20071961 Ver 2_Other Agency Comments_20080528

t
United States Department of the Interim -,,
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh Field Office Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726 yEFR
John F. Sullivan III, PE
Federal Highway Administration
310 New Bern Avenue, Suite 410
Raleigh, North Carolina 27601
Dear Mr. Sullivan:
May 5, 2008
- 7 / (, 6
NCH

This document transmits the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's (Service) biological opinion (BO)
based on our review of the proposed replacement of Bridge No. 42 over Shocco Creek on SR
1613 located in Warren County, North Carolina (TIP No. B-4312), and its effects on the
federally endangered dwarf wedgemussel (Alasmidonta heterodon, DWM) in accordance with
section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543).
Your April 29, 2008 request for formal consultation was received on May 1, 2008.
This BO is based on information provided in the April 5, 2008 Biological Assessment (BA)
prepared by the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT), telephone
conversations, emails, field investigations and other sources of information. A complete
administrative record of this consultation is on file at this office.
The BA also addressed the effects of the project on the federally endangered Tar River
spinymussel (Elliptio steinstansana). The NCDOT has determined that the project may effect,
but is not likely to adversely affect the Tar River spinymussel. Based on available information,
the Service concurs with the determination that the project may affect, but is not likely to
adversely affect the Tar River spinymussel. This species will not be addressed in the following
BO.
CONSULTATION HISTORY
November 10, 2004 - NCDOT and a consultant conducted mussel survey within project area.
No DWM were observed.
March 29, 2006 - Service staff field inspected project site.
April 12, 2006 - NCDOT held a hydraulic design meeting where project design and conservation
measures to avoid/minimize effects to the DWM were discussed with the Service and the North
Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission.
April 26, 2006 - Service staff and NCDOT Natural Environment Unit (NEU) staff had
discussions regarding development of BA and further avoidance and minimization measures. A
tentative decision was made that no formal section 7 consultation was needed.
July 10, 2006 - Service staff and NCDOT NEU had additional discussions regarding
conservation measures and development of BA.
September 15, 2006 - NCDOT submited a biological evaluation and requested concurrence with
a biological determination of "may affect, not likely to adversely affect" for the DWM.
October 2, 2006 - The Service concured with the determination that the project may affect, but is
not likely to adversely affect the DWM.
April 23, 2007 - Service staff again field inspected the project site.
April 27, 2007 - NCDOT submitted a letter to the Service requesting an updated concurrence
based on NCDOT clarification of conservation measures agreed upon.
May 2, 2007 - The Service again concurred with the NCDOT determination that the project may
affect, but is not likely to adversely affect the DWM.
March 4, 2008 - NCDOT biologists performed another mussel survey and observe five DWM
approximately 300 meters downstream of the existing bridge.
March 5, 2008 - NCDOT notified the Service of the occurrence of DWM near the project area.
A decision was made to initiate formal section 7 consultation.
March 11, 2008 - Service staff met with NCDOT staff onsite to discuss additional conservation
measures, design changes, and the development of a BA.
May 1, 2008 - The Service received a letter from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA),
dated April 29, 2008, with the attached final BA, requesting formal consultation on the proposed
Bridge No. 42 replacement over Shocco Creek.
BIOLOGICAL OPINION
I. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION
The B-4312 project is located at the SR 1613 crossing of Shocco Creek in Warren County, North
Carolina. The existing three-span, 54 feet long bridge will be replaced with a single-span, 100
feet long concrete box beam bridge. The new bridge will be placed in the same horizontal
alignment, but the elevation of the structure will be raised. The new bridge will completely span
the channel of Shocco Creek and some existing causeway will be removed from the flood plain.
Approach road work will consist of raising the grade by placing fill, resurfacing and tying into
existing alignment for approximately 560 feet on the north and 430 feet on the south approach.
Traffic will be detoured onto other roads during construction.
An upstream beaver dam will be partially removed or lowered in order to reduce flow in an
unnamed tributary flowing from the impounded area. Fifty-five feet of this unnamed tributary,
which reenters Shocco Creek at the northwest bridge abutment, will be temporarily dewatered
using sand bags and flexible pipe. The project is currently scheduled to be let on July 17, 2008.
Action Area
The action area is defined as the SR 1613 project right-of-way (ROW) of B-4312, beginning
approximately 560 feet north of the bridge to approximately 430 feet south of the bridge, Shocco
Creek for a distance 400 meters downstream and 400 meters upstream of the bridge, and an
unnamed tributary upstream of the bridge. The action area consists mainly of a
maintained/disturbed roadside vegetative community, the SR 1613 pavement and bridge
structure, the Shocco Creek channel, and the channel of the unnamed tributary. The action area
occurs in Tar River Sub-basin 03-03-04, as assigned by the North Carolina Department of
Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality Section.
Within the action area, Shocco Creek is impounded by a beaver dam approximately 50-100
meters upstream of the bridge crossing. The dam has diverted flow and formed a tributary which
reenters Shocco Creek at the northwest bridge abutment. Most of the action area does not
provide suitable habitat for the DWM. From the existing bridge to a point approximately 250
meters downstream, sloughing clay banks have degraded habitat for mussels. At approximately
250 meters downstream of the bridge, habitat quality improves.
Conservation Measures
Conservation measures represent actions, pledged in the project description, that the action
agency will implement to minimize the effects of the proposed action and further the recovery of
the species under review. Such measures should be closely related to the action and should be
achievable within the authority of the action agency. Since conservation measures are part of the
proposed action, their implementation is required under the terms of the consultation. The
FHWA and NCDOT have proposed the following conservation measures.
• An offsite detour will be utilized for this project.
• No construction will be allowed into the creek channel
• Best Management Practices for Bridge Demolition and Removal will be implemented during
the removal of the existing bridge.
• No new bents will be placed in channel. New bents will be greater than 10 feet from normal
waterline.
• Deck drains will not be allowed to discharge directly into stream.
• Removal of the existing bents will take place when water flow level is at a minimum point
allowable within the project schedule and will be done in such a manner to minimize
disturbance to the stream bed. An attempt will be made to pull the timber piles out of the
substrate with a crane by pulling straight up. In case the piles break off, they will be cut off
at the level of the substrate.
• Special sediment control fence will be installed along the top of the steam bank. Silt fence
will be installed along the toe of slope parallel to the stream. Once the disturbed areas of the
project draining to the special sediment control fence have been stabilized, the special
sediment control fence and all built up sediment adjacent to the fence will be removed to
natural ground and stabilized with a native grass mix.
• All sedimentation and erosion control measures, throughout the project limits, must be
cleaned out when '/z full with sediment, to ensure proper function of the measures.
• Rip rap slope protection will be installed simultaneously with the embankment construction.
• Any temporary access road for conveying construction equipment in the floodplain/buffer
will be stabilized with rock or timber matting.
• Embankment construction and grading shall be managed in such a manner to prevent surface
runoff/drainage from discharging directly into the riparian buffer. Instead all interim
surfaces will be graded to drain to temporary erosion control devices. Temporary berms,
ditches, etc. will be incorporated as necessary to prevent temporary runoff from discharging
into the riparian buffer (As specified in NCDOT BMP Manual).
• Unnamed tributary to Shocco Creek will be dewatered during slope establishment to ensure
that fill material will not erode into the creek
• "Design Standards in Sensitive Watersheds" [15A NCAC 04B.0124 (b)-(e)] will apply.
• The areas adjacent to Shocco Creek will be identified as "Environmentally Sensitive Areas"
on the Sedimentation and Erosion Control Plans for this project. By definition, the
Environmentally Sensitive Areas will be identified as a 50-foot buffer zone on both sides of
the stream measured from top of stream bank. Within the identified 50-foot Environmentally
Sensitive Areas, the following shall apply:
o The Contractor may perform clearing operations, but not grubbing operations until
immediately prior to beginning grading operations.
o Once grading operations begin in identified Environmentally Sensitive Areas, work
shall progress in a continuous manner until complete.
o Erosion control devices shall be installed immediately following the clearing
operation.
o Seeding and mulching shall be performed on the areas disturbed by construction
immediately following final grade establishment.
o Seeding and mulching shall be done in stages on cut and fill slopes that are greater
than 20 feet in height measured along the slope, or greater than 2 acres in area,
whichever is less.
II. STATUS OF THE SPECIES
The DWM was federally listed as endangered on March 14, 1990. The DWM is found solely in
Atlantic Coast drainage streams and rivers of various sizes and moderate current. It ranges from
New Hampshire to North Carolina, in small creeks to deep rivers in stable habitat with substrates
ranging from mixed sand, pebble and gravel, to clay and silty sand. In the southern portion of its
range, it is often found buried under logs or root mats in shallow water (USFWS 1993); whereas
in the northern portion of its range, it may be found in firm substrates of mixed sand, gravel or
cobble, or embedded in clay banks in water depths of a few inches to greater than 20 feet (Fichtel
and Smith 1995; Gabriel 1995; Gabriel 1996; Nedeau and Werle 2003; Nedeau 2004a, 2004b,
2006a).
The DWM's reproductive cycle is typical of other freshwater mussels, requiring a host fish on
which its larvae (glochidia) parasitize and metamorphose into juvenile mussels. The DWM is
not a long-lived species as compared to other freshwater mussels; life expectancy is estimated at
10 to 12 years (Michaelson and Neves 1995).
Human activity has significantly degraded DWM habitat causing a general decline in populations
and a reduction in distribution of the species. Primary factors responsible for the decline of the
DWM include: 1) impoundment of river systems, 2) pollution, 3) alteration of riverbanks, and 4)
siltation (USFWS 1993).
Damming and channelization of rivers throughout the DWM's range have resulted in the
elimination or alteration of much of its formerly occupied habitat (Watters 2001). Domestic and
industrial pollution was the primary cause for mussel extirpation at many historic sites. Mussels
are known to be sensitive to a wide variety of heavy metals and pesticides, and to excessive
nutrients and chlorine (Havlik and Marking 1987). Mussel die-offs have been attributed to
chemical spills, agricultural waste run-off and low dissolved oxygen levels.
Because freshwater mussels are relatively sedentary and cannot move quickly or for long
distances, they cannot easily escape when silt is deposited over their habitat. Siltation has been
documented to be extremely detrimental to mussel populations by degrading substrate and water
quality, increasing exposure to other pollutants and by direct smothering of mussels (Ellis 1936,
Markings and Bills 1979). In Massachusetts, a bridge construction project decimated a
population of DWM by accelerated sedimentation and erosion (Smith 1981).
Most DWM populations are small and geographically isolated from each. This isolation restricts
exchange of genetic material among populations and reduces genetic variability within
populations (USFWS 1993).
At one time, DWM was recorded from 70 localities in 15 major drainages ranging from North
Carolina to New Brunswick, Canada. Since the 1993 Recovery Plan, a number of new locations
have been discovered and a number of known locations are possibly no longer extant. Based on
preliminary information, the dwarf wedgemussel is currently found in 15 major drainages (Table
1), comprising approximately 70 "sites" (one site may have multiple occurrences). At least 45 of
these sites are based on less than five individuals or solely on spent shells (USFWS 2007).
Table 1. Dwarf wedgemussel major drainages.
State Major Drainage County
NH Upper Connecticut River Coos, Grafton, Sullivan, Cheshire
VT Upper Connecticut River Essex, Orange, Windsor, Windham
MA Middle Connecticut River Hampshire, Hampden
CT Lower Connecticut River Hartford
NY Middle Delaware Orange, Sullivan, Delaware
NJ Middle Delaware Warren, Sussex
PA Upper Delaware River Wayne
MD Choptank River Queen Anne's, Caroline
MD Lower Potomac River St. Mary's, Charles
MD Upper Chesapeake Bay Queen Anne's
VA Middle Potomac River Stafford
VA York River Louisa, Spotsylvania
VA Chowan River Sussex, Nottoway, Lunenburg
NC Upper Tar River Granville, Vance, Franklin, Nash
NC Fishing Creek Warren, Franklin, Halifax
NC Contentnea Wilson, Nash
NC Upper Neuse Johnson, Wake, Orange
* The 15 major drainages identified in Table 1 do not necessarily correspond to the original drainages identified in
the 1993 Recovery Plan although there is considerable overlap.
The main stem of the Connecticut River in New Hampshire and Vermont is considered to have
the largest remaining DWM population, consisting of three distinct stretches of sporadically
occupied habitat segmented by hydroelectric dams. It is estimated that there are hundreds of
thousands of DWM scattered within an approximate 75-mile stretch of the Connecticut River.
The Ashuelot River in New Hampshire, the Farmington River in Connecticut, and the Neversink
River in New York harbor large populations, but these number in the thousands only. The
remaining populations from New Jersey south to North Carolina are estimated at a few
individuals to a few hundred individuals (USFWS 2007).
In summary, it appears that the populations in North Carolina, Virginia, and Maryland are
declining as evidenced by low densities, lack of reproduction, or inability to relocate any DWM
in follow-up surveys. Populations in New Hampshire, Massachusetts, and Connecticut appear to
be stable, while the status of populations in the Delaware River watershed affected by the recent
floods of 2005 is uncertain at this time (USFWS 2007).
III. ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE
Under section 7(a)(2) of the Act, when considering the "effects of the action" on federally listed
species, the Service is required to take into consideration the environmental baseline. The
environmental baseline includes past and ongoing natural factors and the past and present
impacts of all federal, state, or private actions and other activities in the action area (50 CFR
402.02), including federal actions in the area that have already undergone section 7 consultation,
and the impacts of state or private actions which are contemporaneous with the consultation in
process.
Status of the Species Within the Action Area
Records maintained by the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) show DWM to
be present in Shocco Creek at several locations along most of its length, and with recent
observations. A survey conducted within the action area on November 10, 2004 did not reveal
any specimens of DWM, and only three Elliptio complanata (the most common native mussel in
eastern North Carolina) were observed in 2.9 person hours of survey. However, five specimens
of DWM were observed during a March 4, 2008 survey. These specimens were observed
approximately 300 meters downstream of the bridge. Most of the habitat within the action area
can be defined as unsuitable for DWM due to the presence of a beaver dam upstream of the
bridge, and sloughing clay banks, erosion, and silt deposition for a distance of approximately 250
meters downstream of the bridge. Habitat for DWM greatly improves beyond 250 meters
downstream of the bridge.
Factors Affecting the Species Environment Within the Action Area
The existing bridge has associated causeways for the approach roads which encroach upon the
flood plain. This bottlenecking of the flood plain appears to have caused channel and bank
instability, thus degrading the habitat immediately downstream.
The upstream beaver dam has impounded the channel upon a portion of its floodplain. Flow has
been partially diverted and a new tributary has eroded parallel to Shocco Creek. This tributary
reconnects to Shocco Creek at the northwest bridge abutment. Erosion of the floodplain has
likely contributed to degrading the downstream habitat for DWM.
IV. EFFECTS OF THE ACTION
Under section 7(a)(2) of the Act, "effects of the action" refers to 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. The federal 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 BO. Should
the effects of the federal action result in a situation that would jeopardize the continued existence
of the species, we may propose reasonable and prudent alternatives that the federal agency can
take to avoid a violation of section 7(a)(2). The discussion that follows is our evaluation of the
anticipated direct and indirect effects of the proposed project. Indirect effects are those caused
by the proposed action that occur later in time but are still reasonably certain to occur (50 CFR
402.02).
Factors to be Considered
Most of the habitat within the action area is unsuitable for DWM. Suitable habitat is not present
until a point approximately 250 meters downstream of the bridge. Although downstream effects
are possible, all effects are likely to be sub-lethal and extremely difficult to quantify.
Analysis for Effects of the Action
Beneficial Effects: The removal of the existing bridge bents in the channel and the commitment
to completely span the channel will have beneficial effects. Given that in-channel bents can trap
debris during high flows and can change stream hydraulics in the immediate vicinity of the
structure (causing scour and deposition), the elimination of the in-channel bents are expected to
reduce the bridge's effects on stream-flow patterns. Also, given that large debris piles must
often be removed from in-channel bents (creating additional channel disturbance and
downstream sedimentation), the elimination of the in-channel bent will thus preclude future
disturbance for debris removal. With the lengthening of the bridge from 54 feet to 100 feet, the
stream will be able to access more of its floodplain, thus potentially reducing downstream bank
scouring and sedimentation.
Direct Effects: The stream channel will be completely spanned, thus greatly minimizing the
potential for direct effects. Due to the lack of suitable habitat directly beneath the bridge, it is
unlikely that any DWM would be directly killed by bridge demolition. The existing bents within
the channel, which consist of wooden piles driven directly into the substrate, will be pulled out or
cut off flush with the substrate. It is unlikely that any DWM mortality would occur from this
activity. A small amount of sediment could enter the water column and redeposit downstream,
but the amount would likely be sub-lethal to any DWM.
Sedimentation from construction activities along the stream bank and approach road appears to
have the greatest potential to directly affect DWM. A major storm event could erode soil from
within the disturbed construction area and wash it into the stream, thus smothering mussels,
interfering with respiration and feeding, and degrading habitat. To avoid or minimize the
potential for this effect, NCDOT has developed stringent erosion control measures and other
conservation measures (see "Conservation Measures" section of this BO) which greatly reduce
the likelihood of sediment entering the stream.
Indirect Effects: Since the project involves replacing an existing two-lane bridge with a new
two-lane bridge, it is unlikely that the project will promote any secondary development or land-
use changes. Also, since no new bents will be placed in the channel, no negative indirect effects
to stream flow are anticipated. Overall, the project is not likely to have any measurable indirect
effect on DWM or its habitat.
Interrelated and Interdependent Actions: None known.
V. CUMMULATIVE EFFECTS
Cumulative effects include the effects of future state, tribal, local or private actions that are
reasonably certain to occur in the action area considered in this BO. 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 ESA. At this time there are no known future
local, state or private actions, not requiring federal actions that are reasonably certain to occur
within the action area.
VI. CONCLUSION
After reviewing the current status of the DWM, the environmental baseline for the action area,
all effects of the proposed project, and the conservation measures identified in the BA, it is the
Service's biological opinion that the proposed replacement of Bridge No. 42 over Shocco Creek
on SR 1613 (TIP No. B-4312), as proposed, is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of
this species. No critical habitat has been designated for this species; therefore, none will be
affected.
This non jeopardy opinion is based, in part, on the following facts: Although suitable habitat for
DWM does occur within the action area, the suitable habitat is located a significant distance from
the actual project footprint. In-channel work will be minimal, thus limiting the potential for
negative effects. Direct mortality of DWM is unlikely. Several conservation measures will
reduce the potential for negative effects of construction activities along the stream bank. The
project has significant long-term beneficial effects.
INCIDENTAL TAKE STATEMENT
Section 9 of the ESA and federal regulations pursuant to Section 4(d) of the ESA prohibit the
taking of endangered and threatened species, respectively, without special exemption. Take is
defined as to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or attempt to
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. Harass 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 which include, but
are not limited to, breeding, feeding or sheltering. Incidental take is defined as take that is
incidental to, and not the purpose of, the carrying out of an otherwise lawful activity. Under the
terms of Section 7(b)(4) and Section 7(o)(2), taking that is incidental to and not intended as part
of the agency action is not considered to be prohibited taking under the ESA provided that such
taking is in compliance with the terms and conditions of this Incidental Take Statement.
The measures described below are non-discretionary, and must be undertaken by the FHWA so
that they may become binding conditions of any grant or permit issued to the NCDOT, as
appropriate, for the exemption in section 7(o)(2) to apply. The FHWA has a continuing duty to
regulate the activity covered by this Incidental Take Statement. If the FHWA (1) fails to assume
and implement the terms and conditions or (2) fails to require the NCDOT to adhere to the terms
and conditions of the Incidental Take Statement through enforceable terms that are added to the
permit or grant document, the protective coverage of section 7(o)(2) may lapse. To monitor the
impact of incidental take, the FHWA or the NCDOT must report the progress of the action and
its impact on the species to the Service as specified in the Incidental Take Statement [50 CFR
§402.14(I)(3)].
Amount or Extent of Take Anticipated
The Service anticipates that incidental take of the DWM may occur as a result of the bridge
replacement. During demolition of the existing bridge and construction of the new bridge,
DWM may be harmed by siltation or other water quality degradation. The effects are likely to be
sub-lethal.
Because there are no reliable data on the number of DWM buried in the substrate compared to
those on the surface (and even those on the surface are difficult to detect), it is not possible to
base the amount of incidental take on numbers of individual mussels. Additionally, incidental
take will likely be difficult to detect and monitor. Although spent shells may be collected,
attributing the cause of mortality may be difficult. Glochidia and juvenile mussels are also
extremely difficult to sample, therefore it is difficult to document take of either of these life
stages.
The level of incidental take of the DWM can be defined as all DWM that may be harmed,
harassed, or killed within the action area (400 meters downstream and 400 meters upstream of
the existing bridge). The number of individuals is expected to be very small. If incidental take is
exceeded, all work should stop, and the Service should be contacted immediately.
Effect of the Take
In the accompanying BO, the Service has determined that the level of anticipated take is not
likely to result in jeopardy to the DWM. Since critical habitat has not been designated for this
species, the proposed project will not result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical
habitat.
Reasonable and Prudent Measures
The Service believes the following reasonable and prudent measures are necessary and
appropriate to minimize take of the DWM. These nondiscretionary measures include, but are not
limited to, the terms and conditions outlined in this BO.
1. All Conservation Measures previously described in this BO must be implemented.
2. NCDOT will ensure that the contractor understands and follows the measures listed in the
"Conservation Measures" section of this BO.
Terms and Conditions
In order to be exempt from the prohibitions of section 9 of the ESA, the NCDOT must comply
with the following terms and conditions, which implement the reasonable and prudent measures
10
described previously and outline required reporting requirements. These terms and conditions are
nondiscretionary.
1. A Service biologist will be invited to the preconstruction meeting to discuss any questions
the contractor has regarding implementation of these projects.
2. NCDOT will ensure that a Division Environmental Officer maintains a level of oversight to
insure that all appropriate erosion control measures are fully implemented to avoid/minimize
sedimentation of the stream.
CONSERVATION RECOMMENDATIONS
Section 7(a)(1) of the Act directs federal agencies to use their authorities to further the purposes
of the ESA by carrying out conservation programs for the benefit of endangered and threatened
species. The following conservation recommendations are discretionary agency activities to
minimize or avoid adverse effects of a proposed action on listed species or critical habitat, to
help implement recovery plans, or to develop information.
1. Acquire riparian conservation buffers in the Tar-Pamlico Subbasin 03-03-04 to benefit DWM
either individually or in concert with other conservation programs.
2. Conduct periodic DWM status surveys in the Upper Tar Basin and submit results to the
Service.
3. Contribute funding and/or staff to any future DWM reintroduction or population
augmentation efforts conducted by others.
In order for the Service to be kept informed of actions minimizing or avoiding adverse effects or
benefiting listed species or their habitats, we request notification of the implementation of any
conservation recommendations.
REINITIATION/CLOSING STATEMENT
This concludes formal consultation on the action outlined in your April 29, 2008 request for
formal consultation. As provided in 50 CFR section 402.16, 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) new information reveals effects of the agency action
that may affect listed species or critical habitat in a manner or to an extent not considered in this
opinion; (2) the agency action is subsequently modified in a manner that causes an effect to the
listed species or critical habitat not considered in this opinion; or (3) a new species is listed or
critical habitat designated that may be affected by the action.
11
If you have any questions concerning this biological opinion, please contact Mr. Gary Jordan at
[phone] (Ext. 32). ^
L J
Pete Benj
Field Sup
cc: Ken Graham, USFWS, Atlanta, GA
Susi von Oettingen, USFWS, Concord, NH
Eric Alsmeyer, USACE, Raleigh, NC
Greg Thorpe, NCDOT, Raleigh, NC
Logan Williams, NCDOT, Raleigh, NC
Chris Murray, NCDOT, Durham, NC
David Harris, NCDOT, Raleigh, NC
Chris Militscher, USEPA, Raleigh, NC
Travis Wilson, NCWRC, Creedmoor, NC
Rob Ridings, NCDWQ, Raleigh, NC
Literature Cited
Ellis, M. M. 1936. Erosion silt as a factor in aquatic environments. Ecology 17:29-42.
Fichtel, C. and D. G. Smith. 1995. The Freshwater Mussels of Vermont. Nongame and Natural
Heritage Program, Vermont Fish and Wildlife Department. Technical Report 18. 53 pp.
Gabriel, M. 1995. Freshwater mussel distribution in the rivers and streams of Cheshire,
Hillsborough, Merrimack and Rockingham Counties, New Hampshire. Report submitted
to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, New England Field Office and New Hampshire Fish
and Game Department. 60 pp.
Gabriel, M. 1996. 1996 Monitoring of the dwarf wedgemussel (Alasmidonta heterodon) in the
Ashuelot and Connecticut Rivers, New Hampshire. Report submitted to The Nature
Conservancy, Eastern Regional Office, Boston, Massachusetts. 27 pp.
Havlik, M. E. and L.L. Marking. 1987. Effects of contaminants on Naiad Mollusks
(Unionidae): A Review. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service,
Resource Publication 164. Washington, D.C. 20 pp.
Marking, L.L. and T.D. Bills. 1979. Acute effects of silt and sand sedimentation on freshwater
mussels. Pages 204-211 in: J.R. Rasmussen, ed. Proceedings of the UMRCC
symposium on Upper Mississippi River bivalve mollusks. Upper Mississippi River
Conservation Committee, Rock Island, Illinois.
12
Michaelson, D. L. and R. J. Neves. 1995. Life History and habitat of the endangered dwarf
wedgemussel Alasmidonta heterodon (Bivalvia:Unionidae). Jour. N. Am. Benthol. Soc.
14:324-340.
Nedeau, E. J. and S. Werle. 2003. Freshwater Mussels of the Ashuelot River: Keene to
Hinsdale. Unpublished report submitted to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Concord,
New Hampshire. 50 pp.
Nedeau, E. J. 2004a. A Fourth Investigation of the Survival of Dwarf Wedgemussels
(Alasmidonta heterodon) for the Relocation Project on the Connecticut River, Route 2
Stabilization Project, Lunenburg, Vermont. Unpublished report submitted to the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Concord, New Hampshire. 7 pp.
Nedeau, E. J. 2004b. Quantitative survey of dwarf wedgemussel (Alasmidonta heterodon)
populations downstream of the Surry Mountain Flood Control Dam on the Ashuelot
River. Unpublished report submitted to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Concord,
New Hampshire. 12 pp.
Nedeau, E. 2006. Characterizing the Range and Habitat of Dwarf Wedgemussels in the "Middle
Macrosite" of the Upper Connecticut River. Unpublished report submitted to the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Concord, New Hampshire. 6 pp.
Smith, D. G. 1981. Selected freshwater invertebrates proposed for special concern status in
Massachusetts. Massachusetts Department of Environmental Quality Engineering.
Division of Water Pollution Control. Westborough, MA.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1993. Dwarf Wedge Mussel Alasmidonta heterodon Recovery
Plan. Hadley, Massachusetts. 52 pp.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2007. Dwarf Wedgemussel Alasmidonta heterodon 5-Year
Review: Summary and Evaluation. Concord, New Hampshire. 19 pp.
Watters, T. 2001. Freshwater mussels and water quality: A review of the effects of hydrologic
and instream habitat alterations. Proceedings of the First Freshwater Mollusk
Conservation Society Symposium, 1999. Ohio Biological Survey, Columbus, Ohio.
pages 261-274.
13