20160770 Ver 1_Br 33 Huffines Mill Creek Mussel Fish Survey Report_20160908

Wrenn, Brian L
From:Thomson, Nicole J
Sent:Thursday, September 08, 2016 2:33 PM
To:[e-mail]; Wrenn, Brian L; [e-mail]; Wilson, Travis
W.
Cc:Powers, Tim; Parker, Jerry A
Subject:Bridge 33 on Huffines Mill Creek
Attachments:Br 33 Huffines Mill Creek Mussel Fish Survey Report.pdf
Good afternoon!

Jared just finalized the report on the aquatic species for the above bridge, which I believe was the only piece of
information we were waiting on?

Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns. Thank you so much, also, for your patience while we got this
all straightened out.

If I don’t talk to you, have a great weekend!

Nikki

Nicole J. Thomson
Division Environmental Supervisor Assistant
Division Environmental Office

919-754-7806 Mobile

[e-mail]

PO Box 14996
Greensboro, NC 27415-4996

Email correspondence to and from this address is subject to the

North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.

Email correspondence to and from this sender is subject to the N.C. Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.
1

Freshwater Mussel & Fish Survey Report
Replacement of Bridge No. 33
Huffines Mill Creek on SR 2359
Rockingham County, North Carolina
WBS Element # 17BP.7.R.64
Huffines Mill Creek during the survey efforts
Prepared For:
F xoRrH
9
w a�
4 �
F ��
f QF S A
NC Department of Transportation
Raleigh, North Carolina
Contact Person:
Jared Gray
Biological Surveys Group
North Carolina Department of Transportation
i�ray�a�ncdot. o�v
1598 Mail Service Center
Raleigh NC 27699-1598
September 1, 2016

Prepared by:
1000 Corporate Drive, Suite 101
Hillsborough, NC 27278
Contact Person:
Tom Dickinson
Senior Project Manager
tom.dickinson(a�threeoaksen ing eerin .g c�
919-732-1300

Table of Contents
1. 0 Intro duction . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . ..2
2.0 Waters Impacted ...............................................................................................................2
2.1 303(d) Classification .....................................................................................................2
2.2 NPDES discharges ........................................................................................................2
3.0 Target Protected Species Descriptions ..............................................................................3
3.1 Percina rex (Roanoke Logperch) ...................................................................................3
3.1.1 Species Characteristics ...........................................................................................3
3.1.2 Distribution and Habitat Requirements ...................................................................3
3.1.3 Threats to Species ..................................................................................................4
3.2 Pleurobema collina (James Spinymussel) ......................................................................5
3.2.1 Species Characteristics ...........................................................................................5
3.2.2 Distribution and Habitat Requirements ...................................................................6
3.2.3 Threats to Species ..................................................................................................6
3.3 Lasmigona subviridis (Green Floater) ...........................................................................7
3.3.1 Species Characteristics ...........................................................................................7
3.3.2 Distribution and Habitat Requirements ...................................................................7
3.3.3 Threats to Species ..................................................................................................7
4.0 Survey Efforts ..................................................................................................................7
4.1 Stream Conditions at Time of Survey: Huffines Mill Creek ...........................................8
4.2 Fish Surveys .................................................................................................................8
4.2.1 Fish Survey Results ................................................................................................8
4.3 Mussel Surveys .............................................................................................................9
4.3.1 Mussel Survey Results ...........................................................................................9
5.0 Discussion/Conclusions ....................................................................................................9
6.0 Literature Cited ..............................................................................................................11

Appendix A. Figures:
Figure 1: Project Vicinity & Survey Reach
Figure 2: NCNHP Element Occurrences
Figure 3: 303(d) Listed Streams and NPDES Discharges
Huffines Mill Creek Mussel & Fish Survey Report September 2016
Job# 16-104 Page 1

1.0 INTRODUCTION
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to replace bridge number
33 over Huffines Mill Creek on SR 2359 in Rockingham County (AppendiX A, Figure 1). The
project will impact Huffines Mill Creek of the Roanoke River basin. The Federally Endangered
James Spinymussel (Pleurobema collina) and Roanoke Logperch (Percina rex) are listed by the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) for Rockingham County. Additionally, the Green
Floater (Lasmigona subviridis) is being considered for listing by USFWS and is known to occur
in Rockingham County.
According to the NC Natural Heritage Program database (NCNHP 2016), accessed August 24,
2016, the nearest element occurrence (EO) for James Spinymussel (EO ID: 17385) is in the Dan
River approximately 11 river miles (RM) from the study bridge. It was first observed in August
2001 and last observed in September 2009. The nearest EO for Roanoke Logperch (EO ID:
26357) is in the Mayo River/Big Beaver Island Creek/Dan River approximately 8.5 RM
downstream of the project crossing. It was first observed in July 2008 and last observed in
September 2010. The nearest EO for Green Floater (EO ID: 35336) is in the Dan River
approximately 5.8 RM downstream of the study bridge. It was first observed and last observed
in August 2014 (Figure 2).
As part of the federal permitting process that requires an evaluation of potential project-related
impacts to federally protected species, Three Oaks Engineering (30aks) was contracted by
NCDOT to conduct freshwater fish surveys targeting the Roanoke Logperch and mussel surveys
targeting James Spinymussel and Green Floater.
2.0 WATERS IMPACTED
Huffines Mi]1 Creek is located in the Upper Dan River subbasin of the Roanoke River basin
(HUC# 03010103). Huffines Mill Creek flows approXimately 2.3 RM to its confluence with
Little Jacobs Creek, which then flows 1 RM to its confluence with Jacobs Creek. Jacobs Creek
flows 2.6 RM to the Dan River.
2.1 303(d) Classification
Huffines Mill Creek is not on the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
(NCDEQ, formerly NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources, NCDENR) -
Division of Water Resources 2014 Final 303(d) ]ist of impaired streams. The closest impairment
is Belews Creek, approximately 18.9 RM west of the study area (NCDENR 2014). It is impaired
due to water temperature (Figure 3).
2.2 NPDES discharges
The closest permitted NPDES discharge is approximately 1.7 RM upstream of the study area on
Huffines Mill Creek (USEPA 2016); Rockingham County Board of Education Bethany
Elementary (NC0037001). There are also a number of General Permit facilities in the vicinity of
the study area (Figure 3).
Huffines Mill Creek Mussel & Fish Survey Repart September 2016
Job# 16-104 Page 2

3.0 TARGET PROTECTED SPECIES DESCRIPTIONS
3.1 Percina rex (Roanoke Logperch)
3.1.1 Species Characteristics
The Roanoke Logperch is a large darter with an elongate body up to 165 mm in total length. The
snout is conical or pig-like. The caudal fin is slightly emarginated, truncate or slightly rounded.
The body is straw-colored to pale olive dorsally, pale to yellow-olive on the lower side with a
white belly; the lateral line is complete. Markings are dark olive to black with green, gold, or
blue iridescence on the side of the head and the prepectoral area. There are 8-11 lateral blotches.
The first dorsal fin has submarginal yellow or orange bands, while the second dorsal, caudal and
pectoral fins are distinctly tessellated (Terwilliger 1991).
The Roanoke Logperch is a benthic feeder; feeding on a variety of immature insects by
overturning gravel and small rocks with its snout (Terwilliger 1991). The average life
expectancy is five to six years. Spawning occurs in April or May in deep runs over gravel and
small cobble. Logperch typically bury their eggs and provide no subsequent parental care
(USFWS 2015a).
3.1.2 Distribution and Habitat Requirements
The Roanoke Logperch can be found in larger streams in the upper Roanoke, Smith, Pigg, Otter,
Nottoway River systems, and Goose Creek in Virginia and in the Dan, Mayo, Smith River
systems and Big Beaver Island Creek in North Carolina. Its upstream range in the Dan and
Mayo Rivers is presumably impeded by dams (USFWS 2015a).
Due to barriers such as dams, there are currently eight discrete populations of Roanoke
Logperch. The population in the upper Roanoke River is probably the largest and most
important in the species' range (USFWS 2007).
The Roanoke Logperch occupies medium to large warm water streams and rivers of moderate
gradient and relatively unsilted substrates. Inhabited waterways have a moderate to low
gradient, and the fish usually inhabit riffles and runs, with silt-free sandy to boulder-strewn
bottoms. During different phases of life history and season, every major riverine habitat is
exploited by the Logperch. Young are usually found in slow runs and pools with clean sandy
bottoms. In winter, Logperch may be more tolerant of silty substrates, and may also inhabit
pools. Males are associated with shallow riffles during the reproductive period; females are
common in deep runs over gravel and small cobble, where they spawn (NatureServe 2015,
USFWS 1992a).
The species is usually in low abundance. The populations are small and separated by long
segments of river or large impoundments; it is nearly always rare, never abundant (Terwilliger
1991). In addition, the Roanoke Logperch's low catchability, patchy distribution, and low
abundance make them difficult to detect. Extensive and intensive sampling by the Virginia
Transportation Research Council con�rmed that Roanoke Logperch are difficult to detect even
with more sampling effort than typically is applied in general fish surveys (Lahey and
Angermeier 2007). It wasn't unti12007 that individuals of this species were found in the
Huffines Mill Creek Mussel & Fish Survey Repart September 2016
Job# 16-104 Page 3

Roanoke River drainage (Smith and Dan Rivers) in Rockingham County, North Carolina
(NCWRC 2015).
Existing information on the distribution of Roanoke Logperch and habitat suitable for Logperch
is scarce and uneven in quality. Most previous surveys for Logperch focused on areas near
known occurrences, and information on habitat suitability has been scarce and inconsistently
gathered (Lahey and Angermeier 2007).
The present understanding of the Roanoke Logperch range and densities indicate that all
populations extend further and are denser than previously assumed when the species was
federally listed. Populations in the upper Roanoke and Nottoway show comparably high
densities (Rosenberger and Angermeier 2002 in USFWS 2007) and high genetic diversity
(George and Mayden 2003 in USFWS 2007). The species appears to be reproducing throughout
its range, however, a poor understanding of abundance at the time of listing makes it difficult to
determine whether populations are increasing, stable, or declining over the long term (USFWS
2007).
3.1.3 Threats to Species
Roanoke Logperch populations are threatened by dams/barriers and reservoirs, watershed
urbanization, agricultural and silvicultural activities contributing to non-point source pollution,
stream channelization, roads, toxic spills, woody debris loss, and water withdrawals (USFWS
2015a).
It appears that massive habitat loss associated with the construction of the large impoundments
of the Roanoke River Basin in the 1950s and 1960s (Roanoke Rapids, Gaston, Kerr, Leesville,
Smith Mountain, and Philpott Reservoirs) was the original cause of significant population
declines of this species. These reservoir systems resulted in major disruptions in the ability of
this species to move throughout its historic range. The populations in the Roanoke and
Nottoway basins probably represent remnants of much larger populations that once occupied
much of the Roanoke and Chowan River drainages upstream of the fall line. All the populations
are small and no genetic exchange occurs among them because they are separated by large
impoundments and wide river gaps. Each population is vulnerable due to its relatively low
density and limited range.
Small Logperch populations could go extinct with minor habitat degradation. 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 (USFWS 2015b).
The best known and largest population, which inhabits the upper Roanoke from the City of
Roanoke upstream into the North and South Forks, has been subjected to considerable stress
from human uses in the basin, progressively more so in the downstream direction. Although
there are no trend data available, the continued urbanization of the upper Roanoke threatens the
existing population density and abundance in this portion of the species' range (USFWS 2007).
Huffines Mill Creek Mussel & Fish Survey Report September 2016
Job# 16-104 Page 4

Water withdrawals may pose a serious threat to the species in the future as the human population
of the Roanoke River basin increases (USFWS 2015b).
Non-point sources of pollution can be a problem for the species. Large quantities of stormwater
drain from streets and lawns, carrying nutrients, oil, metals, and other pollutants into the upper
Roanoke (USFWS 1992a). Spills of toxic chemicals have occurred in the Roanoke River in
Salem and Roanoke, including 11 spills documented in the Roanoke and its tributaries from 1970
through 1991 (USFWS 1992a). One of the most destructive spills resulted from the accidental
discharge of more than 100,000 gallons of liquid manure into a tributary of the South Fork of the
Roanoke River. It is estimated that this spill killed 190,000 fish, including 300 Roanoke
Logperch (USFWS 1992a). Events such as this could be catastrophic to small, isolated
populations.
Siltation is a widespread threat to the Roanoke Logperch. Excessive silt deposition reduces
habitat heterogeneity and primary productivity; increases egg and larval mortality; abrades
organisms; and alters, degrades, and entombs macrobenthic communities (Burkhead and Jenkins
1991, in USFWS 1992a). The water quality of the North Fork of the Roanoke River is
significantly degraded by silt washed from agricultural lands in the watershed. It is probable that
the absence of the species from the upper and middle portions of the North Fork Roanoke is the
result of historical habitat degradation. Excessive siltation generated by poor agricultural and
logging practices is also a problem in the Nottoway River watershed (USFWS 1992a).
The impacts from in-stream sand and gravel-mining operations on aquatic environments and
riparian habitats are well-documented (Meador and Layher 1998, Kondolf 1997, Starnes and
Gasper 1996). These physical and biotic effects can extend far upstream and downstream from
the site of extraction (Brown et al. 1998). The recovery time of the stream ecosystem from
mining operations can be very extensive (>20 years) and total restoration in some cases has been
considered improbable (Kanehl and Lyons 1992, Brown et at 1998). There are a number of
active and inactive mining operations in the Dan River subbasin in Stokes and Rockingham
counties.
Wide forested buffers have been identified as critical in maintaining stream type (Llhardt et al.
2000), water temperature control (Lynch and Corbett 1990), food resources (Palik et al. 2000),
and instream habitat (Semlitsch 1998) for aquatic resources. Large magnitude deforestation in
the Dan and Mayo River watersheds may have significant effects on aquatic habitat.
3.2 Pleurobema collina (James Spinymussel)
3.2.1 Species Characteristics
The James Spinymussel (JSM) is a small freshwater mussel slightly less than three inches in
length. Adults have a dark brown shell with prominent growth rings and occasionally, short
spines on each valve. Young mussels have a shiny yellow shell with or without one to three
short spines.
Like other freshwater mussels, this species is a filter feeder. It feeds on plankton collected from
water that is passed over its gills. Females carry eggs in their gills. During spawning, the male
releases sperm into the water column and the sperm is taken into the female through the gills.
Huffines Mill Creek Mussel & Fish Survey Report September 2016
Job# 16-104 Page 5

The resulting larvae (known as glochidia) are released from the female into the water column
and must attach to a fish host to survive. While attached to a fish host, development of the
glochidia continues. Once metamorphosis is complete, the juvenile mussel drops off the fish
host and continues to develop on the stream bottom. Known fish hosts for this species include
the Bluehead Chub (Nocomis leptocephalus), Rosyside Dace (Clinostomus funduloides),
Blacknose Dace (Rhinichthys atratulus), Mountain Redbelly Dace (Phoxinus oreas), Rosefin
Shiner (Lythrur�us ardens), Satinfin Shiner (Cyprinella analostana), Central Stoneroller
(Campostoma anomalum), and Swallowtail Shiner (Notropis procne) (USFWS 1990).
3.2.2 Distribution and Habitat Requirements
The JSM is found in waters with slow to moderate current and relatively hard water on sand and
mixed sand-gravel substrates that are free from silt. Prior to its decline, this freshwater mussel
was found throughout the upper James River above Richmond, Virginia, and in all of its major
upstream tributaries. The species has declined rapidly during the past several decades and now
exists only in small, headwater tributaries of the upper James River Basin in Virginia and West
Virginia and the upper Roanoke River drainage of Virginia and North Carolina (NatureServe
2015).
3.2.3 Threats to Species
The cumulative effects of several factors, including sedimentation, point and nonpoint discharge,
stream modification (e.g. impoundment, channelization), coupled with the apparent restricted
range, are believed to have contributed to the decline of this species throughout its range
(USFWS 1990). When mussel populations are reduced to a small number of individuals and are
restricted to short reaches of isolated streams, they are 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 or railroads.
The impact of impoundments on freshwater mussels has been well-documented (USFWS 1992b,
Neves 1993). Construction of dams transforms lotic habitats into lentic habitats, which results in
changes to the aquatic community composition. These changes associated with inundation
adversely affect both adult and juvenile mussels as well as fish community structure, which
could eliminate possible fish hosts for glochidia (Fuller 1974). Several impoundments occur on
the Mayo River and Dan River. Without historic data on the distribution of the JSM, it is
difficult to determine if these structures had any impact on the species.
Siltation resulting from improper erosion control of various types of land usage, including
agriculture, forestry, and development, has been recognized as a major contributing factor to
degradation of mussel populations (USFWS 1990). Siltation has been documented to be
extremely detrimental to mussel populations by degrading substrate and water quality, increasing
potential exposure to other pollutants, and direct smothering of mussels (Ellis 1936, Marking and
Bills 1979). Sediment accumulations of less than 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 endangered Dwarf Wedgemussel (Alasmidonta heterodon)
because of accelerated sedimentation and erosion (Smith 1981). The abrasive action of sediment
Huffines Mill Creek Mussel & Fish Survey Report September 2016
Job# 16-104 Page 6

on mussel shells has been shown to cause erosion of the outer shell, which allows acids to reach
and corrode underlying layers (Harman 1974).
The 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 JSM. Concern has been raised over competitive interactions for space, food,
and oxygen between this species and native mussels, possibly at the juvenile stages (Neves and
Widlak 1987; Alderman 1997). The Asian Clam is common to abundant within the Dan and
Mayo Rivers. The Zebra Mussel has not been recorded in the Roanoke River basin (US
Geological Survey [USGS] 2015).
3.3 Lasmigona subviridis (Green Floate�)
3.3.1 Species Characteristics
The Green Floater was described by Conrad (1835) from the Schuykill River in Lancaster
County, Pennsylvania. This 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.
3.3.2 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 Watauga
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.
3.3.3 Threats to Species
Threats to the Green Floater and many other species are similar to those described above for the
James Spinymussel (Section 3.2.3).
4.0 SURVEY EFFORTS
Surveys were conducted by 30aks personnel Tom Dickinson (Permit # 16-ES00343), Chris
Sheats, and Nancy Scott on August 28, 2016.
Huffines Mill Creek Mussel & Fish Survey Report September 2016
Job# 16-104 Page 7

4.1 Stream Conditions at Time of Survey: Huffines Mill Creek
The survey reach consisted of a high gradient sequence of riffle, run, and pool habitats. The
channel ranged from 12-18 feet (ft) wide with generally stable banks up to 6 ft high. Substrate
was dominated by coarse sand, gravel, cobble, bedrock, and boulders. Rock outcroppings that
extended into the stream channel were common. Fine sand and silt accumulations were present
in pools and depositional margins. A wide, mature hardwood forested buffer surrounded the
surveyed reach.
4.2 Fish Surveys
30aks conducted electro-fishing and dip net surveys in an approximately 1,640-ft (500 meters)
reach, 1,312 ft(400 meters) downstream to 328 ft(100 meters) upstream, of the bridge crossing.
All habitat types in the survey reach (riffle, run, pool, slack-water, etc.) were sampled, with
special attention given to transition areas between habitat types where fish congregate in
response to the instream sampling efforts.
Relative abundance reported was estimated using the following criteria:
(VA) Very abundant > 30 collected at survey station
(A) Abundant: 16-30 collected at survey station
(C) Common: 6-15 collected at survey station
(U) Uncommon: 3-5 collected at survey station
(R) Rare: 1-2 collected at survey station
It should be noted that relative abundances of particular species can be affected by survey
methodologies and site conditions. Thus some species, particularly those that are found in
deeper pools and runs and those that can seek cover quickly, may be under-represented at a
sample site. Electro-fishing and netting times also vary depending on daily survey conditions
and other variables, making direct site comparisons difficult.
The survey efforts utilized one Smith-Root LR-24 backpack electro-fishing unit, dip-nets, and a
seine net.
4.2.1 Fish Survey Results
A total of 1,500 electro-shocking seconds were spent during which the 11 species in Table 1
were located.
Huffines Mill Creek Mussel & Fish Survey Report September 2016
Job# 16-104 Page 8

l able l. risn surve resWts �n riuitines 1V1ll1 C;reeK
Relative
Scientific Name Common Name Abundance
Catostomus commersonii White Sucker C
Chrosomus oreas Mountain Redbelly Dace A
Clinostomus funduloides Rosyside Dace A
Etheostoma flabellare Fantail Darter C
Le omis ulosus Warmouth Sunfish R
Lepomis macrochirus Bluegill Sunfish R
Luxilus cerasinus Crescent Shiner U
Nocomis leptocephalus Bluehead Chub C
Notro is chiliticus Redli Shiner A
Noturus insi nis Mar ined Madtom A
Semotilus atromaculatus Creek Chub C
4.3 Mussel Surveys
Mussel surveys were conducted from approximately 1,312 ft(400 meters) downstream of the
respective bridge crossing to approximately 328 ft(100 meters) upstream of the crossing for a
distance of approximately 1,640 ft(500 meters) (Figure 1). Areas of appropriate habitat were
searched, concentrating on the stable habitats preferred by the target species. The survey team
spread out across the creek into survey lanes. Visual surveys were conducted using glass bottom
view buckets (bathyscopes). Tactile methods were employed, particularly in streambanks under
submerged rootmats. All freshwater bivalves were recorded and returned to the substrate.
Timed survey efforts provided Catch Per Unit Effort (CPLTE) data for each species. Relative
abundance for freshwater snails and freshwater clam species were estimated using the following
criteria:
(VA) Very abundant > 30 per square meter
(A) Abundant 16-30 per square meter
(C) Common 6-15 per square meter
(U) Uncommon 3-5 per square meter
(R) Rare 1-2 per square meter
(P-) Ancillary adjective "Patchy" indicates an uneven distribution of the species within the
sampled site.
4.3.1 Mussel Survey Results
A total of 6.5 person hours of survey time were spent in the reach, during which no mollusk
species were found.
5.0 DISCUSSION/CONCLUSIONS
The results indicate that the study area supports a typical freshwater fish fauna for the size of the
stream and location in the drainage. The target Roanoke Logperch, James Spinymussel and
Green Floater were not found during the surveys. Records for these species occur well
downstream of the project (Section 1.0).
Huffines Mill Creek Mussel & Fish Survey Report September 2016
Job# 16-104 Page 9

Based on these survey results, impacts to Roanoke Logperch are unlikely to occur as a result of
project construction. Similarly, impacts to freshwater mussel fauna are unlikely to occur in the
study area. Biological Conclusions on potential impacts from the project are provided below.
Biological Conclusion Roanoke Logperch: No Effect
Biological Conclusion James Spinymussel: No Effect
The USFWS is the regulating authority for Section 7 Biological Conclusions and as such, it is
recommended that they be consulted regarding their concurrence with the finding of this
document.
While the Green Floater is not currently federally protected, and no biological conclusion is
necessary at the time of the writing of this report, if the species were to receive federal protection
the appropriate biological conclusions is as follows:
Biological Conclusion Green Floater: No Effect
Huffines Mill Creek Mussel & Fish Survey Report September 2016
Job# 16-104 Page 10

6.0 LITERATURE CITED
Alderman, J.M. 1997. Monitoring the Swift Creek freshwater mussel community. Pages 98-107
in K.S. Cummings, A.C. Buchanan, C.A. Mayer, and T.J. Naimo, eds. 1997.
Conservation and Management of Freshwater Mussels II: Initiatives for the future.
Proceedings of a UMRCC symposium, 16-18 October 1995, St. Louis, Missouri. Upper
Mississippi River Conservation Committee, Rock Island Illinois. 293 pp.
Brown, A.V., M.M. Lyttle, and K.B. Brown. 1998. Impacts of gravel mining on gravel bed
streams. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 127:979-994.
Burkhead, N.M. and R.E. Jenkins. 1991. Fishes. In: Virginia's Endangered Species, proceedings
of a symposium. Karen Terwilliger (ed.). McDonal and Woodward Publishing Company,
Blacksburg, VA. 672 pp.
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.
Ellis, M. M. 1936. Erosion Silt as a Factor in Aquatic Environments. Ecology 17: 29-42.
Fuller, S.H. 1974. Clams and mussels (Molluska: Bivalva). Pp 215-273 in J.W. Hart and S.H.
Fuller, eds. Pollution Ecology of Freshwater Invertebrates. Academic Press, New York
City, NY.
Fuller, S. L. H. and C. E. Powell. 1973. Range extensions of Corbicula manilensis (Philippi) in
the Atlantic drainage of the United States. Nautilus 87(2): 59.
George, A.L. and R.L. Mayden. 2003. Conservation genetics of four imperiled fishes of the
southeast. Final Report to the U.S. Forest Service.
Harman, W.N. 1974. The effects of reservoir construction and channelization on the mollusks of
the upper Delaware watershed. Bull. Am. Malac. Union 1973:12-14.
Kanehl, P., and J. Lyons. 1992. Impacts of in-stream sand and gravel mining on stream habitat
and fish communities, including a survey on the Big Rib River, Marathon County,
Wisconsin. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources Research Report 155, Madison.
Kondolf, G.M. 1997. Hungry water: effects of dams and gravel mining on river channels.
Environmental Management 21:533-551.
Lahey, A.M. and P.L. Angermeier. 2007. Range-wide Assessment of Habitat Suitability for
Roanoke Logperch (Percina rex). Virginia Transportation Research Council.
http://www.virginiadot.org/vtrc/main/online_reports/pdf/07-cr8.pdf
Huffines Mill Creek Mussel & Fish Survey Report September 2016
Job# 16-104 Page ll

Llhardt, B.L., E.S. Verry, and BJ. Palik. 2000. Defining riparian areas. Pages 23-42 in E.S.
Verry, J.W. Hornbeck, and C.A. Doloff, eds. Riparian management of forests of the
continental eastern United States. Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, Florida.
Lynch, J.A., and E.S. Corbett. 1990. Evaluation of best management practices for controlling
nonpoint pollution from silvicultural operations. Water Resources Bulletin, 26(1):41-52.
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.
Meador, M.R., and A.O. Layher. 1998. Instream sand and gravel mining: environmental issues
and regulatory process in the United States. Fisheries 23(11):6-13.
NatureServe. 2015. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application].
http://explorer.natureserve. org/servlet/NatureServe?searchName=Pleurobema+collina.
Accessed August 25, 2016.
Neves, R.J. 1993. A state of the Unionids address. Pp. 1-10 in K.S. Cummings, A.C. Buchanan,
and L.M. Kooch, eds. Proc. of the UMRCC symposium on the Conservation and
Management of Freshwater Mussels. UMRCC. Rock Island IL.189 pp.
Neves, R. J. and J. C. Widlak. 1987. Habitat Ecology of Juvenile Freshwater Mussels (Bivalvia:
Unionidae) in a Headwater Stream in Virginia. American Malacological Bulletin 1(5): 1-
7.
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR) — Division of
Water Resources. 2014. Fina1303(d) List. https://deq.nc.gov/about/divisions/water-
resources/planning/classification-standards/303d/303d-files. Accessed August 17, 2016
North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP). 2016. nheo-2016-06. Natural Heritage
Element Occurrence polygon shapefile. June 2016 version.
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC). 2015. Roanoke Logperch (Percina
rex) Species Management.
http: //www.ncwildlife. org/Learning/Specie s/Fish/RoanokeLogperch. aspx#2521719-
management. Accessed August 23, 2016.
Palik, B.J., J.C. Zasada, and C.W. Hedman. 2000. Ecological principles for riparian silviculture.
Pages 233-254 in E.S. Verry, J.W. Hornbeck, and C.A. Doloff, eds. Riparian
Management of Forests of the Continental Eastern United States. Lewis Publishers, Boca
Raton, Florida.
Rosenberger, A.E. and P.L. Angermeier. 2002. Roanoke Logperch (Percina rex) population
structure and habitat use. Final report to Virginia Department of Game and Inland
Fisheries, Blacksburg, VA.
Huffines Mill Creek Mussel & Fish Survey Report September 2016
Job# 16-104 Page 12

Semlitsch, R. D. 1998. Biological delineation of terrestrial buffer zones for pond-breeding
salamanders. Conservation Biology 12:1113— 1119.
Smith, D. 1981. Selected freshwater invertebrates proposed for special concern status in
Massachusetts (Mollusca, Annelida, Arthropoda). MA Dept. of Env. Qual. Engineering,
Div. of Water Pollution Control. 26 pp.
Starnes, L.B., and D.C. Gasper. 1996. Effects of surface mining on aquatic resources in North
America. Fisheries 21(5):24-26.
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.
Terwilliger, Karen. 1991. Virginia's Endangered Species, pp. 395-397, 785-788.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water. NPDES facilities by permit type.
NPDESPERMIT_WMERC. Accessed August 25, 2016.
https://watersgeo. epa. gov/arcgis/rest/services/O WPROGRAM/NPDESPERMIT_WMER
C/MapServer
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1990. James Spinymussel (Pleurobema collina) Recovery Plan.
Newton Corner, MA. 38 pp.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1992a. Roanoke Logperch (Percina rex) Recovery Plan. Newton
Corner, MA.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 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. 2007. Roanoke Logperch (Percina rex). 5-Year Review:
Summary & Evaluation. Prepared by Virginia Field Office, Gloucester, Virginia.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2015a. Roanoke Logperch.
http://www.fws.gov/raleigh/species/es_roanoke_Logperch.html. Accessed June 23,
2016.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2015b. Roanoke Logperch.
http://www.fws.gov/northeast/pdf/RoanokeLogperch.pdf. Accessed August 23, 2016.
U.S. Geological Survey. 2015. Nonindigenous Aquatic Species.
http://fl.biology.usgs.gov/Nonindigenous_Species/Zebra mussel distribution/zebra mus
sel_distribution.html. Accessed August 25, 2016.
Huffines Mill Creek Mussel & Fish Survey Report September 2016
Job# 16-104 Page 13

Huffines Mill Creek Mussel & Fish Survey Repart September 2016
Job# 16-104 Page 14

APPENDIX A
Figures
Huffines Mill Creek Mussel & Fish Survey Repart September 2016
Job# 16-104 Page 15

`� ,e � „. �' < , � µ '� �4rg '., `�� �1-' � � j y`4 y'°' � � f'y��.� �N
�7 .. ;,� *�F .I ar��� � , f� �3� �f' d ��,,,rt���rrh ,
�1' ,, is'.��r� t. 1�1;� F�_ � F�B�, Y�� �,� f����_7A s�' y�� t"F .,{� fy��� 4 4 K y',
� � �' � `�. � �
��"f � ���P 3� 7 � i,� �i".;t' ,r . 4T� � Y
•�k f�'�' �:Y y.r�4 '� � 9,'.9�� ��� 'r�.y�' ,"y�� :.; t
,,� (� ,'��. �� f <.r .}��}i :� �f x'� v; r r ' _. 4' ._, �. �,
' � .J�" „y �-.i �n , /
� °� ,- 1 . _ � t ��E �'�� �n; . � �Y�yt
:di "F.� � '� `� .,�r�f��li �� 1 '' � � -,;. �`� A
� � � '� n � y.� �, a ,�'�i� '�N �=y. . � y
�,� , � �. ��?. � �( � _ihx � �+ g t;� �
.3 � � .� ,^ �! � � � � ./� f , ��� F .,.
� � nS,� 5. �
� " , � ' ' , i` `' � ��" a ��� � ' " ` `s A+� , " "`%s �' , �
�, < j, ,. � � � F,: � �,.�, x� �,� .��;. , i' � �.
e� � � ' � 1" � ���� �� r� �`
. . , . t '` � ��'�:,,��,'�� rys,� �'r ��. �`°����'!f� .;a�'� .+ _ �,r6 y�,�F , .
—_— _. �� 4 � r � ��4 ! � s.�f� � �.� , � 4�i.,ti;��
COlOpen�S�reetMap (and) — �. ����! , �� �y ,�� - ��,�r ��+�*�r � �� � � ,�'�
contnliTtors CC-BY-SA , .� ' a.�'��,�, , w �± ?,9� �Nas��` "g`�" � ' "`y ���. ; s
R�� �' r" ', �
� � �
�R' t"�S � f� / % . ::
�" � � � ,�; � �,
�-�; �,� j'��Mfi�.'
��� r� >Fi �� ��S �+��,� -
�',a r�� �� . ��
. . � . / .., . �. . ��
, � ,
, �i �` : �^, },� �: 7 4� , a g �" r h �.
�.� 'QI'�� �q,: �IrJ��� . �w�4�!�`" 's"��"��,r �$ p�.i ,.. W �p' :� .�+ � y�p � .: '.�
� � ,�,.� a �a f� � �+y�! � s � % � ,�
� � ��,, r � N�'� �;� ,��� � :i`
,
� r�'� � x� .� � , f � ,.,�,y�, ,, z, :
��� �� ����, {b� ..� �X .,n k,�c� 'ti.��� �j,, ? �� d
ti'4� 1� ��. �',' � '7'� ���nr �+Fi..ptr.:., � J�.!� � � . Q
� ��i� }t �r � �,� ,r3 i �->� � . �
''�'',sj § '���� � { H �j �s,` '� r ,t r. ' , 1� r ��Y � l�
`+� w tse ��
�., t f .. ' �,
� �; r .tud� : t .�+; i ��* ���s �r ` ~
Ae �;� s ^+Af�^�- k �g� %�1, �"t4'c� �+j ' ��' l
r� a��, �, .�
I• `� '�1� � ' �
.�� � ��ti �,� " ,, . .r �c' �' lr. . �� _ �
�' �'�� x �`� �l.. � A���'� r � i �:� �� �aa�,; t < <� . , . ,
w5 ' � r� v� � f ��s M1 .gl,' Y NUFF� � '` w y �,���' �'t'� � ; � ��%E��
<� ,s��c�, �.�+� ,�cr� 'dIK {'�'r �h�y o f . � �FSI�j�L��f " � ° �'�, a'� 4-s �,
°��,i��� ��+� *�14 �. �r k '�� t"� � y 'y�.' y�� �.1�'�`�q�'�.�, % / � �
5,. v .�� y�� � �,����d d ,:
� ��` �,q � r �y � � i� .' �y� �e'�°'��, yF � � }�^ x {,: �F J �'� � S''L�' "..�Y' � Sc4',�= �, , �
�gT'��,� � 9'���,��„�g �'F''�}��� � F' �i. p -` `, ,� ��p . f � ��y,
� ��� �,� � ., , .'I i
. -�� "rt"'� f �`a�A � '� ! { �. � q �� � .�'i �1 � , � ;` ` /� ;�t�:,
` 7 f a�,
��7 n
r �� r! � '�` N ' < �." . af � $ t'.� �1" � �
*�r. � r����,.f�,�IF �tt;. a �"'� ��, �y � �, x ��'� �� F � f ��r r. �r� �
�. Fe N •.,h r . � �p� � / 7�,�15�*i� � ��. �� . � yp � . � � x.ri�;�� �
° % ��'i� �� '.tr` � `C�S '. Y .1', y� • "W , �� �-.:+. �, .
�(`-k �'� 'ifi' � ,' � r 2 �' "s •en. ; '%�'<' '� �:*. •
� }4p 1.
� �. t� �+� � . ���I 7� ., ��& � . �Rp � -I-.�.;r��: a�"y� " , x - � �.
+f�,� 6+ e r'.r:� .f "" � yN,.�„ M � f �l3F . �
0
: �
<<�,.� � � s', �� .f , x .� Af �;.: �, , � r N, .� �� aa� Q Survey Location
y ,f � ° �` i+� .� �, �, / ' � �". � �h � j' ,��'
,� �. , �
f` , t �.r� � .' `, � Actual Survey Reach ,
���� � ' �
�. � � t ,
a: j 'i�' ,�i "4Y,� I
'� = � .�g
" �/ ,�.� , *� �, r,��� „ x ; f �' � — Stream
� `l4 yt '� y'� o. � � -✓.� �-'� �y �p :� �..
w � " � t Lake/Pond
" �� � f `� �'� °"'�,:, ` , �. � ,� a � �iF fi T�+ �� �.
p 7�.
w'�€ r �:z�� �^��".�' �, ��� �)*'�� { �- t'' � ,'�� � Reservoir
,.. �'�A`a �.. Y :�° $��'��:, �� �A � P ,. �i' �- s�' '� i�r Y f '��: r
;� x , ��+�y�� r � ' t N�,�;��,� . �s��' W�:�� ``��, � � f , p r ` Swamp/Marsh
� �.?rY ; M r� � ti '��C � P ".��� �p � I (.�:
' `' ' ` �l � � Road
. i���x��du�� S_ � ��i ��,�� .`�l�� �' � i �.
A �i� : ��- t � .. ,� '! . Y � . / .. �. .:: , i
���� ���'��^�������.��A�� e *:� �,,,��, ,,,��N�On'eMap'"NC��CenYerforGeogra��tiic�InforrnahonandAnalysis,NC
��i.�^a'4�" �i�ae .�p ,..4�a;?.� . j� %a:� �,r �a; �,�y �' 9aj, BOarcl � F� -
�S��G\NEEHiN� y
O �
W � �yO
y ��='<.., , S
'�'�/�33N\`�a�'
Prepared For
OF NOFiN �
a� 9q��
h 9
9 QQ
��FHr OF �Pp�Seo
Freshwater Mussel Survey
Bridge No. 33 on SR 2359
over Huffines Mill Creek
Project Vicinity & Survey Reach
Rockingham County, North Carolina
August 2016
` 0 150 300 Feet
i � i
No.:
16-104
By: �Checked By:
Figure

�S��G\NEEHiN� y
O �
W � �yO
y ��='<.., , S
'�'�/�33N\`�a�'
Prepared For
OF NOFiN �
a� 9q��
h 9
9 QQ
��FHr OF �Pp�Seo
Freshwater Mussel Survey
Bridge No. 33 on SR 2359
over Huffines Mill Creek
NCNHP Element Occurrences
Rockingham County, North Carolina
August 2016
� 0 0.5 7 Miles
� � i
No.:
16-104
vn By: Checked By:
Figure

�S��G\NEEHiN� y
O �
W � �yO
y ��='<.., , S
'�'�/�33N\`�a�'
Prepared For
OF NOFiN �
a� 9q��
h 9
9 QQ
��FHr OF �Pp�Seo
Freshwater Mussel Survey
Bridge No. 33 on SR 2359
over Huffines Mill Creek
303(d) Listed Streams and
NPDES Discharges
Rockingham County, North Carolina
August 2016
0 0.5 1 Miles
� � �
No.:
16-104
vn By: Checked By:
Figure