautilus 98:107-110.
Ortmann, A E. 1909. The destruction of the freshwater fauna in western Pennsylvania, Proc,.
of Amer. Phil. Soe, 48(1):90-110.
Stein, C, B. 1971, Naiad life cycles: their significance in the, conservation of the fauna. .
Pp. 19-25 in Jorgenson and Sharp (edg.). Proceedings of a Symposium on Rare and
Endangered Mollusks (Naiads) of the United States. U.S. Dept, of the Int., Fish and —
Wildl. Serv. Bur. of Sport Fish. and Wildl.
22

Tsai, C. F. 1975, Effects of sewage treatment plant effluents on fish: a review of literature,
Chesapeake Res.. Consort. Inc., Publ. No. 36, Center for Env. and Estuarine Studies.
- Univ. of Maryland, Solomons,.MD'..
U.S. Fish and Wildlife: Service. 1994. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants;
Appalachian elktoe determined to be an endangered species. Federal Register
59(225),6032460394.
-. 1996 -Recovery plan for the Appalachian elktoe (Rlasmidonta ravenelrana) Lea.
Atlanta, GA,. 31 pp.
--- --. 2002. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of Critical habitat for
the Appalachian Blktoe. Federal Register 67(188):61016.61040,
Williams, J. D., S, L. H. Fuller, and R. Grace. 1492. Effects of impoundments on freshwater
mussels (Mollusca: Bivalvia: Unionidae) in the main channel of the Black Warrior and
Tombigbee Rivers in western Alabama. Bulletin of the Alabama Museum of Natural
History 13:1-10.
23