20181249 Ver 1_Attachment 11 - 2017-03 Yellow Lance Species Status Assessment Report_20181217

Species Status Assessment Report
for the
Yellow Lance (Elliptio lanceolata)
Version 1.2
„: � - �, r- • � � z�, ,. w -�.;,
�`; i► �, � � .t .:� `i��;r'�'�, ,�, � � _ _ : {► �-., r�* ` t +�`
�+ � y� p ,, � '�k ; � V f�' � �� ` '� �1; *� L
i„ w
��'�' , �Y �•:. "� 'i+�. �' �" � +!�y',* y �
' ��` � y� - ��� 5 `�� ;'�
a � ^�`
� �� �� ����
- '+ � - � � �� � .� �, 1� i : .
y � � w � ' `�R, +�
� .��` ` � _ � '� � `�-. , ; ��� � - . .
, 4-t.!w -� �"i�r'�,�' ' �t� �'`+,��� ' °-'�
� .��� '"'� * fyi t ,t �4,:.
:�;; . . �,, .,� . � � .
�+-� + � '',�'
, ,p • ,
�"' ` �+ ' , ' ',�
, y�• � " � .�.,�..� .
� � ��" - . . (� � ,r �
� `� e . � 1 a y .. � '� } k � ''�'�_
,t�} * � ,
~ � �}�y'�'.h�,- ��K`� • ,� 1 0 .�., ,! �' ;^ �`'+� '� �
� rl i'�•�' i y� k 4 �y'•.5. 'I f. " .h � �' +I-, �.�y.. y - , 1� _ ! _
F+��v 1 , jy'P•� � `� 'W � ' � Yi��s • �� ' �
y'�p'•#T,NT � � �6' ^a y� �' ��, • r '� ��. r ' �' �
6 1 r� � � 4
�� F.��.,� � �r. � .r� ���- tl� 6`�� �y , ° . ..
� `. � � � . . � •,a, � -� �.{4.. �: . � f.Jh� � t � � ry � � �
1w�T y ��� ��
�'4 � � � .v s• � iK���R�� r .i�. a J� Rr�; ! 1.. .
Yellow Lances from the Tar River, NC (credit: Sarah McRae, USFWS)
March 2017
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Region 4
Atlanta, GA
7".4
rir�a&w��.��� �•�
.�r'.E_'ii4 ff.R
�
- �
.,

This document was prepared by Sarah McRae (USFWS-Raleigh Field Office) with assistance
from Angela Romito (USFWS-Region 4), Erin Rivenbark (USFWS-Region 4), Susan Oetker
(USFWS-Region 2), Beth Forbus (USFWS-HQ), and the Yellow Lance SSA Technical Advisory
Team (Matthew Ashton-MD Department of Natural Resources, Tyler Black-NC Wildlife
Resources Commission, Arthur Bogan-NC Museum of Natural Sciences, Chris Eads-NC State
University, James McCann-MD Natural Heritage Program, Judith Ratcliffe-NC Natural
Heritage Program, and Brian Watson-VA Department of Game and Inland Fisheries).
I�aluable peer reviews of a draft of this document were provided by John Alderman (Alderman
Environmental Services, Inc.) and Michael Marshall (Texas A�rM University) with additional
review provided by Julie Slacum (USFWS-Chesapeake Bay Field Office), and Jennifer Stanhope
(USFWS-Virginia Field Office). We appreciate the time and effort of those dedicated to learning
and implementing the SSA Framework, which resulted in a more robust assessment and final
report.
Suggested reference:
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2017. Species status assessment report for the Yellow Lance
(Elliptio lanceolata). Version 1.2. March, 2017. Atlanta, GA.
Yellow Lance SSA Report Page ii March 2017

Summary of Version Updates
The changes from version 1.0 (December 2016) and 11 (February 2017) are minor and do not
change the SSA Analysis for Yellow Lance. The changes were:
1) Changed title of Figure 3-19 from Yellow Lance Current Representation to Yellow
Lance Current Condition.
2) Revised Section 4.5 to include additional relevant references; restructured to clarify
content.
3) Added new references from revised Section 4.5 to References.
4) Removed mention of likelihood of scenario occurrence at 10-year time step due to
confusion in initial expert application and subsequent interpretation in report.
The changes from version 1.1 (February 2017) and 1.2 (March 2017) were also minor and do not
change the SSA Analysis for Yellow Lance. The changes were:
1) Revised Section 4.6 to include additional relevant references; added information to
clarify content.
2) Added new references from revised Section 4.6 to References.
Yellow Lance SSA Report Page iii March 2017

Species Status Assessment Report For
Yellow Lance (Elliptio lanceolata)
Prepared by the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This species status assessment (SSA) reports the results of the comprehensive status review for
the Yellow Lance (Elliptio lanceolata (Lea 1828)), documenting the species' historical condition
and providing estimates of current and future condition under a range of different scenarios. The
Yellow Lance is a freshwater mussel species native to the Atlantic Slope drainages in Maryland,
Virginia, and North Carolina. The species occurs in streams and rivers, generally in clean,
coarse to medium sands and sometimes in gravel substrates.
The SSA process can be categorized into three sequential stages. During the first stage, we used
the conservation biology principles of resiliency, redundancy, and representation (together, the
3Rs) to evaluate individual mussel life history needs (Table ES-1). The next stage involved an
assessment of the historical and current condition of species' demographics and habitat
characteristics, including an explanation of how the species arrived at its current condition. The
final stage of the SSA involved making predictions about the species' responses to positive and
negative environmental and anthropogenic influences. This process used the best available
information to characterize viability as the ability of a species to sustain populations in the wild
over time.
To evaluate the current and future viability of the Yellow Lance, we assessed a range of
conditions to allow us to consider the species' resiliency, representation, and redundancy. For
the purposes of this assessment, populations were delineated using the eight river basins that
Yellow Lance mussels have historically occupied (i.e., Patuxent, Potomac, Rappahannock, York,
James, Chowan, Tar, and Neuse River basins). Because the river basin level is at a very coarse
scale, populations were further delineated using Management Units (MUs). MUs were defined
as one or more HUC 10 watersheds that species experts identified as most appropriate for
assessing population-level resiliency.
Resiliency, assessed at the population level, describes the ability of a population to withstand
stochastic disturbance events. A species needs multiple resilient populations distributed across
its range to persist into the future and avoid extinction. A number of factors, including (but not
limited to) water quality, water quantity, habitat connectivity, and instream substrate, may
influence whether Yellow Lance populations will occupy available habitat. As we considered
the future viability of the species, more populations with high resiliency distributed across the
known range of the species can be associated with higher species viability. As a species, the
Yellow Lance has extremely limited resiliency, with the majority of populations in low condition
or presumed extirpated condition.
Yellow Lance SSA Report Page iv March 2017

Redundancy describes the ability of the species to withstand catastrophic disturbance events; for
the Yellow Lance, we considered whether the distribution of resilient MUs within populations
was sufficient for minimizing the potential loss of the species from such an event. The Yellow
Lance historically ranged from the Patuxent River Basin in Maryland to the Neuse River Basin
in North Carolina, but both the number and distribution of populations occupying that historical
range has declined over the past 60 years.
Representation characterizes a species' adaptive potential by assessing geographic, genetic,
ecological, and niche variability. The Yellow Lance has exhibited historical variability in the
physiographic regions it inhabited, as well as the size and range of the river systems it inhabited.
The species has been documented from small streams to large rivers in multiple physiographic
provinces, from the foothills of the Appalachian Mountains through the Piedmont and into the
Coastal Plain. Much of the representation of the Yellow Lance has been lost; physiographic
variability has been lost with 70% loss in occupancy in the Coastal Plain and 56% loss in the
Piedmont, and although the species persists in the majority of historically known river basins,
those occurrences are represented by very few individuals in few locations.
Together, the 3Rs comprise the key characteristics that contribute to a species' ability to sustain
populations in the wild over time (i.e., viability). Using the principles of resiliency, redundancy,
and representation, we characterized both the species' current viability and forecasted its future
viability over a range of plausible future scenarios. To this end, we ranked the condition of each
population by assessing the relative condition of occupied watersheds using the best available
scientific information.
The analysis of species' current condition revealed that Yellow Lance abundance and
distribution has declined, with the species currently occupying approximately 43% of its
historical range. Most of the remaining populations are small and fragmented, only occupying a
fraction of reaches that were historically occupied. This decrease in abundance and distribution
has resulted in largely isolated contemporary populations. Evidence suggests that the range
reduction of the species corresponds to habitat degradation resulting from the cumulative impacts
of land use change and associated watershed-level effects on water quality, water quantity,
habitat connectivity, and instream habitat quality. The effects of climate change (e.g., increasing
temperatures, droughts) have begun to be realized in the current Yellow Lance range and may
have contributed to habitat degradation.
To assess the future condition of the Yellow Lance, a variety of stressors, including pollution,
reduced stream flow, and continued habitat fragmentation, and their (potential) effects on
population resiliency were considered. Populations with low resiliency are considered to be
more vulnerable to extirpation, which, in turn, would decrease species' level representation and
redundancy. To help address uncertainty associated with the degree and extent of potential
future stressors and their impacts on species' requisites, the 3Rs were assessed using four
plausible future scenarios (Table ES-2). These scenarios were based, in part, on the results of
urbanization (Terando et al. 2014) and climate models (International Panel on Climate Change
2013) that predict changes in habitat used by the Yellow Lance.
Yellow Lance SSA Report Page v March 2017

An important assumption of the predictive analysis was that future population resiliency is
largely dependent on water quality, water flow, and riparian and instream habitat conditions.
Our assessment predicted that all currently extant Yellow Lance populations would experience
negative changes to these important habitat requisites; predicted viability varied among scenarios
and is summarized below, and in Table ES-3 and Figure ES-1.
Given Scenario 1, the "Status Quo" option, a substantial loss of resiliency, representation, and
redundancy is expected. Under this scenario, we predicted that no MUs would remain in high
condition, two in moderate condition, two in low condition, and the remaining MUs would be
likely extirpated. Redundancy would be reduced with likely extirpation in eight of twelve
currently extant MUs; only the Tar Population would retain more than one moderately resilient
MU. Representation would be reduced, with only two (25%) of the former river basins
occupied, and with reduced variability in the Mountains, Piedmont, and Coastal Plain.
Given Scenario 2, the "Pessimistic" option, we predicted a near complete loss of resiliency,
representation, and redundancy. Redundancy would be reduced to two populations (i.e., likely
extirpation of six populations), and the resiliency of those populations is expected to be very low.
Nearly all MUs were predicted to be extirpated, and, of the remaining three MUs, all would be in
low condition. All three measures of representation are predicted to decline under this scenario,
leaving remaining Yellow Lance populations underrepresented in River Basin, Latitudinal, and
Physiographic variability. Nearly all Piedmont representation is predicted to be lost.
Given Scenario 3, the "Optimistic" option, we predicted slightly higher levels of resiliency,
representation, and redundancy than was estimated for current condition. Two MUs are
predicted to be in high condition, two in moderate condition, five in low condition, and the three
currently presumed extirpated MUs would remain extirpated. Despite predictions of population
persistence for all populations, only the Tar Population is expected to retain a high level of
resiliency. Existing levels of representation are predicted to remain unchanged under this
scenario.
Given Scenario 4, the "Opportunistic" option, we predicted reduced levels of resiliency,
representation, and redundancy. No MUs would be in high condition, two would be in moderate
condition, four in low condition, and six would be likely extirpated. Redundancy would be
reduced by half with six of twelve MUs predicted to be extirpated. Representation is predicted
to be reduced with only four (50%) of the former eight river basins occupied, and with reduced
variability in the Mountains, Piedmont, and Coastal Plain.
Yellow Lance SSA Report Page vi March 2017

Table ES-1. Summa results of the Yellow Lance S ecies Status Assessment.
3Rs Needs Current Condition Future Condition (Viability)
Projections based on future scenarios in 50 years:
• Status Quo: Threats continue on current trajectory and species
maintains current level of response. Six populations (8 MUs) are
• Excellent water quality '�(of 8) populations known to be expected to be extirpated; remaining two populations have reduced
• Flowing river ecosystems
exta nt res i I i e ncy
Resiliency • Suitable substrate: clean, ' Currently extirpated from 3 of • Pessimistic: higher level of threats and reduced species response. Six
(Large populations coarse sands and gravels the 12 Management Units populations (9 MUs) are expected to be extirpated; remaining two have
able to withstand • Multiple occupied ' Population status: considerable reduced resiliency
1 moderate resiliency • Optimistic: minimal level of threats and optimistic species response.
stochastic events) management units per
population
4 low resiliency One population remains likely extirpated; all others maintain (and one
2 very low resiliency improves) existing resiliency condition
• Opportunistic: moderate level of threats and selective species
response. Four populations are expected to be extirpated; remaining
four have reduced resiliency
Compared to historical Projections based on future scenarios in 50 years:
distribution:
• Status Quo: 75% of river basin variability lost; considerable losses in
• 87% of river basin variability Physiographic variability in Mountains (75%), Piedmont (84%), and
• Genetic variation is Coastal Plain (80%)
retained, however most remaining
assumed to exist between • Pessimistic: 75% river basin variability lost; substantial losses in
Representation populations are in low condition
river basin populations physiographic variability in Mountains (75%), Piedmont (91%), and
(genetic and • Low genetic representation (due
• Ecological variation exists Coastal Plain (80%)
ecological diversity to very low abundances) in
between small streams and • Optimistic: 13% of river basin variability lost; maintain moderate
to maintain remaining populations
larger rivers, and between physiographic variability in Mountains (50%) and Piedmont (44%),
adaptive potential) • Limited physiographic variability
physiographic provinces limited in the Coastal Plain (30%)
in Mountains, Piedmont, and
Coastal Plain • Opportunistic: 50% of river basin variability lost; moderate loss in
physiographic variability in Mountains (50%), considerable losses in the
Piedmont (69%) and Coastal Plain (80%)
• One of eight populations is Projections based on future scenarios in 50 years:
presumed extirpated • Status Quo: two populations expected to persist; 8 of 12 MUs likely
Redundancy • Six of the seven extant extirpated
(number and populations have only one MU • Pessimistic: two populations expected to persist; 9 of 12 MUs likely
distribution of • Multiple resilient MUs currently occupied extirpated
populations to within populations in each • Tar River Population has three . Optimistic: seven populations expected to persist; 3 of 12 MUs likely
withstand area of representation MUs currently occupied extirpated
catastrophic • Overall 57% reduction in • Opportunistic: four populations expected to persist; 6 of 12 MUs likely
events) redundancy across range (20 out extirpated
of 46 HUC10s currently occupied)
Yellow Lance SSA Report Page vii March 2017

Table ES-2. Future scenario and condition category descriptions for each of four scenarios used to predict Yellow Lance
viability.
Scenario Name
1) Status Quo Scenario
2) Pessimistic Scenario
3) Optimistic Scenario
4) Opportunistic Scenario
Climate Future
Current Climate effects
continue on trend into
the future, resulting in
increased heat, drought,
storms and flooding
Moderate to Worse
Climate Future (RCP8.51)-
exacerbated effects of
climate change
experienced related to
heat, drought, storms anc
flooding
Moderate to Improved
Climate Future (trending
towards RCP 2.62)
resulting in minimal
effects of heat, drought,
storms and flooding
Moderate Climate Future
(RCP4.5/63) - some
climate change effects
experienced; some areas
impacted more than
others by heat, drought,
storms and flooding
Urbanization
j Urbanization
� continues on trend
� with current levels
I
Species Condition
�urrent level of species response ;
to impacts on landscape; current �
levels of propagation & �
augmentation and/or
translocation capacity
Future Condition Category Descriptions
Water Quality Condition
Current level of regulation and
oversight, including limited
protedive WQsstandards
requirements and utilization of
basic technologies for effluent
treatment
y WaterQuantityCondition
Current level of regulation and
oversight, including sustained
IBTsb and irrigation withdrawals;
current flow conditions
� Species response to synergistic �
� � Decliningwaterquality
� impacts on landscape result in ,
I Urbanization rates at resulting from i ncreased
i4 significant declines coupled with .,
high end of BAU impacts, limited regulation and
I limited propagation capacity
� model (�200'�) restrictions, and overall
� and/orlimited abilityto
� reduced protectians
� augment/reintroduce propagules'
Urbanization rates Optimisticspecies response to
realized at lower impads; targeted propagation
levels than BAU and/or restoration efforts
model predicts utilizing existing resources and
(<100% ) capacity
Degraded flow conditions
resultingfrom climate change
effects, increased withdrewals
and IBTs, limited regulation, and
overell reduced protections
� Slightly increased impacts
tempered by utilizing improved
technologies and implementing
, protection strategies
Selective improved species
Moderate BAU response to impacts as a result of
urbanization rates targeted propagation and/or �
(^'100%) realized restoration efforts utilizing �
current resources and capacity �
'Representative concentration pathway 8.5
Z Representative concentration pathway 2.6
3 Representative concentration pathway 4.5/6
4Business as usual
SWater quality
6Interbasin transfer
Moderate increase in WQ
impacts resulting from
continued levels of regulation,
protection, and technology
Improved flow conditions
through increased oversight and
implementation of flow
improvement strategies
Ta rgeted strategi es to i m prove
flow conditions in priority areas
Habitat Condition
Current level of regulation,
barrier improvement/removal
projects, and riparian buffer
protedions
Degraded instream and riparian
habitat conditions from
increased impacts, limited
regulation, fewer barrier
improvement/removal projects,
and overall reduced riparian
buffer protections
Existing resources targeted to
highest priority barrier
removals; riparian buffer
protections remain intact;
targeted riparian connectivity
projects; regulatory mechanisms
remain the same
Targeted increase in riparian
connectivity and protection of
instream habitat in priority areas
through targeted conservation
efforts
Yellow Lance SSA Report Page viii March 2017

Table ES-3. Current Condition and predicted Yellow Lance population conditions under each of four plausible scenarios.
Predictions were made using a 50-year time interval.
Future Scenarios of Population Conditions
�
Populations: Management Units
Patuxent Very Low Likely Extirpated Likely Extirpated Low Likely Extirpated
Potomat Presumed Extirpated Likely Extirpated Likely Extirpated Likely Extirpated Likely Extirpated
Rappahannock Low Likely Extirpated Likely Extirpated Moderate Low
York Very Low Likely Extirpated Likely Extirpated Low Likely Extirpated
James: lohns Creek Low Low Low Low Low
Chowan: Nottoway Low Likely Extirpated Likely Extirpated Low Low
Chowan: Meherrin Presumed Extirpated Likely Extirpated Likely Extirpated Likely Extirpated Likely Extirpated
Tar: Upper/Middle Tar High Low Likely Extirpated Moderate Low
Tar: LowerTar Presumed Extirpated Likely Extirpated Likely Extirpated Likely Extirpated Likely Extirpated
Tar: Fishing Ck Moderate Moderate Low High Moderate
Tar: Sandy-Swift High Moderate Low High Moderate
Neuse: Middle Neuse Low Likely Extirpated Likely Extirpated Low Likely Extirpated
Yellow Lance SSA Report Page ix March 2017

�VB! $891RS:
MiJ Resiliency: Papufation Resiliency_ p�
- H�9h Mvderata � States �i ��
MotleraEa Physiogrspuic Prrninrss: w�oww..we.
- 49� �, LOW MOIJNTAINS . ���
� �O1V PIE4I.IDNT �
� UCry L7W . .. R
Likely Exh�pe900 d}ASTAL PLAIH ,�,�, �
� Likaly ExlirQsted [�
Figure ES-1 Maps of historical range, current condition, and predicted Yellow Lance population conditions under each
scenario (see Table ES-3)
Yellow Lance SSA Report Page x March 2017

Current Viability Summary
The historical range of the Yellow Lance included streams and rivers in the Atlantic Slope
drainages from the Patuxent River Basin south to the Neuse River Basin, with the documented
historical distribution in 12 MUs within eight former populations. The Yellow Lance is
presumed extirpated from 25% (3/12) of the historically occupied MUs. Of the remaining nine
occupied MUs, 17% are estimated to have high resiliency, 8% moderate resiliency, and 67% low
resiliency. Scaling up from the MU to the population level, one of eight former populations (the
Tar Population) is estimated to have moderate resiliency, while the remaining six extant
populations (Patuxent, Rappahannock, York, James, Chowan, and Neuse populations) are
characterized by low resiliency. The Potomac Population is presumed to be extirpated thus
eliminating 13% of the species' historical range. 86% of streams that remain part of the current
species' range are estimated to be in low or very low condition, potentially putting the Yellow
Lance at risk of extirpation. Once known to occupy streams in three physiographic regions, the
species has also lost substantial physiographic representation. An estimated 50% loss has
occurred in Mountain watersheds, an estimated 56% loss has occurred in Piedmont watersheds,
and an estimated 70% loss has occurred in Coastal Plain watersheds.
Overall Summary
Estimates of current and future resiliency for Yellow Lance are low, as are estimates for
representation and redundancy. The Yellow Lance faces a variety of threats from declines in
water quality, loss of stream flow, riparian and instream habitat fragmentation, and deterioration
of instream habitats. These threats, which are expected to be exacerbated by urbanization and
climate change, were important factors in our assessment of the future viability of the Yellow
Lance. Given current and future decreases in resiliency, populations become more vulnerable to
extirpation from stochastic events, in turn, resulting in concurrent losses in representation and
redundancy. Predictions of Yellow Lance habitat conditions and population factors suggest
possible extirpation in up to five of seven currently extant populations. The two populations
predicted to remain extant at the end of the predictive time horizon are expected to be
characterized by low occupancy and abundance.
Yellow Lance SSA Report Page xi March 2017

Table of Contents
EXECUTIVESUMMARY ......................................................................................................................... iv
CHAPTER 1 - INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................ 3
CHAPTER 2- INDIVIDUAL NEEDS: LIFE HISTORY AND BIOLOGY ............................................... 5
2.1 Taxonomy .......................................................................................................................................... 5
2.2 Description ......................................................................................................................................... 7
2.3 Reproduction, including Fish Host Interaction .................................................................................. 7
2.4 Diet .................................................................................................................................................... 8
2.5 Age, Growth, Population Size Structure, and Fecundity ................................................................... 8
2.6 Habitat ................................................................................................................................................ 9
CHAPTER 3— POPULATION AND SPECIES NEEDS AND CURRENT CONDITION ...................... 11
3.1 Historical Range and Distribution ...................................................................................................11
3.2 Current Range and Distribution ....................................................................................................... 11
3.2.1 Patuxent River Population .......................................................................................................13
3.2.2 Potomac River Population .......................................................................................................14
3.2.3 Rappahannock River Population .............................................................................................15
3.2.4 York River Population ............................................................................................................. 16
3.2.5 James River Population ...........................................................................................................17
3.2.6 Chowan River Population ........................................................................................................ 18
3.2.7 Tar River Population ...............................................................................................................19
3.2.8 Neuse River Population ........................................................................................................... 20
3.3 Needs of the Yellow Lance .............................................................................................................. 21
3.3.1 Yellow Lance MU Resiliency ................................................................................................. 21
3.3.2 Species Representation ............................................................................................................29
3.3.3 Species Redundancy ................................................................................................................ 31
3.4 Current Conditions ........................................................................................................................... 33
3.4.1 Current MU/Population Resiliency ......................................................................................... 33
3.4.2 Current Species Representation ............................................................................................... 37
3.4.3 Current Species Redundancy ................................................................................................... 37
CHAPTER 4- FACTORS INFLUENCING VIABILITY ......................................................................... 39
4.1 Development ....................................................................................................................................40
4.2 Regulatory Mechanisms .................................................................................................................. 43
4.3 Climate Change ............................................................................................................................... 46
4.4 Agricultural Practices ...................................................................................................................... 47
4.5 Forest Conversion and Management ............................................................................................... 48
4.6 Invasive Species ...............................................................................................................................51
Yellow Lance SSA Report Page 1 March 2017

4.7 Dams and Barriers ........................................................................................................................... 52
4.8 Conservation Management .............................................................................................................. 53
4.9 Summary ..........................................................................................................................................54
CHAPTER 5— FUTURE CONDITIONS .................................................................................................. 55
5.1 Future Scenario Considerations ....................................................................................................... 55
5.1.1 The Scenarios .......................................................................................................................... 59
5.2 Scenario 1— Status Quo ................................................................................................................... 62
5.2.1 Resiliency ................................................................................................................................ 63
5.2.2 Representation ......................................................................................................................... 64
5.2.3 Redundancy ............................................................................................................................. 65
5.3 Scenario 2— Pessimistic .................................................................................................................. 65
5.3.1 Resiliency ................................................................................................................................ 66
5.3.2 Representation ......................................................................................................................... 67
5.3.3 Redundancy ............................................................................................................................. 67
5.4 Scenario 3- Optimistic .................................................................................................................... 68
5.4.1 Resiliency ................................................................................................................................ 69
5.4.2 Representation ......................................................................................................................... 69
5.4.3 Redundancy ............................................................................................................................. 70
5.5 Scenario 4— Opportunistic .............................................................................................................. 70
5.5.1 Resiliency ................................................................................................................................ 71
5.5.2 Representation ......................................................................................................................... 72
5.5.3 Redundancy ............................................................................................................................. 72
5.6 Status Assessment Summary ........................................................................................................... 73
References ................................................................................................................................................... 77
APPENDIX A- US Museum of Natural History — Lance Specimen Photos ......................................... 89
APPENDIX B— Yellow Lance Distribution Information ...................................................................... 97
APPENDIX C— VA and NC Yellow Lance "Heat Maps" ...................................................................138
APPENDIX D— Data for Population Factors & Habitat Elements ......................................................140
Yellow Lance SSA Report Page 2 March 2017

CHAPTER 1 -1NTRODUCTION
The Yellow Lance is a freshwater mussel found in eight Atlantic Slope drainages from the upper
Chesapeake River Basin in Maryland to the Neuse River Basin in North Carolina. The species
was petitioned for federal listing under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act),
as a part of the 2010 Petition to List 404 Aquatic, Riparian and Wetland Species from the
Southeastern United States by the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD 2010, p.395).
The Species Status Assessment (SSA) framework (USFWS 2016a, entire) is intended to be an
in-depth review of the species' biology and threats, an evaluation of its biological status, and an
assessment of the resources and conditions needed to maintain long-term viability. The intent is
for the SSA Report to be easily updated as new information becomes available and to support all
functions of the Endangered Species Program from Candidate Assessment to Listing to
Consultations to Recovery. As such, the SSA Report will be a living document that may be used
to inform Endangered Species Act decision making, such as listing, recovery, Section 7, Section
10, and reclassification decisions (the former four decision types are only relevant should the
species warrant listing under the Act).
Because the Yellow Lance SSA has been prepared at the Candidate Assessment phase, it is
intended to provide the biological support for the decision on whether to propose to list the
species as threatened or endangered and, if so, to determine whether it is prudent to designate
critical habitat in certain areas. Importantly, the SSA Report is not a decisional document by the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, rather it provides a review of available information strictly
related to the biological status of the Yellow Lance. The listing decision will be made by the
Service after reviewing this document and all relevant laws, regulations, and policies, and the
results of a proposed decision will be announced in the Federal Register, with appropriate
opportunities for public input.
For the purpose of this assessment, we define viability as the ability of the species to sustain
resilient populations in natural stream ecosystems for at least 50 years. Using the SSA
framework (Figure 1.1), we consider what the species needs to maintain viability by
characterizing the status of the species in terms of its redundancy,
representation, and resiliency (USFWS 2016a, entire; Wolf et al.
2015, entire).
• Resiliency is assessed at the level of populations and reflects a
species' ability to withstand stochastic events (arising from
random factors). Demographic measures that reflect
population health, such as fecundity, survival, and population
size, are the metrics used to evaluate resiliency. Resilient
populations are better able to withstand disturbances such as
random fluctuations in birth rates (demographic stochasticity),
variations in rainfall (environmental stochasticity), and the
effects of anthropogenic activities.
S�ECMES NEE�S
C y f�lirt
* �ww+h�qr or
� C�ndldor� al'
�4 ���
S�PECi�S ��fTI�ON
Fa�Gxf
� �i� �
� ��x�hlor, ar
�as4 �I..e•
�PE� E� 1�IABILITY
Figure 1-1 Species Status
Assessment Framework
Yellow Lance SSA Report Page 3 March 2017

• Representation is assessed at the species' level and characterizes the ability of a species to
adapt to changing environmental conditions. Metrics that speak to a species' adaptive
potential, such as genetic and ecological variability, can be used to assess representation.
Representation is directly correlated to a species' ability to adapt to changes (natural or
human-caused) in its environment.
• Redundancy is also assessed at the level of the species and reflects a species' ability to
withstand catastrophic events (such as a rare destructive natural event or episode involving
many populations). Redundancy is about spreading the risk of such an event across multiple,
resilient populations. As such, redundancy can be measured by the number and distribution
of resilient populations across the range of the species.
To evaluate the current and future viability of the Yellow Lance, we assessed a range of
conditions to characterize the species' redundancy, representation, and resiliency (together, the
3Rs). This SSA Report provides a thorough account of biology and natural history and assesses
the risk of threats and limiting factors affecting the future viability of the species.
This SSA Report includes: (1) a description of Yellow Lance resource needs at both individual
and population levels (Chapter 2); (2) a characterization of the historic and current distribution of
populations across the species' range (Chapter 3); (3) an assessment of the factors that
contributed to the current and future status of the species and the degree to which various factors
influenced viability (Chapter 4); and (4) a synopsis of the factors characterized in earlier chapters
as a means of examining the future biological status of the species (Chapter 5). This document is
a compilation of the best available scientific information (and associated uncertainties regarding
that information) used to assess the viability of the Yellow Lance.
Yellow Lance SSA Report Page 4 March 2017

CHAPTER 2 -1NDIVIDUAL NEEDS:
LIFE HISTORY AND BIOLOGY
In this section, we provide basic biological information about the Yellow Lance, including its
physical environment, taxonomic history and relationships, morphological description, and
reproductive and other life history traits. We then outline the resource needs of individuals and
populations. Here we report those aspects of the life histories that are important to our analyses.
For further information about the Yellow Lance refer to Alderman (2003) and Bogan et al.
(2009).
2.1 Taxonomy
The Yellow Lance (Elliptio lanceolata) was originally described as Unio lanceolatus in 1828 by
Isaac Lea (Lea 1828, p.266; Figure 2-1). T.A. Conrad confirmed Lea's description in 1836
(Conrad 1836, pp. 32-33).
Taxonomic experts agree that the taxon
defined by Bogan et al. (2009) as
Elliptio lanceolata (Turgeon et al. 1998;
Integrated Taxonomic Information
System 2016) has a past occupied range
that includes the Patuxent River Basin
in Maryland, possibly the Potomac
River Basin in Maryland and Virginia,
the Rappahannock, York, James, and
Chowan River basins in Virginia, and
the Tar and Neuse River basins in North
Carolina.
The currently accepted classification is
(Integrated Taxonomic Information
System 2016):
Phylum: Mollusca
Class: Bivalvia
Order: Unionoida
�. ��. �r�t. �i�119. ��"r�i� � ��f'�.� {�U��.
� ��uia....�a•+�* ���-_� , _ �
� _ -�
�
� � �
� � �•
� �
� ------�-------..�_----- �
^ � �� � �`��'-�� � �.
J� � L�'A�._ l\_ � ,. � � C7
.-� �- �-� * � �'+wr-.�_ `�'� �,i.
�_��_�- �
_, . _ j F -�
g� ,� ��
, . 4 = _,_,
Figure 2-1 Type specimen of Elliptio lanceolata, from National
Museum of Natural History (USNM #85905) (credit: Graf and
Cummings 2015).
Family: Unionidae
Subfamily: Ambleminae
Genus: Elliptio
Species: Elliptio lanceolata
Long recognized as a"lanceolate Elliptio" species-complex, Johnson (1970) listed 25 species in
the synonymy of Elliptio lanceolata (p.333-338). Britton and Fuller (1979) noted that the range
of Elliptio lanceolata extended from the Escambia and Apalachicola River systems in Alabama
and Florida, and from the Satilla River system in Georgia to the Susquehanna River system in
Pennsylvania, however, the species is no longer recognized from most of those drainages (Bogan
et al. 2009, p.5; NatureServe 2015, p.l).
Yellow Lance SSA Report Page 5 March 2017

In 1984, Wolfe (referenced in Bogan et al. 2009, p.5) questioned the lumping of the series of
described taxa under Yellow Lance by Johnson (1970, pp.333-338), basing his questions on shell
morphology and preliminary electrophoretic work of Davis et al. in 1981 (referenced in Bogan et
al. 2009, p.5). Bogan et al. (2009, p.9) identified Elliptio lanceolata as originally described by
Lea as a distinct species, but its placement in the genus Elliptio remains questionable. As
described in Bogan et al. (2009, p.9) and through recent personal communication with A.Bogan
(conference call with S.McRae (USFWS) on 2/2/2016), the true form of Yellow Lance is known
from seven river basins, from Patuxent River Basin, the lower Chesapeake Bay basins
(Rappahannock, York, James), the Chowan River Basin, and the Tar and Neuse River basins in
North Carolina. Specimens from the Roanoke and Potomac River basins were not available, and
therefore not included in their analysis.
+�ru� �a„ -`*
��� fL1ti�,, �r���!
.,hw �,� w,,,.����,
�
It is unclear whether or not the Yellow Lance existed/exists in the Potomac River Basin. The
Smithsonian's National Museum of Natural History has several specimens for Unio lanceolatus
from the Potomac River near Washington DC and the Great Falls area (see Appendix A). A
2004 survey of the Potomac River below the fall line (Villela 2006) documented two live Elliptio
lanceolata, however no photos nor specimens are available for review. Expert review of
specimens acknowledges the potential for Yellow Lance to have historically occurred in the
Potomac Basin (A.Bogan (NC Museum of Natural History), M.Ashton (MD Department of
Natural Resources), J.McCann (MD Natural Heritage Program), B.Watson (VA Department of
Game and Inland Fisheries, pers. comm. via conference call on 2/2/2016; Appendix A).
The National Museum of Natural History has several lots of Yellow Lance (Elliptio lanceolatus)
specimens from the mainstem Patuxent River in Maryland (USNM 499532, USNM 499533,
USNM 252833, Appendix A). A recent discovery in H.D. Athearn's 1952 collection of Elliptio
lanceolatus specimens (NCSM #54006), in conjunction with recent (2015&2016) surveys by the
Montgomery County Department of Environmental Protection and Maryland Department of
Natural Resources (M.Ashton (MD DNR), email to S.McRae (USFWS) on 12/1/2016) confirm
Yellow Lance SSA Report Page 6 March 2017
Figure 2-2 Yellow Lance specimen from Hawlings River
(1952), NCMNS Athearn collection (credit: A.Bogan)
Figure 2-3 Yellow Lance from Hawlings River, collected on
6/17/2015 (credit: K.Mack)

that Yellow Lance exists in the Hawlings River of the Patuxent River basin in Maryland (Figures
2-2 and 2-3).
2.2 Description
The Yellow Lance is a bright yellow elongate mussel with a shell over twice as long as tall,
usually not more than 86mm (3.4 inches) in length. Its periostracum usually has a waxy
appearance with brownish growth rests and rarely ever has rays (Alderman 2003, p.6). The
interior nacre is usually an iridescent blue color, and usually has white or salmon color on the
anterior half of the shell (Lea 1832, p.8). The posterior ridge is distinctly rounded and curves
dorsally toward the posterior end (Lea 1828, p.266). The lateral teeth are long, with two in the
left valve and one in the right valve; each valve has two psuedocardinal teeth, with the posterior
one on the left valve and the anterior one on the right valve being vestigial (Lea 1832, p.8).
2.3 Reproduction, including Fish Host Interaction
As is the case with most freshwater mussels, the Yellow Lance has a unique life cycle that relies
on fish hosts for successful reproduction (Figure 2-4):
���� � ��
� � �
� 5 .��- Fish l�ost r � �
.i'�7 :1 �� � �
a � � �4 � �� �
Cy�ock�id� duvcnilc
�� mas�cls
� ,.
Adulc '
mus�el �, �
Figure 2-4 Generic illustration of the freshwater mussel reproductive cycle (FMCS 2015)
The Yellow Lance is a short-term brooder, spawning in the
spring (late April/early May in North Carolina) with release
of "stringy clumps" of glochidia in mucous in the late spring
to early summer (C.Eads (NC State University), email to
S.McRae (USFWS) on 10/28/2016). The glochidia tend to
clump in balls or string in a lab setting (Figure 2-5), but are
thought to be more wispy in the wild (C.Eads (NC State
University), email to S.McRae (USFWS) on 1/13/2016).
Yellow Lance glochidia are hookless (Natureserve 2015,
p.6; Figure 2-6).
The reproductive strategy used by the Yellow Lance is not
known, however it likely passively "targets" drift-feeding
minnow species by releasing pelagic clumps of glochidia.
Following release from the female mussel, the clumps of
glochidia float and occupy the middle water column where
Yellow Lance SSA Report Page 7 March 2017
Figure 2-5 Yellow Lance glochidia in a
mucous string/net (credit: C.Eads)

the stringy mucous clumps could be targeted
by sight-feeding minnows and upon
consumption, the glochidia to attach to gills
and scales of the host minnows (C.Eads
(NCSU) email to S.McRae (USFWS) on
10/28/2016).
Recent lab studies evaluated 26 species of
potential host fish and confirmed that White
Shiners (Luxilus albeolus) and Pinewoods
Shiners (Lythrurus matuntinus) are the most
efficient host in a lab setting (Eads and
Levine 2009, p.2). Another study found that
Yellow Lance could be successfully
propagated using in vitro culture techniques
(Levine 2012, p.38).
2.4 Diet
Like all mussels, the Yellow Lance is an omnivore that primarily filter feeds on a wide variety of
microscopic particulate matter suspended in the water column, including phytoplankton,
zooplankton, bacteria, detritus, and dissolved organic matter (Haag 2012, p.26). Juveniles likely
pedal feed in the sediment, whereas adults filter feed from the water column. A recent nutrition
study found that probiotic bacteria (Bacillus subtilis) enhanced early juvenile growth and
survival (Eads and Levine 2011, p.3).
2.5 Age, Growth, Population Size Structure, and Fecundity
Very little information is known about the demographics of Yellow Lance populations. As seen
in many freshwater mussels, the Yellow Lance's growth is rapid during the first few years of life
but slows with increasing age (C.Eads (NC State University), email to S.McRae (USFWS) on
11/1/2016), as resources are likely diverted to reproduction. In the lab, age to sexual maturity is
approximately 3 years, and captive individuals produce two to three broods per year (C.Eads
(NC State University), email to S.McRae (USFWS) on 2/9/2016). Fecundity for Yellow Lance
in the wild is low (4,000-15,000 glochidia) compared to lances held in captivity (20,000-56,000
glochidia) (C.Eads (NC State University), email to S.McRae (USFWS) on 2/9/2016), therefore
the species likely relies on a consistent, low-level of reproductive success to maintain
populations in the wild. As seen with other species like the Atlantic Pigtoe, this strategy can
allow populations to reach high densities over time in stable habitats, but it also makes them
susceptible to habitat disturbances (Wolf 2010, p.33). A habitat disturbance which results in the
loss of even a small proportion of mussels in a particular population when population levels are
already low, or a bad recruitment year, can have a dramatic effect on reproductive success.
Yellow Lance SSA Report Page 8 March 2017
Figure 2-6 Close-up of hookless Yellow Lance glochidia (credit:
C.Eads)

2.6 Habitat
The Yellow Lance is a sand-loving species (Alderman 2003, p.6) often found buried deep in
clean, coarse to medium sand and sometimes migrating with shifting sands (NatureServe 2015,
p.6; Table 2.1), although it has also been found in gravel substrates. Yellow Lances are often
found in sand at the downstream end of stable sand/gravel bars, and sometimes near the water's
edge within inches of exposed substrate (T.Black (NC Wildlife Resources Commission) email to
S.McRae (USFWS) on 9/30/2016). The species is dependent on clean (i.e., not polluted),
moderate flowing water with high dissolved oxygen content in riverine or larger creek
environments. Historically, the most robust populations existed in creeks and rivers with
excellent water quality, and no populations appear to be extant below pollution point sources or
areas with increased nutrient loading (Alderman 2003, p.6).
Most freshwater mussels, including the Yellow Lance, are found in aggregations (mussel beds)
that vary in size and are often separated by stream reaches in which mussels are absent or rare
(Vaughn 2012, p. 983). Genetic exchange occurs between and among mussel beds via sperm
drift, host fish movement, and movement of mussels during high flow events. Theoretically,
prior to anthropogenic influence, it is likely that Yellow Lance mussel beds were distributed
contiguously in suitable habitats throughout its known range. As we discuss in more detail
below, the contemporary distribution of Yellow Lance is patchy, resulting in largely isolated
populations and, in turn, potentially limited genetic exchange.
Yellow Lance SSA Report Page 9 March 2017

Table 2.1 Life history and resource needs of the Yellow Lance.
Life Stage Resources and/or circumstances needed Resource Information
for INDIVIDUALS to complete each life Function Source
stage (BFSD*)
• Clear, flowing water
Fertilized Eggs ' Sexually mature males upstream from - Berg et al.
- early spring sexually mature females B 2008, p.397
• Appropriate spawning temperatures - Haag 2012
• Presence of gravid females
• Clear, flowing water
- Levine et al.
Glochidia . Just enough flow to attract drift feeding B D 2011, p.2
- late spring to minnows - Haag 2012
early summer . Presence of Host Fish for attachment
• Clear, flowing water - Dimmock and
• Host fish dispersal Wright 1993
• Appropriate interstitial chemistry - Sparks and
Juveniles Strayer 1998,
Low salinity (�0.9ppt)
- excystment p.132
from host fish - Low ammonia (�0.7 mg/L) F, S - Augspurger et
to �35mm - Low levels of copper and other al. 2003, p.2574
shell length contaminants - Augspurger et
- Dissolved oxygen >1.3mg/L al. 2007, p.2025
• Appropriate substrate for settlement - Strayer and
• Adequate food availability Malcom 2012
• Clear, flowing water - Yeager et al.
• Appropriate substrate (silt-free gravel 1994, p.221
and stable, coarse sand - Nichols and
• Adequate food availability Garling 2000,
Adult p.881
->35mm shell �phytoplankton and detritus) F S - Chen et al.
length • High Dissolved oxygen (>3mg/L) 2001, p.214
• Water temperature <35�C - Spooner and
Vaughn 2008,
pp.308,315
* B=breeding; F=feeding; S=sheltering; D=dispersal
Yellow Lance SSA Report Page 10 March 2017

CHAPTER 3— POPULATION AND SPECIES NEEDS AND CURRENT CONDITION
In this chapter we consider the Yellow Lance's historical distribution, its current distribution,
and the factors that contributed to the species current condition. We first review the historical
information on the range and distribution of the species. Next we evaluate species' requisites to
consider their relative influence to Yellow Lance resiliency, representation, and redundancy.
Through the lens of the 3Rs, we then estimate the current condition of Yellow Lance
populations.
3.1 Historical Range and Distribution
The Yellow Lance has a
historical range from the
Patuxent River Basin in
Maryland to the Neuse
River Basin in North
Carolina and has been
documented from multiple
physiographic provinces,
from the foothills of the
Appalachian Mountains
through the Piedmont and
into the Coastal Plain,
from small streams (like
Johns Creek) to large
rivers (like the Tar River)
(Figure 3-1).
3.2 Current Range and
Distribution
For the purposes of this
assessment, populations
were delineated using the
eight river basins that
Yellow Lance mussels
have historically
occupied. This includes
the Patuxent, Potomac,
Rappahannock, York,
James, Chowan, Tar, and
Neuse River basins, and
from here forward, we
Patuxen[
Potomac
Rappahannock
York
James
Chow an
Tar-P am lic o
� Neuse
� States
Physiographic Provinces:
MOIJNTAINS
PIECtMONT
C �ASTAL P LP� I N
a,�,� :F��>..,��,��.
A,.x� �-�.�
will use these terms to refer to populations (e.g., the Tar Population). Of eight historical
populations, six are known to have had a Yellow Lance occurrence in the last 10 years, though
the majority of those occurrences were limited to a single location within the river basin.
Yellow Lance SSA Report Page 11 March 2017

Because the river basin level is at a very coarse scale, populations were further delineated using
management units (MUs). MUs were defined as one or more HUC 10 watersheds that species
experts identified as most appropriate for assessing population-level resiliency (see Section 3.3;
Appendix B). Range-wide species occurrence data were used to create "occurrence heat maps"
that discretize HUC10 watersheds into 5-year increments based on the date of observed
occurrences (see GADNR 2016; Appendix C). These heat maps display recent observed
occurrences using various shades of red, while older observed occurrences are displayed in
various shades of blue (e.g., Figure 3-2). Documented species occurrences are included to show
distribution within HUC l Os. Throughout this section, heat maps are used to characterize the
historic and current distribution of Yellow Lance among MUs for each of eight populations.
Patuxent MU
�. T
��-� Potomac
Rappa "ver SubBa�N
�
•
York�
�
Johns Creek MU
Nottoway River Suddasin MU `
• •
•�
• �.. .,
Meherrin MU •
9 Fishing Creek
ubbasin MU
Mid I MU
Tar MU
� ^ r Tar MU
D
0 25 50 10� le Neuas Tri6s MU
Mi les
Ki lameters
0 35 76 140
Most Recent Record (years from 2015`j River 8asins, Pamxenc
- 5 5 years � States Pa�oma�
YL accurrence 20fl5-2Q15 Rappahannaak
6-10 years Physiographic Provinces: y��
11-15 years � YL occurrence pre-2005 �pUNTAINS da�s
cnowa�
16-20 years PIEDMONT rar-Pamrco
'llpperfMiddle Tar Mll �
-� 20 years renectszo�edats COASTAL PLAIN Nease
Yellow Lance SSA Report Page 12 March 2017

MARYLAND
3.2.1 Patuxent River Population
Basin Overview: The Patuxent River Basin is approximately 937mi2, and the entire watershed is
contained within the
state of Maryland. The � - - � ' � � � �
headwaters rise in the
central Piedmont of
Maryland and the river �
flows south into the
, _
Chesapeake Bay near � ������� � �� �� ��;`
Solomons Island. The - - ,' �� .
Patuxent watershed � " " "°" °" . ' .
,� �;
�_-,,
crosses the urbanized ';"""' " � ` ��
corridor between - - � f , ,.�. , .,, � '
Baltimore and `� - -.� _ _ --- '�"�,°".
.r�-r ``_ �-` r" � . _- -
_ � ,.v �,.
Washington, D.C. -, j «.>>��«�,>��,-
, = - ----,-,--�� _ _
Urbanizationthroughout ��+;;��� , � �..,�,.�.
the watershed has led to - � """ ��" `"
. �. 7 . ,.;. �
high levels of _ ^�. ° � a ' "'""''' � '
.;��, ;�._
sedimentation, siltation, � �• � •����� � � , � �� ,� �
contamination, and „ .n„ ��; ,<; r ;,�
. . ����� , y
nutrient-loadmg. Based �--- F`�`' ,,,,..�,..,, `����������� , ,,.
on the 2011 National , , s; �
Land Cover Data, the �;f,; - �� "�� ' �� ' -'' �
�:. ,,..
Patuxent River Basin � "�:.�`.�� �cr ;. ,��;,�.,a,,,� , .
�
was estimated to be „ w, "��"""�" �
approximately 25% _ ` " — � r
.�'. t �
�i .. �,: , �., �� E ., �
developed, 21 % "� �- - , � , � �� ; , -
. � , ,.,., , {,
agriculture, 7% � � � ��" � � `
N,, � ..:
wetlands, 2% grassland, ' ' — -
and 39% forest. The ° 5 10 M;,es �'�' �
entire watershed is ° �� , K��'� .
o: 5 io 20 ,�..�.�.,,,
urbanizing as Baltimore
and Washington, D.C. Most Recent Record (years from 2015) River 6asin:
_ <_ 5 years � States
grow towards each 6-10 years YL oCCu�fenCe 2005-2015 Physiographic Provinces: PatUXBllt
• YL occurrence pre-2005
other, but other 11-15 years MOUNTAWS Major Hydrology
municipalities in the 16-20 years PIEDMONT
- > 20 years COASTAL PLAIN
basin include Columbia,
�u,�b F��o����o�a�o �.,aos,�d
Bowie and Laurel, MD. -��`�«-��_°'' �
The Patuxent Population contains one MU (including Hawlings River) heretofore referred to as
the Patuxent MU. Very few Yellow Lances have been documented from this MU; five were
collected prior to 1965, one individual was collected in 2015 and one relic shell was collected in
2016.
Yellow Lance SSA Report Page 13 March 2017

MARYLAND/VIRGINIA
3.2.2 Potomac River Population
Basin Overview: The Potomac River Basin area is approximately 14,679 mi2 making it the
fourth largest river along the Atlantic Coast. The river has two sources, the North Branch which
originates at the Fairfax Stone
in Grant, Tucker and Preston • • . • . . • . . . .
counties in West Virginia,
and the South Branch which
originates near Hightown in
Highland County, Virginia.
The two branches join just
east of Green Spring, WV to
form the Potomac River
which flows southeast
through the Piedmont and
Coastal Plain to become the
Potomac River Estuary which
flows into the Chesapeake
Bay at Point Lookout, MD.
The Great Falls of the
Potomac River is located just
above the fall line, about 14
miles upstream of
Washington, D.C.
Threats to aquatic habitats
within the Potomac River and
its tributaries include
eutrophication, exposure to
heavy metals, pesticides and
other toxic chemicals, over-
fishing, invasive species, and
pathogens associated with
fecal coliform bacteria and
shellfish diseases (Interstate
Commission on the Potomac
Most Recent Record (years from 2015)
River Basin:
- 5 5 years O States
YL occurrence 2005-20�5 � Potomac
� 8-10 y2ar5 Physiogrephic Provinces:
11-15 years • YL occurrence pre-2005 MOUNTAINS
�.� 16-20 years PIEDMONT
_ > 26 years COASTAL PLAIN
River Basin 2016, see �b5""°rz05:�.i5 NVe��.��^LLi��n��
Appendix B, pg. B87). Furthermore, pollution with endocrine disrupting chemicals have created
intersex fish in certain areas of the Potomac River. Based on the 2011 National Land Cover
Data, the Potomac River Basin was estimated to be approximately 14% developed area, 26%
agriculture, 2% wetlands, 1% grassland, and 53% forest.
The Potomac River Basin contains one MU heretofore referred to as the Potomac MU. One
specimen has been documented from a pre-1970 survey (see Appendix A89).
Yellow Lance SSA Report Page 14 March 2017

VIRGINIA
3.2.3 Rappahannock River Population
Basin Overview: The Rappahannock River Basin area is approximately 2,848mi2. The
headwaters begin in the Blue Ridge Mountains at Chester Gap a few miles southeast of Front
Royal, Virginia; the river then flows southeast through the Piedmont of north-central Virginia
through the Coastal Plain to
become a tidal estuary before ' � " ' �' " ` ' ' ' `' '' " ' '
flowing into the Chesapeake ._„;.,,,,.
Bay. The Rapidan River is a "'""' "'
-� , ., , . ,
„t, , ....
major tributary, which joins the �\ ,,, ��
��� : _,.,,�,..
Rappahannock River just west ,- �--� _
of Fredericksburg, VA. The r' ���� •�
upper watershed supports _ , ,,,. .
largely agricultural land uses, � ��-=-��� �`� ���, �`�'
�. . � ,�.�
with industrial uses in the lower �, , j �~�, f�°'��� �
watershed (VDGIF 2016). 1 ' � �
Sedimentation is a problem in �� � � �� �� ������� � � ,�, .,. ,
the upper watershed, as �
stormwater runoff from the
.
major tributaries (Rapidan and ,, �� � �
Hazel rivers) leaves the � � � �•
Rappahannock River muddy
,��' �= � ..,� . .. �
even after minor storm events
(VDGIF 2016). Based on the _
2011 National Land Cover RappahannpCk Ri�er Subbasin MU
Data, the Rappahannock River ' ,ti
Basin has approximately 8% ��,� � �� ��,�� � �,.
developed area, 28% _ _ � ' T, ��Fµ, ,.'� '� , „ ,
agriculture, 5% wetlands, 4% � , ���...�� �� � E
grassland, and 48% forest. ° 5 10 zM;,Es
While much of the watershed is Kilometers
0 ���1i?.,.;"..?A 40
rural and forested, it has
Most Recent Record (years from 20'15)
experienced increased R��e� Bas��:
- <_ 5 years O States
YL occurrence 2�05-2015 Rappahannock
development from the 6-10 yea�s Physiographic Provinces[
1�-15years �YLoccurrencepre-2005 MOUNTAINS
southward expansion of 16-20 years PIEDMONT Major Hydrology
Washington, D.C. Other -> 2Q ye2f5 CDASTAL PLAIN
developed areas are Culpepper ��x;,�F��„= '°°°�K�fi3°� a�=m�
and Fredericksburg, VA.
Rappahannock River Basin contains one MU, hereafter referred to as the Rappahannock River
Subbasin. Many surveys have documented the presence of Yellow Lance in this MU, with an
occasional observation of upwards of 50 individuals. The species was first seen in the late
1980s, and has been observed most recently in 2011 in the Rappahannock River, although very
few (3) individuals were seen during that survey.
Yellow Lance SSA Report Page 15 March 2017

3.2.4 York River Population
Basin Overview: The York River Basin area is approximately3,270mi2. The York River is
formed at the confluence of the Mattaponi and Pamunkey rivers where if flows southeast to the
Chesapeake Bay near Yorktown, VA. The Pamunkey River is formed by the confluence of the
North and South Anna rivers near Ashland, VA. The Mattaponi River rises as four streams —
The Mat River and the Ta
Riverjoin to form the � ' � � ��• '�� • �
Matta River; the Po River
and the Ni River join to
form the Poni River; the
Matta River and the Poni ""° ""' �
River j oin to form the -. �-- - ""' "�" '"
Mattaponi River where it . � - _ ." -
flows southeast and joins , ! ��
the Pamunkey River at �.
West Point, VA to form "' ''� `
the York River. In 2005
monitoring data indicated
that four out seven
7 . n
segments of the York ��
River were impaired; „, York MU
anthropogenic
contamination appears to ` �'
be the predominant source � ��°~, � �.
of stress to the benthos but
eutrophication and low '�""' "''"'"'" �
dissolved oxygen also play � . - '
a role (Dauer et al. 2005, � ���-
": , . r.r� �.�._„��
p.22). Based on the 2011 �� '-�� �_,,; ;
National Land Cover Data, � �`�� �
,...,� �.,,, - N� �� � i�
��. -
the York River basin has a s ,o zo .��°��N" .;`„� �,�'�
approximately 7% "'''es
� Kiiometers '
developed area, 17% a 5,o zo .,�,.,�H�,,,,,,.. ��.:,=
agP1CU1tLlPe� 10% wetlands, Most Recent Record (years irom 2075)
12% grassland, and 49% - s 5 years Q States River Basin:
� 6-10 years YL occurrence 2005-2015 ��ys�ographic Pmvinces: YOCIC
forest. Major population • YLoccurrence pre-2005
11-15 years MOUNTAfNS
centers within the � 16-20 years PIEpMQNT � Major Hydrology
watershed include '? 20 years GOASTAL PLAIN
Ashland, Gloucester Point, �� - ` '
Hampton, and West Point.
The York River Subbasin Population consists of one MU heretofore referred to as the York MU
(including Mattaponi and South Anna rivers). Several surveys document the presence of Yellow
Lance in this MU — presumably iirst seen in 1973, and as recent as 2007 in the South Anna
River, although only one individual was observed during that survey.
Yellow Lance SSA Report Page 16 March 2017

3.2.5 James River Population
Basin Overview: The James River is mostly contained within the state of Virginia and has a
drainage of approximately 10,265miZ, draining approximately'/4 of the state (VDGIF 2015,
p.148). The headwaters (Potts Creek) originate along the Virginia/West Virginia state line; the
Jackson and Cowpasture rivers
flow through the Alleghany and . , . . , , , ,
Blue Ridge Mountains and join to
form the James River near Iron ,
Gate, VA and then flows east
through the Piedmont and into the
Coastal Plain of Virginia where it ���� � �
drains into the Chesapeake Bay at '��'= �
Ham ton Roads, VA. Ma'or ` � ��"� `�
p J �. �f
,����'� yrf.
tributaries include Craig Creek, and <��-�' � ��� - �•��� .� � �"�'� ?
the Jackson, Cowpasture, Maury, � � ��
:f
Tye, Chicahominy, Rivanna, and � �•
Appomattox rivers. The James �
River connects Lynchburg, � )
Richmond, and Newport News, � � Johns Creek MU
thus making it an important east- -
west transportation route (Radford
� ��. �,:: .
University 2014, entire). The �_ �'�''�
James River Basin and its '�{�s.-
tributaries have excess nutrients ''"� � ; �7����'� '' . �,��
and sediment, pollutants that cause �� �� �' �- �' w__
.
a wide variety of problems in the � ,, �; �,� �-� _�
river and streams and serve as o , e � 12 �.�- ;�, -�
�,��es �
indicators of other forms of K;,o,,,�,e„ 4 y-, � =�„
pollution such as bacteria and ° '.ZS e s „ ` -�7 ` ,` J - � = ` �--�� �
tOXITiS (Ji\t1 W�iUS1tPi ZO 1�). ��g� Recent Reco�d �yeare lrom 2015) Rrver Besin�.
�,�� < 5 yeaf5 � Stale9
Sources of these types of pollution 6-10years Y�°"°"�"`g zoo�-zois ��siographlcProvinces �ame5
11-15 yRarg • YL ocCufronCe pre-2005 MOUNTAINS
are wastewater, agricultural runoff� 16-20 years PIEOMONT - Major Hydrology
and urban stormwater runoff (JRA -'�0 years COASTAL PLAIN
website 2016). Based on the 2011
National Land Cover Data,the
James River Basin has approximately 11% developed area, 14% agriculture, 4% wetlands, 5%
grassland, and 63% forest. Development and population growth are centered around Lynchburg,
Richmond, Petersburg, and Norfolk, VA.
The James River Population consists of one MU heretofore referred to as the Johns Creek MU.
Yellow Lance was first seen in this MU in 1984, and last observed in 2004, where one effort
observed 31 individuals. The species is known to occur in very specific locations in this MU,
and since very little has changed in the watershed over the past 15+ years and other co-occuring
species are consistently found (B.Watson (VA DGIF) email to S.McRae (USFWS) on
10/3/2016), Yellow Lance is assumed to still be present despite the lack of recent surveys.
Yellow Lance SSA Report Page 17 March 2017

3.2.6 Chowan River Population
Basin Overview: The Chowan River Basin has a drainage area of approximately 4,800mi2 with
over 3,200 miles of rivers and streams. The Chowan River headwaters, which include the major
tributaries the Meherrin,
Nottoway, and Blackwater rivers, . • � . . . � -.. . .
originate in southeastern Virginia, - ;, ,.,, ,, _ �
and the Chowan River forms at the � � �,�. .., ��
- •. : �� ,. ;._
North Carolina-Virginia border '> '��,,�� �4 ;; ' ';:'�; , ;,�,,,, ,- r _
where the Blackwater and f� � � �� � � ' '"" � N� s, `�
/ � �AIN1� ..
Nottoway rivers meet. The " �,j � ,.�.,�,� �� ��"'-►�" "�,K';-;r . " �
� �,.,�
Chowan River then flows „ � �i� ����_� �� � �, ',:`� ^- �;',;,'.� �' �''
southeast across the Coastal Plain ``' � Z� ���� �:� �
�i:r, �. \' 1 l:(.�I�N-�I.� " ��i i�_n i �. �w� rc'�'. �' -
of North Carolina broadening to , �
nearly two miles wide where it � '' "'': `:. .
meets the Albemarle Sound near No�ro y Ri ubbasin MU ��-
Edenton, NC (NCDEQ website ' '' �' '"' "' '
2016). In the past decade, the Y-�.� � � ;�
Nottoway River has suffered from ;'.�, , ry,,,,K,, ,.,, ��'` .
several seasonal low flow events ' ' ':' "'
�,:��r� Meherr�� �,;.���� � �. �
which have not only caused very '., '' �� � �
� � ,. ��
low dissolved oxygen conditions, ,;'; "'` ' - ; ;�,�: -
but also decreases food delivery ,:� °- = ,, ,,z�<� � , . � `" � .
,� ,. ,. � j � ..
because there is no flow and also �� �'� � �� '� �� L �-, - ��_ ,<„ ,,,<,; , „
, �� �� �, ,,. , ,, l. s Y -
/
increased predation rates on fishes � , � 1 � � ��,� .: �� � �-�
' �
that are concentrated into low- � � � � ,�;-�-: ' �,,
flow refugia (VDGIF 2010, p.12). `�' � � `� ""'�'" ' "
o ,o � � e �'� ����
The Emporia Dam on the ""'es �-
'�
� _,. �
rc�mr�a� � �...� . . ,, � � , .. _ ,.
Meherrin River provides water to 0 45 30 eo
the city of Emporia, VA and is Most Recent Rewrd {years from 2015}
River Basin:
also used for h droelectric ower - c 5 years Q States
YL occurrence 2005-2015
y p 6-10 years Physiographic Provinces: ChOWflfF
generation (VDGIF website 2016). ��-�5 Yea�S • YL occurrence pre-2Q05 MOUNTAINS
16-20 years PIE�MONT Major Nydrology
Based on the 2011 National Land �� zo Yea�S �o,,S�A� p�„N
Cover Data, the Chowan River A�,-�.. -n_ �'°''" ,°°' '°
Basin has approximately 14%
developed area, 26% agriculture, 2% wetlands, 1% grassland, and 53% forest. While
predominantly agriculture land and forest, some development and population growth are
centered around Emporia and Franklin, VA and Murfreesboro, NC.
The Chowan Population consists of two MUs hereafter referred to as the Nottoway River
Subbasin MU and the Meherrin River MU. Several surveys in the Nottoway River basin have
noted the presence of "Yellow Lance" (one with as many as 781 individuals, although the exact
identity of each specimen was not confirmed). The species has been seen as recently as 20ll in
the Nottoway River, albeit in extremely low (5) numbers. Note, the Little Nottoway HUC is
colored pink, however only a relic shell has been observed in last 10 years.
Yellow Lance SSA Report Page 18 March 2017

NORTH CAROLINA
3.2.7 Tar River Population
Basin Overview: The Tar-Pamlico River Basin is contained completely within the state of North
Carolina and has a drainage area of approximately 6,148mi2 with over 2,500 miles of rivers and
streams (NCDEQ website 2016). The headwaters of the Tar River originate in the Piedmont of
central North Carolina in Person, Granville and Vance counties, and the river flows southeast
through the Coastal Plain until it reaches tidal waters near Washington where it becomes the
Pamlico River and empties into the
• . • -, . . .
Pamlico Sound. The entire basin is
classified as Nutrient Sensitive Waters "'"' `""' "" ." �
(NSW), meaning excessive amounts -� �-�.,� � i�- J
of nitrogen and phosphorus run off the ��'� '` ��';-" �.
[INILI�K�.a.�� "\.. 1�j` j'.
land or are discharged into the waters, -:.f �""'�t�`_
13i1 `�.HI.t.N4\II.E.! ������4
thus the basin has a special nutrient ��� �''
,:,,.��:
management plan to help reduce � '' � . _
nutrients that cause excessive growth "`��, �� ,,�
of microscopic or macroscopic ,,, ' , � `��` ��Sn��9 c�ek "
� � • � ", � � Su66�sin MU
vegetation and lead to extremely low — , � "'
levels of dissolved oxygen in the � -�
Upp�rlMiddle
water (NCDEQ website 2016). Based Tar Mu `� °
on the 2011 National Land Cover " �
��
Data, the Tar-Pamlico River basin has �`=LL�' "
approximately 7% developed area, �;"= ;; ' hE ��+
, �=�� ;
29% agriculture 23% wetlands 12% „ �' , ` "`r '_f -�� ",," " „
� � �� ai es � � � ����..." Lowel�Tdr
grassland, and 27% forest. ' "�' ,�' ��' ' �
�y .
Development and population growth ' �������_�. � �
are centered around the municipalities � �'�'""'' ' �! ,,,,�/,/;.+-,„ ' ":' ' "` . " �
of Greenville, Rocky Mount, and � ' �- � _
� �,. . 'i "..' � " l /" �
i i - : i i i . � 1 �r . '^� �'- . � --� '.-
t\ \\N1_
Washington and in rural areas within ° ,° 20 °M;,es ,, N,:';;;�;'�;;' „
commutin distance to Ralei h �"°'"e'e's �
g g o �r5 �5 50 --
(NCDEQ WeUSItPi ZO 1 V). Most Recent Re�ord IYears from F015'j
River Basin:
� s 5 yeare � States
YL ocwrrence 2005-2015 Taf-PamIICo
6-10 years Physiographic Provinces�.
The Tar Population consists of four 11-15 years • YL occurtence pre-2065 MOUNTAINS
76-20years PIE�MONT - MajorHydrology
MUs, hereafter referred to as the 2o Qars ���°efleps'2o;fia �
- ' Y COASTAL PLAIN
Upper/Middle Tar River MU, the �
Lower Tar River MU, the Sandy-
Swift Creek MU, and the Fishing Creek Subbasin MU. Many surveys efforts have documented
the presence of Yellow Lance over the years; the species was first seen in 1966 in the Tar River
and it has been documented as recently as 2016 in Swift Creek. Surveys in the mainstem Tar in
1990 documented upwards of 1001ive individuals; most other surveys have documented between
25 and 31 individuals and the most seen in recent (2014) surveys has been 251ive individuals.
Similarly, in the late 1980s and early 1990s, Swift Creek surveys documented hundreds (342 in
one instance) of shells, and recent surveys in 2015 and 2016 documented 53 and 45 live
individuals, respectively.
Yellow Lance SSA Report Page 19 March 2017

3.2.8 Neuse River Population
Basin Overview: The Neuse River Basin is contained completely within the state of North
Carolina and has a drainage area of approximately 6,062mi2 with over 3,400 miles of rivers and
streams (NCDEQ website 2016). The headwaters of the Neuse River originate in the Piedmont
of central North Carolina in Person and Orange counties, and the river flows southeast through
the Coastal Plain until it reaches tidal waters near New Bern where it empties into the Pamlico
Sound. Major tributaries include Crabtree, Swift, and Contentnea Creek and the Eno, Little, and
Trent rivers. Like the Tar River
Basin, the Neuse River Basin is
classified as NSW due to large
quantities of nutrients (especially
nitrogen) contributed by fertilizers
and animal waste washed from
lawns, urban developed areas, farm
fields, and animal operations
(NCDEQ website 2016). In
addition, more than 400 permitted
point source sites discharge
wastewater into streams and rivers
in the basin (NCDEQ website
2016). Based on the 2011 National
Land Cover Data, the Neuse River
basin has approximately 13%
developed area, 28% agriculture,
21 % wetlands, 12% grassland, and
25% forest. Development and
population growth are centered
around the Triangle (primarily
Durham and Raleigh) and the
municipalities of Smithfield and
Kinston. The Neuse River basin
contains one-sixth of the entire
��
����
��
„ ,`
Middle
IN\x1��lrvi'�� . � .
��
_ � . �'
�� _
�-
� _ � _ �# �`.
��
�se Tribs MU �.
�� ,..,, ,, . . � �
. ��i'��
�'" .
. � .
� � ;;
�JJ�! .._�� - ,,y
� ��
d, , , S ,Q zo
Miles
�Kilometers � { � �
D S i0 20 .,.��. " ; �.
T
state's population (NCDEQ website Most Receni Recard tyears from 20i5)
fiiver Basin�,
2� 1 6), and increased development � 6 10 years YL occurrsnce 2005-2045 P�grephic Provinces: � N2lFS2
• I�� 11-15 years • YL occurrence pre-2005 MOUNTAINS
pressure has mcreased stormwater I� �fi-2Q years PIEDMON7 -�djOf HydrolOgy
runoff, contributing to the basin's -' 20 years COASTAL PLAIN
pollution and flow issues. M�5i ���," ",°`°`"" ,' "
The Neuse Population consists of one MU hereafter referred to as the Middle Neuse Tributaries
MU. The Yellow Lance was first seen in 1991, and most recently one individual was seen in
2015 (this individual was brought into captivity for breeding, but has subsequently died). Most
surveys report very low numbers observed (usually only one live individual or just shell
material), although one effort in 1994 (Swift Creek) documented 18 live individuals. There have
been recent (2014-2016) intensive surveys in the Swift Creek watershed, and only one Yellow
Lance has been observed.
Yellow Lance SSA Report Page 20 March 2017

3.3 Needs of the Yellow Lance
As discussed in Chapter 1, for the purpose of this assessment, we define viability as the ability of
the species to sustain populations in the wild over time (in this case, 50 years). Using the SSA
framework, we describe the species' viability by characterizing the status of the species in terms
of its resiliency, redundancy, and representation (the 3Rs, Figure 3-11). Using various time
frames and the current and future characterization of the 3Rs, we thereby describe the species'
level of viability over time.
Redundancy
Species
,� xco.eu„w�,
/ �
Resiliency �
Population ' Population
�
�
. MU MU MU
�° � a;
�
�� �� ���
MU MU MU
„��I
HUC10s � � � J � �
Figure 3-11 Resiliency is measured at the population level, representation is measured at the species and, possibly,
population level, and redundancy is measured at the species level (after Fig 4, USFWS 2016a). MU=Management Unit;
HUC10 = Hydrologic Unit
3.3.1 Yellow Lance MU Resiliency
As previously described, Yellow Lance populations were delineated at the river basin level,
while MUs were defined at a finer geographic scale, which were HUC 10 watersheds that
encompass historically or currently documented occupied habitat. Note that MUs may be made
up of one or more HUC 10 watersheds, depending on the distribution of the species (see Section
3.2 and Appendix B). Because the river basin level was determined to be too coarse of a scale at
which to estimate the condition of factors influencing resiliency, MUs were used to evaluate this
metric. Given the hierarchical nature of the relationship between MUs, populations, and species
(Figure 3-11), we iirst consider resiliency at the level of an MU, then scale up to populations,
and, ultimately, make inferences at the species-level.
Resiliency (measured at the population level) is the foundational building block of the SSA
Framework; thus, for the Yellow Lance to be viable, some proportion of MUs must be resilient
enough to withstand stochastic events. Stochastic events that have the potential to affect mussel
populations include high flow events, droughts, pollutant discharge failures, and sediment pulses.
Given the data available, the metrics that were used to assess resiliency were categorized as
population factors (MU occupancy over time, approximate abundance, and recruitment) and
habitat elements (water quality, water quantity, habitat connectivity, and instream substrate)
(Appendix D). In the next section, we discuss the methods used to estimate resiliency metrics,
Yellow Lance SSA Report Page 21 March 2017

and we explore potential causal relationships between resiliency and mussel habitat requisites
(see Figure 3-15).
Population Factors that Influence Resiliency
Management Unit OccupancX - The known historical and current distribution of the species
within HUC 10 watersheds was used to document MU occupancy. Yellow Lance presence was
compiled from survey data made available by state agency databases. Those surveys involved
tactile or visual (viewbucket, snorkel, or surface air-supply systems in deeper (>4ft) waters)
methods to detect mussels. Most surveys involved timed searches where species were identified,
counted, checked for gravidity, and, in some cases, the presence of juveniles was noted. Most
mussels were returned to the river post-identification, although some were retained for
propagation.
A�proximate Abundance — During stream surveys, mussel abundance was recorded as either a
qualitative approximation (e.g., "common" or "rare") or an actual count of the number of
mussels observed in the survey location (e.g., density in a mussel bed). For most surveys,
quantitative measures of density were not available and qualitative approximations were only
sporadically documented. More often, surveyors recorded the number of live individuals or dead
shells observed at a location. Thus, we used the cumulative record of the total number of live
individuals and dead shells observed within a MU to provide an approximate estimate of
abundance within MUs. We considered MUs with recent (< 10 years) documentation of high
approximate abundance to be resilient. High approximate abundance is defined as cumulative
counts of over 300 individuals observed over the period of record, or more than 1001ive
individuals observed over the past 10 years (Table 3-4). Pandolfo (2014, p.46) approximated
Yellow Lance detection probability to be 0.42, although this measure was derived by borrowing
information from species associates and was the value for all species in the assemblage. Since
abundance estimates did not account for detection probability, the approximate abundances
should be considered conservative. That is, Yellow Lances may have been present but not
detected during some surveys, and we did not use an estimate of detection probability to account
for these occasions.
Reproduction and Recruitment - While measures of population size reflect past influences on the
mussel resiliency, reproduction and recruitment reflect where the population may be headed
(Figure 3-12). For example, dense mussel beds containing older/senescing (i.e., less-
reproductive) individuals may be more susceptible to extirpation because they have few young
individuals to sustain the population into the future. Conversely, less dense mussel beds
containing many young and/or gravid individuals may be likely to grow more dense, thus
sustaining the population into the future.
Yellow Lance SSA Report Page 22 March 2017

�{ �' _�. � . . �}. — rdi_r"T'.f . '�,y' ' + �
•�p � �� ' , .. ' � � �� , � ''�% � . .. � - �`� .
�' . =� � � ��'�' � .� �
�,,,,�� . -:,� �„��,,�, �" � , �C`�"' -� � '
�. � �� � � � � P ,�
_ � -� � `""� "�'� :� *�- �' `-� �" �„ .,..� �` _
,� . �, i�"" �` ,� '� � � �
, . � �:r -- ,� �MI� � '� .
• . �. . .. � � . .::� :�. • -
Figure 3-12 Evidence of Reproduction: Yellow Lance and Atlantic Pigtoe from recent (2016) Swift Creek (Tar Basin)
survey (credit: NCWRC)
Detection of very young juvenile mussels during surveys happens extremely rarely due to
sampling bias (Shea et al. 2013, p.383). Because mussel surveys involve underwater, tactile and
visual searches, mussels less than 35mm are difficult to detect (Wisniewski et al. 2013, p.239;
USFWS 2016, p.22). While we do not have specific estimates of detection for juvenile Yellow
Lances, detection probability for the species has been approximated to be 0.42 (Pandolfo 2014,
p.46). To this end, sampling methods used to estimate reproduction involved repeatedly
capturing small-sized individuals near the low end of the detectable size range (<35mm) and by
capturing gravid females during the reproductively active time of year (generally, March —
August). It should be noted that records of reproduction/recruitment were not consistently
documented for all surveys; thus, they should be considered to represent the low end on a
spectrum of uncertainty (i.e., it is possible that reproduction occurred but was not documented).
Habitat Elements that Influence Resiliency
Physical, biological, and chemical processes influence instream habitat quality and quantity,
which, in turn, influence the condition and abundance of species using that habitat. In the case of
the Yellow Lance, breeding, feeding, and sheltering needs such �,�`�`�,� �- a
as successful host fish infestation and dispersal, food `•� �.y�� ,�� �
availability, and suitable habitat are all needs influenced by �� �`� ,
¢ � ,�x; �.
water quality, water quantity, and suitable in-stream (substrate) t'��-'., u� �-
habitat and habitat connectivity (Figure 3-15). See Chapter 4 for � ��-�., �,�� ,�� �� ��
further discussion about the many factors that influence the ���; �µ�� -��- ��=�
condition of these habitat elements. �- -� �; �
Water Quality - As sessile, benthic filter-feeders, mussels are •��
particularly sensitive to poor water quality (Haag 2012, p. 355). �"�
Suitable habitat for mussels includes streams that have un- �}°��
altered thermal regimes, average pH, low salinity, and negligible �• ��:�-.+�
chemical pollution. As required by section 303(d) of the Clean '� 4������ �,�
Water Act, all waters that do not meet standards for the „�,,,_ ��.�r;� ,:,���
designated use of a particular waterbody (e.g., to support/protect
aquatic life) are placed on the Impaired Streams List. Water
quality metrics that reflect aquatic impairment include (but are
not limited to): low bioassessment scores, low dissolved oxygen
(DO) levels, low/high pH values, high nutrient inputs (Figure 3-13), and high levels of fecal
Yellow Lance SSA Report Page 23 March 2017
Figure 3-13 Eutrophication of
Potomac River caused by
cyanobacteria bloom in 2012
(credit: Wikimedia Commons)

coliform bacteria. For this assessment, the number and mileage of impaired stream reaches (as
designated by state Water Quality programs), as well as the number of National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) point discharges were used to characterize water
quality within a given MU. Since every stream is not assessed for impairment, the mileage of
impaired stream reaches should be considered a conservative estimate of impairment for each
MU.
Water Quantity — Optimal habitats for Yellow Lances are perennial streams with continuous,
year-round flow. While mussels can survive low flows and (random) periodic drying events,
intermittent stream habitats cannot support mussel populations.
Because a lotic environment is a critical need for the Yellow Lance, perturbations that disrupt
natural discharge regimes have a potential negative influence on Yellow Lance resilience
metrics. Yellow Lance habitat must have adequate flow to deliver oxygen, enable passive
reproduction, and deliver food to filter-feeding mussels (see Table 2-1). Further, flow removes
contaminants and fine sediments from interstitial spaces preventing mussel suffocation. Stream
velocity is not static over time, and variations may be attributed to seasonal changes (with higher
flows in winter/spring and lower flows in summer/fall), extreme weather events (e.g., drought or
floods), and/or anthropogenic influence (e.g., flow regulation via impoundments).
While mussels have evolved in habitats that experience seasonal fluctuations in discharge, global
weather patterns can have an impact on the normal regimes (e.g., El Nino or La Nina). Even
during naturally occurring low flow events, mussels can become stressed either because they
exert significant energy to move to deeper waters or they may succumb to desiccation. Because
low flows in late summer and early fall are stress-inducing, droughts during this time of year
may result in stress and, potentially, an increased rate of mortality.
To understand whether Yellow Lance populations were subject to droughts during low flow
times of the year (late summer, early fall), we compiled a series of US Drought Monitor
graphics. These were used to assess flow conditions during the first week of September during
years 2000 to 2015 to identify times that mussels were exposed to consecutive droughts (see
Figure 3-14 below).
Yellow Lance SSA Report Page 24 March 2017

��Q� ���� ����
b.3. 8ra r�qh t Af u n"rtu r
.�']O U��l� � St
����
i+.�. CrvuyrtitAdo��itor
�outheast
f?0�enoimaiyl]rp
� 1 hl e+tl erate �R8 ugRt
02 Sevcti �rnught
il,8. Drouprlhi�i[ar
�OU#i1�219#
/���
ii.S. �rougr�tMor�itar
�vutheast
- D�JExtremeDrauglrt
- 04Exaepleenel6reug9�t
T7re D�k1��1P Al4Yir�Of Iott�SSBs ort �d•�G8l1� C�Dl�dtrar}S.
a�car car�t�aras may vary. see aEco�mpa�y�� rext sr�rr+rnary
far fbreeast statements.
t.i.g. t%l6Lf�f7[ �l71�1
��Uff1��S�
����
i+.&. Arouq�tA4orritar
S�u#he�st
��I_JL��L
�� � � �
� +ra'�`�.w�xo� .
http :��d raugh Urtwnitor.0 nl. ectuf
Figure 3-14 Southeast Drought Monitor annual images for lst week in September. Although MD is not shown on these
images, it is assumed that the same conditions that occurred in northeastern VA were similar in Patuxent River basin.
Yellow Lance SSA Report Page 25 March 2017

���� �Q�� �Q��
�,�. �.l4�M�f ��#i71��
�Qi1.���1��St
�RS. �VDU�!! �OIN�iOF
��DU�FIB�S#
�1, s. �ror�h� hfonlh�r
��U��1��5#
����
tJ.B, 8rouphe 81'anh�7r
���Ith��$�
��r�� .
oo,�����,a�, � a���an��r�
aSMoa.a� draugne � ��Exaepl�nrdrau�ht
� d2�sawa�ie0rdeqhi
Tii� �3flb1J�'�f kiQi�lF /ACf1� d7 P1'E�EF�t�M C�f�d[id7G,
t.ocr� �rorrol+�arxs rr�y vary � acra+r��+ar�y+rrg ic�� sumrraary
ik�r +kxtca� siad�rr�+rw$
Figure 3-14 (cont) Southeast Drought Monitor annual images for lst week in September
����
tJ.�. �rairght Jlfora�bar
��L1��1��5�
����
JI.S. Dro�r��Frf �Ilonk'or
7�li��l�'�1��
�� .�..���
� .+� M � � �
http J�dro�e�A4l�onllor.unl.�du�
Yellow Lance SSA Report Page 26 March 2017

��12 ��1� �Q14
u.8. �ro��,r,r Af�,�r �S. �ruuryhrh�o,�i�ur lxs. ia+►ar+gh:�k�+�a.
�oufik�ea�t Sc�utheast ��►utheast
1��� a
DOl,hnnmta9f []ry
dSMadrrw� drauglRt
� d2�sawa�ie0rdeqhi
��15
iJ.s. i�ou�ht�w4u„�or
������$�
� a�Eadrame��qpht
� ��Exaepll�nrdrnu�ht
Tii� �3flb1J�'�f kiQi�lF /ACf1� d7 P1'E�EF�t�M C�f�d[id7G,
t.ocr� �rorrol+�arxs rr�y vary � acra+r��+ar�y+rrg ic�� sumrraary
ik�r +kxtca� siad�rr�+rw$
http J�dro�e�A4l�onllor.unl.�du�
Figure 3-14 (cont) Southeast Drought Monitor annual images for lst week in September
�� .�..���
� .+� M � � �
Yellow Lance SSA Report Page 27 March 2017

Substrate - Optimal substrate for the Yellow Lance is predominantly silt-free, detritus-free, stable
sand, and gravel benthic habitat. Riparian condition strongly influences the composition and
stability of substrates that mussels inhabit (Allan et al., 1997, p.149). Streams with urbanized or
agriculturally dominated riparian corridors are subject to increased sediment-loading from
unstable banks and/or impervious surface run-off, resulting in less suitable in-stream habitat for
mussels as compared to habitat with forested corridors (Allan et al., 1997, p.156). For this
assessment, we considered the stream-side riparian condition (as delineated by the Active River
Area (ARA; Smith et al. 2008, entire) as an indicator of in-stream habitat condition. Rather than
a fixed-width riparian buffer, the spatial extent of an ARA is defined by physical and ecological
processes in areas of dynamic connection and interaction between the water and land through
which it flows (Smith et al. 2008, p.l).
Habitat Connectivitv - The fragmentation of river habitat by dams and other aquatic barriers (like
perched or undersized culverts) is one of the primary threats to aquatic species in the U.S.
(Martin and Apse 2014, p.7). Dams (whether man-made or nature-made (e.g., from beavers or
windthrow)) have a profound impact on in-stream habitat as they can change lotic systems to
lentic systems. Moreover, fragmentation by dams or culverts generally involves loss of access
to quality habitat for one or more life stages of freshwater species. In the case of mussels,
fragmentation can result in barriers to host fish movement which, in turn, may impact mussel
distributions. Mussels that use smaller host fish (e.g., darters and minnows) are more susceptible
to impacts from habitat fragmentation due to increasing distance between suitable habitat patches
and low likelihood of host fish swimming over that distance (C.Eads (NCSU) email to S.McRae
(USFWS) on 10/28/2016). Barriers to movement can cause isolated or patchy distributions of
mussels which may limit both genetic exchange and recolonization (e.g., after a high flow,
scouring event). To assess the influence of factars affecting habitat connectivity in Yellow
Lance watersheds, we considered the number of dams from the US Army Corps of Engineers'
(US ACE) National Inventory of Dams (NID) as well as the number of road crossings affecting
Yellow Lance habitat at the HUC 10 scale (see Section 4.1 below).
Yellow Lance SSA Report Page 28 March 2017

Flowing Water In-stream
Habitat Factors [Water Ha6itat
Quantity} (Su6strate}
Breeding, Feeding, prganic Matter Suita6le
5heltering Factors [Food} Delivery Ha6itat
❑emographicFactors
� Adult
A6undance &
Survi�al
�
Ha6itat
Water Quality
Cannecti�ity
Hast Fish�_ Hast Fish Hast Fish
Infestation & A6undance ��._ Food
� Dispersal � Availa6ility
. �Hast Fish ,
Juvenil� �i�ersity
Recruitment &
Survi�al
Current Mussel
Population Siie
Mussel
Population
Growth and
Maintenance
Figure 3-15 Yellow Lance Ecology: Influence diagram illustrating how habitat factors influence breeding, feeding, and
sheltering factors, which in turn affect demographic factors that ultimately drive mussel population growth and
maintenance. Diagram was developed by a group of freshwater mussel experts and substantiated from literature.
3.3.2 Species Representation
Identifying and evaluating representative units that contribute to a species' adaptive potential are
important components of assessing overall species' viability (Shaffer and Stein 2000, entire;
USFWS 2016b, p.23). This is because populations that are distributed throughout multiple
representative units may buffer a species' response to environmental changes over time.
Representation for the Yellow Lance can be described in terms of River Basin Variability,
Physiographic Variability, and Latitudinal Variability. Below we examine these aspects of the
historic and current distribution of the Yellow Lance and identify potential causal effects for
changes in representation over time.
River Basin Variability - River basin variability for the Yellow Lance has been reduced from
eight to seven river basins (Table 3-1); thus, the species has lost approximately 13% of River
Basin Variability. However, it should be noted that this is a relatively conservative estimate of
loss as variability for each population is largely represented by just one HUC per MU (Table 3-2
below), and several of the populations have five or fewer documented individuals in the past 10
years (Table 3-1).
Yellow Lance SSA Report Page 29 March 2017

Table 3-1 Yellow Lance Basin Variability:
Population
(River Basin)
Patuxent
Potomac
Rappahannock
York
James
Chowan
Tar
Neuse
# of Historically # of Currently
Occupied MUs Occupied MUs
Total # Live
Individuals
2005-2015
1
1
1
1
1
2
4
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
3
1
1
0
53
5
0*
5
171
30
* Yellow Lance assumed to be present (see p.17)
Physiog�aphic Variability - Yellow Lances are found in three physiographic provinces — the
Mountains, the Piedmont, and the Coastal Plain, with the largest proportion of their range
(historically and currently) in the Piedmont > Coastal Plain > Mountains (Figure 3-16).
Monitoring data indicate precipitous declines in occurrence in all three physiographic regions. A
56% decline in occurrence was estimated in the Piedmont Province, and 70% decline in the
Coastal Plain, and a 50% decline in the Mountains (Figure 3-16). The species has been almost
completely eliminated from its once much larger presence in the Coastal Plain, and has declined
by over half in the Piedmont. Finally, the only remaining occurrences of Yellow Lance in the
Mountain physiographic region are in Johns Creek and the upper Rappahannock River basin.
Yellaw Lance Lass in Physiagraphic Variability
e�
N
� 30
d
z
N
d 25
�
� 20
�
u
= 15
0
d 10
�
E
� 5
z
�:
Physiographic Region
■ Historically Occupied
HUC10s
�` Currently Occupied
HUC10s
Figure 3-16 Change in physiographic variability for Yellow Lance. Percentages are the proportion lost from historically
occupied HUC10s to currently occupied HUC10s.
Yellow Lance SSA Report Page 30 March 2017
Mountains Piedmont Coastal Plain

Latitudinal Tlariability -
Historically, the Yellow Lance once
occurred contiguously in perennial
streams from Maryland to North
Carolina. Based on recent data,
occurrences have become patchy in
distribution and it appears as though
the range of the Yellow Lance is
being contracted, with near
extirpation in the northern basins
and potential extirpation in the most
southern basin (Figure 3-17).
Summary
As evaluated through the lens of
river basin, physiographic province,
and latitudinal variability, the
contemporary distribution of
Yellow Lance reflects a
considerable loss in historical
representation. Because
representation is an indirect measure
of a species' adaptive potential, this
trend is concerning in terms of the
ability of the species to respond to a
changing environment. Later, we
discuss the implications of a
potential continued loss in
representation.
3.3.3 Species Redundancy
Redundancy reduces the risk that a large portion of the species' range will be negatively affected
by a natural or anthropogenic catastrophic event at a given point in time. Species that have
resilient populations spread throughout their historical range are less susceptible to extinction
(Carroll et al. 2010, entire; Redford et al. 2011, entire). Thus, high redundancy for Yellow
Lance is defined as multiple resilient populations (inclusive of multiple, resilient MUs)
distributed throughout the species' historical range. That is, highly resilient populations, coupled
with a relatively broad distribution, have a positive relationship to species-level redundancy.
Evidence indicates that Yellow Lance populations were once much more broadly distributed
throughout their historical range (Figure 3-1). However, several factors, including
impoundments and unsuitable water quality, have resulted in population fragmentation (see
Chapter 4), making repopulation of extirpated locations unlikely without human intervention.
Yellow Lance SSA Report Page 31 March 2017
Most Recent Record (years from 2015►
River Basins: w+mra��
- 5 5 years �'States �.. j co�a„�G
- fi-3 D years �hysipgr�phiC PravinCe5: - � �aPPd^'""OL�`
Yo�k
�'.' 11-15years M4UNTAINS �,,,,e,
� 16-24years PIEDMONT cn�„��
> 20 ears j@�-Peml�
- Y COASTALPLAIN Q��

We assessed Yellow Lance redundancy by first evaluating occupancy within each of the
hydrologic units (i.e., HUC10s) that constitute MUs, and then we evaluated occupancy at the
MU and ultimately the population level. This assessment revealed that of the 46 HUC l Os
historically occupied by Yellow Lance, only 20 (43%) are currently occupied (Table 3-2). Note
that current occupancy was defined as the observation of at least one Yellow Lance during
surveys conducted from 2005 to 2015. Of those 20 HUC l Os that were counted as occupied, only
five had more than one observation during that 10-year sample period (Table 3-2). At the level
of MUs, three are likely extirpated, seven have experienced between an estimated 33-83%
decline, and only two have experienced no decline. As a result, four populations
(Rappahannock, Chowan, Tar, and Neuse) retain redundancy in the form of more than one
HUC10 occupied, however, only one population (Tar) has multiple moderate or highly resilient
MUs (Table 3-5), thus limiting overall redundancy for the species.
Table 3-2 Yellow Lance occupancy changes over time. Historical occupancy represents detections
that occurred from 1966 to 2005, while current occupancy represents a sample period from 2005 to
2015. Note: MUs can be made up of one or more HUC10 watersheds, depending on the distribution
of the species (see Section 3.3.1).
Population/
Management Unit
Patuxe nt
Potomac
Rappahannock
York
Jame s /
# Historically
Documented
Occupied
HUC l Os
2
1
10
6
1
# Currently
Occupied
(2005-2015)
HUC l Os
1
0
3
1
1
1*
3
3
0
8
% Decline
50
100
70
83
0
0
67
57
100
33
Appendix Page
(far reference)
B93
B95
B97
B 104
Jol�ns Creek
Chowan/ 9
Nottoway
Meherrin
Tar/
Upper/Middle Tar+
Lower Tar
Fishing Ck Subbasin+
12
1
7
2
6
1
3
4 33
0 100
2 33
B 108
B110
B115
B117
B 122
B 124
Sandy Swift Ck+ 2 2 0 B 127
Neuse/ 5 3 40
Middle Neuse Tribs+ 5 3 40 B 129
*Yellow Lance assumed present (p.17)
+ Management Units containing HUCs with more than one observation in past 10
years (note: Upper Tar has 2 HUCs that fall into this category)
Yellow Lance SSA Report Page 32 March 2017

3.4 Current Conditions
The results of surveys conducted from 2005 to 2015 suggest that the currently occupied range of
the Yellow Lance includes 9 MUs from seven populations in Maryland, Virginia, and North
Carolina. The majority of these observations (i.e., six of seven river basins) were limited to a
single location, with the Tar River Basin as the one population with multiple occupied MUs. For
context, Table 3-3 shows the current species status as tracked by national and state entities that
track conservation status of species:
Table 3-3 Current species status/ranks by other entities who track conservation status of Yellow Lance
Entity Status/Rank Notes Reference
NatureServe G2N2 (Impenled) Species appears to be m decline throughout its NatureServe 2015
historical range
NCN NT (Near Threatened) Armotations mdicate this rank needs updating NCN 2001
American Fisheries Endangered Wiltiams et a1, in press
Society (AFS)
Maryland
Virginia
North Carolina
SU (Unlrnown)
S2 (Imperiled)
Endangered/S1 (CriticalLyImpenled)
Recently (2015) discovered 'm this state
M.Ashton (MD-DNR) email to
S.McRae (USFWS) on
6/22/2015
VADCR-NHP 2016
NCNHP 2014
3.4.1 Current MU/Population Resiliency
Methodology
To summarize the overall current conditions of Yellow Lance MUs, we sorted them into five
categories (high, moderate, low, very low, and extirpated (e)) based on the population factors
and habitat elements discussed in Section 3.3.1 above (Table 3-4). MUs assessed include those
areas where the species is presumed to be extirpated to portray the difference between the
historical and current condition of the species. The current condition category is a qualitative
estimate based on the analysis of the three population factors (MU Occupancy, Approximate
Abundance, and Recruitment) and four habitat elements (Water Quality, Water Quantity/Flow,
Instream Substrate, and Habitat Connectivity). Overall population condition rankings and
habitat condition rankings were determined by combining the three population factors and four
habitat elements, respectively.
For example, for the James Population, given the categorical scale of: High — Moderate — Low
— Very Low —�(see Table 3-4), the overall Current Population Condition is estimated to be
Low; the High MU Occupancy Condition combined with the Low Approximate Abundance
Condition is Moderate and when that is combined with the Very Low Reproduction condition,
the overall ranking becomes Low:
Yellow Lance SSA Report Page 33 March 2017

Population/ MU Occupancy Approx Abundance Reproduction Current Condition -
Management Unit Condition Condition Condition Population Factors
James/Johns Creek H + L VL
�
M + VL
L Low
Figure 3-18 Current Population Condition calculation is determined by combining the three population
factors (MU Occupancy Condition, Approximate Abundance Condition, and Reproduction Condition).
Note: When MU Occupancy Condition was estimated to be �, this extirpated condition
superseded all other category rankings and was assigned as the Population Condition.
For the Habitat Elements, the scale included the following categories: High — Moderate — Low
— Very Low. For example, for the Rappahannock Population, the overall Current Habitat
Condition was determined by first combining the Low Water Quality Condition with the High
Water Quantity Condition to get Moderate; when this Moderate was then combined with the
Low Connectivity Condition and Moderate Instream Habitat Condition, the two Moderate ranks
outweighed the Low rank to get an overall Current Habitat Condition of Moderate:
Overall Water
Population QualityCondition
Rappahannock L
Ove ra I I
Overall Water Connectivity
Quantity Condition Condition
+ H L
Overal I Instream
Habitat (Substrate) Current Habitat
Condition Condition
M
M + L + M
M Moderate
Figure 3-19 Current Habitat Condition calculation is determined by combining the four habitat elements
(Water Quality Condition, Water Quantity Condition, Connectivity Condition, and Instream Habitat
Condition)
Because population factors are direct indicators of Yellow Lance condition (Table 3-5), we
weighed population factors (direct measures) two times higher than habitat elements (indirect
measures) when estimating the summary Current Condition.
Yellow Lance SSA Report Page 34 March 2017

Table 3-4 Population and habitat characteristics used to create condition categories in Table 3-5.
POPULATION FACfORS HABITAT ELEMENTS
Condition MU Occupancy Approximate In-stream
Category Decline Abundance Reproduction Water Quality Water Quantity/Flow substrate Habitat Connectivity
Optimal flowing water
Cumulative numbers More than 50% of sites conditions to remove fine Predominantly
at high end of known Very few (if any) known Very little (if any) known
with recent (past 10 sediments, allow for food natural (>70%
range (over 300 years) documentation of impairment or contaminant delivery, and maximize forested) ARA; <6% habitat fragmentation
High <30% decline individuals observed problems (<5 miles impaired issues (<10 dams per MU;
reproduction (gravidity) or reproduction; no known flow impervious
over time); 100+ live streams; no major discharges, avg # of Road Crossings
presence of small issues; isolated low surFaces in HUC10
individuals observed <10 non-major discharges) <300 per MU)
individuals flow/drought periods; not flashy watershed
in past 10 years
flow regime
Water flow not sufficent to
Impairment or contaminants consistently remove fine
Moderate numbers known to be an issue, but not at sediments, drying conditions 20-70% forested Some habitat
(101 to 300) of 25-50% of sites with a level to put population at risk which could impact both food ARA; 6-15% fragmentation issues (10-
31-50% decline individuals observed recent documentation of of being eliminated (5-50 miles delivery and successful impervious 30 dams per MU; Avg # of
overtime; 51-100 live reproduction or presence
impaired streams; 1-3 major reproduction; moderate flow surfaces in HUC10 Road Crossings 300-500
individuals observed of small individuals discharges; 10-25 non-major issues, including 3 to 4 years of watershed per MU)
in past 10 years
discharges) consecutive drought or
moderately flashy flows
Low numbers (11-100) Impairment or contaminants at
Fewer than 25% of sites Water not flowing - either <20% forested
of individuals levels high enough to put the Habitat severely
observed over time; 11� �^'ith documentation of population at risk of being inundated or dry; severe flow ARA; >15% fragmented (30+ dams in
Low 51-70% decline recent reproduction or issues; more than 4 consecutive impervious
50 live individuals eliminated (>50 miles impaired MU; SOO+Avg Road
presence of small years of drought; flashy flow surfaces in HUC10
observed in past 10 streams; >4 major discharges; Crossings per MU)
years individuals z5+non-majordischarges) regime watershed
Very few (less than
10) individuals Impairment or contaminant at Instream habitat Habitat extremely
Very Low >70% decline °bserved over time; 10 Reproduction data are levels that cannot support Flow conditions do not support unable to support fragmented and unable to
orfewer live older than 10 years species survival
species survival species suroival support species survival
individuals observed
in past 10 years
� Total Loss Only shells observed Population is extirpated or N/A N/A N/A N/A
over time (no live) no data
Yellow Lance SSA Report Page 35 March 2017

Table 3-5 Resiliency of Yellow Lance populations. See Table 3-4 for condition categories. Data for categorization are found in
Appendix D.
Population Factors Habitat Elements
Combined
POpUldtlOn/ MU Approx Population Water Water Instream Habitat Combined Current
Management Unit Occupancy Abundance Reproduction Factors Quality Quantity Connectivity (Substrate) Habitat Elements Condition
Patuxent Very Low � Very Low Low High Low Very Low
Potomac �b � � � Low Low LOw LOW Qj
Rappahannock Low Low Low Low =c�< Low Low
York Very Low Very Low QS Very Low Low Very Low
lames Low
lohns Creek High Very Low Low Low High High High High High Low
Chowan LOw
Nottoway Low Very Low Low Low Low Low
Meherrin � Very Low � � High �
Tar
Upper/MiddleTar High High High Low Low High
LowerTar QS LOw � QS High LOw QS
Fishing Ck Subbasin LOW Hlgh iG
Sandy Swift Ck High High High High High Low High
Neuse Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Low
Yellow Lance SSA Report Page 36 March 2017

Combined habitat elements, representing overall habitat condition, were high in one MU,
moderate in nine MUs, and low in two MUs (Table 3-5). Combined population factors,
representing a combination of occupancy, approximate abundance, and reproduction, was
estimated to be high for two MUs, moderate for one MU, low for five MUs, very low for one
MU, and extirpated for three MUs (Table 3-5). As noted in Section 3.3.1, both approximate
abundances and recruitment should be considered conservative estimates.
At the population level, the overall current condition (= resiliency) was estimated to be moderate
for the Tar Population, low for the Rappahannock, James, Chowan and Neuse populations, very
low for the Patuxent and York, and extirpated for the Potomac Population (Table 3-5).
3.4.2 Current Species Representation
We estimated that the Yellow Lance currently has low adaptive potential due to limited
representation in seven river basins and three physiographic regions (Figure 3-20). While the
species retains 87% of its known River Basin variability, its distribution has been greatly reduced
in the Rappahannock, York, Chowan, and Neuse River populations. In addition, compared to
historical distribution, the species retains limited physiographic variability in the Coastal Plain
(30%) and moderate variability in the Piedmont (44%) and in the Mountains (50%). Latitudinal
variability is also reduced, as much of the species current distribution has contracted and is
largely limited to the southern portions of its historical range, primarily in the Tar River Basin.
3.4.3 Current Species Redundancy
While the overall range of the Yellow Lance has not changed significantly, the remaining
occupied portions of the range have become constricted within each basin. One population (Tar)
was estimated to be moderately resilient, and all other extant populations exhibit low resiliency.
Redundancy was estimated as the number of historically occupied MUs that remain currently
occupied (Table 3-2). The species retains redundancy (albeit in low condition) within the
Rappahannock, Chowan, and Neuse River populations, and only one population (Tar) has
multiple moderate or highly resilient MUs (Table 3-5), thus limiting overall redundancy for the
species. Overall, the species has decreased redundancy across its range due to an estimated 57%
reduction in occupancy compared to historical levels.
Yellow Lance SSA Report Page 37 March 2017

MU Resiliency: Population Resiliency: � States
- High Moderate Physiographic Provinces:
Moderate �o,�, MpUNTAINS
- Low � Very Low PIEDMQNT
- Very Low Likely Extirpated COASTAL PLAIR!
� Likely Exti�pated YL occurrence 20a5-2015 • YL occurrence pre-2005
Mso Lale r�•. in� 1.� e tei.s,c�a:�.a- i�a_5 .�. �
River Basins:
Patuxeni
� Potomac
� IRappahannock
York
�a�s
Chowan
Tar-Pamlico
� Neuse
���;o.,,�� .�r„5
Yellow Lance SSA Report Page 38 March 2017

CHAPTER 4- FACTORS INFLUENCING VIABILITY
In this chapter, we evaluate the past, current, and future factors that are affecting what the
Yellow Lance needs for long term viability. Aquatic systems face a multitude of natural and
anthropogenic threats and stressors (Neves et al. 1997, p.44). State Wildlife Action Plans have
identified several factors that have impacts on habitats (see blue boxes in Figure 4.1 below).
Generally, these factors can be categorized as either environmental stressors (e.g., development,
agriculture practices, forest management, or regulatory frameworks) or systematic changes (e.g.,
climate change, invasive species, barriers, or conservation management practices). Current and
potential future effects, along with current distribution and abundance help inform viability and,
therefore, vulnerability to extinction. Those factors that are not known to have effects on Yellow
Lance populations, such as overutilization for commercial and scientific purposes and disease,
are not discussed in this SSA report.
En�ironmental 5tressors ane� 5ystematie Changes
�,� '
Habitat Factors
Water Quantity
Sediment
Water Quality
est Invasi�e
ernent Species
_ '!,` —�_�
Ha6itat
Cannectivity y
Breeding, Feeding, ' 4� Hast Fish Hast Fish
�� Organic Matter Suita6le -
Sheltering Factors (Food} Delivery Ha6itat Infestation & A6undance
�� Dispersal
.,. ,
Conservation - .. - - � -��-� . . `-�, �• HastFish �/
Management Juaenile � Diversity
''�
Adult Susvival Recruitment &
❑emogra�hie Factors sucvival
Current Mussel
Papulation Siie
�° Mussel
Population
Growth and
Maintenance
Hast Fish
Foad
A�aila6ility
Figure 4-1 Influence diagram illustrating how environmental stressors and systematic changes influence habitat factors
which in turn influence breeding, feeding, and sheltering needs of the species; in turn, these affect demographic factors
which ultimately influence mussel population growth and maintenance.
Yellow Lance SSA Report Page 39 March 2017

4.1 Development
We use the term "development" to refer to urbanization of the landscape, including (but not
necessarily limited to) land conversion for urban and commercial use, infrastructure (roads,
bridges, utilities), and urban water uses (water supply reservoirs, wastewater treatment, etc.).
The effects of urbanization may include alterations to water quality, water quantity, and habitat
(both in-stream and stream-side) (Ren et al. 2003, p.649; Wilson 2015, p.424).
"Impervious surface" refers to all
hard surfaces like paved roads,
parking lots, roofs, and even highly
compacted soils like sports fields.
Impervious surfaces prevent the
natural soaking of rainwater into the
ground and ultimately seeping into
streams (Brabec et al. 2002, p.499;
NHEP 2007, p.2). Instead, the rain
water accumulates and flows rapidly
into storm drains which drain to
local streams (Figure 4-2). This
.:._
�
��r� 6 . �
�..�� � � ��
��r_:
--,� _ . , �
-.� �"' ".``—� -
� .�:�:��r� � .
"-".� ��. �. ..
�'�``^� r .
�
f ���� �_��.
��yN.i �
�� �3_��`���
�
. ��:�,, . . ,.
�- -�
��
�
. f�
results in effects on streams in three
important ways (USGS 2014, p.2- Figure 4-2 Flooding over impervious surface (Credit: MD DNR)
5):
2
3
Water Quantity: Storm drains deliver large volumes of water to streams much faster than
would naturally occur, often resulting in flooding and bank erosion. Increased, high
velocity discharges can cause species living in streams to become stressed, displaced, or
killed by fast moving water and the debris and sediment carried in it.
Water Quality: Pollutants (e.g., gasoline or oil drips, fertilizers, etc) that accumulate on
impervious surfaces may be washed directly into the streams during storm events.
Water Temperature: During warm weather, rain that falls on impervious surfaces
becomes superheated and can stress or kill freshwater species when it enters streams.
Concentrations of contaminants, including nitrogen, phosphorus, chloride, insecticides,
polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, and personal care products, increase with urban development
(Giddings et al. 2009, p.2; Bringolf et al. 2010, p.1311). Water infrastructure development,
including water supply, reclamation, and wastewater treatment, results in several pollution point
discharges to streams. Urbanization increases the amount of impervious surfaces (CWP 2003,
p.l). The resulting stormwater runoff affects water quality parameters such as temperature, pH,
dissolved oxygen, and salinity, which in turn alters the water chemistry potentially making it
inhospitable for aquatic biota (Figure 4-3).
Yellow Lance SSA Report Page 40 March 2017

Good
a
«
.�
�
�
� Fair
m
v
�
Poor
Watershed Impervious Cover
Figure 4-3. Stream Quality is adversely impacted by increased impervious surfaces (from CWP 2003, p.2)
Urban development can lead to increased variability in streamflow, typically increasing the
amount of water entering a stream after a storm and decreasing the time it takes for the water to
travel over the land before entering the stream (Giddings et al. 2009, p. l). In urban areas,
flooding is often reduced by draining water quickly from roads and parking lots which results in
increased amounts of water reaching a stream within a short period of time, leading to stream
flashiness and altered stream channels (Giddings et al. 2009, p.l). The rapid runoff also reduces
the amount of infiltration into the soil to recharge aquifers, resulting in lower sustained
streamflows, especially during summer (Giddings et al. 2009, p.l). Ultimately, when the
hydrology of the stream is altered and water quantities vary widely, the physical habitat of a
stream often becomes degraded from channel erosion or lower summer flows that reduce
feeding, spawning, and living spaces of the Yellow Lance and other aquatic biota (Giddings et al.
2009, p. l ).
Urban development can alter stream habitat either directly via channelization or clearing of
riparian areas, or indirectly via high streamflows that reshape the channel and cause sediment
erosion (Giddings et al. 2009, p.2; Figures 4-4 and 4-5).
Figure 4-4 Sedimentation from unstable banks, cleared riparian area (credit: Ann Hamblin)
Yellow Lance SSA Report Page 41 March 2017
10% 25% 40% 60% 100%

Figure 4-5 Sedimentation from construction flows (credit: Nancy Pierce)
A major aspect of urbanization is the resultant road development. By its nature, road
development increases impervious surfaces as well as land clearing and habitat fragmentation.
Roads are generally associated with negative effects on the biotic integrity of aquatic
ecosystems, including changes in surface water temperatures and patterns of runoff,
sedimentation, adding heavy metals (especially lead), salts, organics, ozone, and nutrients to
stream systems (Trombulak and Frisse112000, p.18). In addition, a major impact of road
development is improperly constructed culverts at stream crossings (Figure 4-6). These culverts
act as barriers, either as flow through the culvert varies significantly from the rest of the stream,
or if the culvert ends up being perched, and aquatic organisms, specifically host fish for the
Yellow Lance, cannot pass through them.
Figure 4-6 Perched culvert (credit: Raleigh News and Observer)
Utility crossings and rights-of-way (ROW) maintenance are additional aspects of development
that impact stream habitats. For example, the proposed Atlantic Coast Pipeline planned to
deliver natural gas from supply areas in West Virginia to markets in Virginia and North Carolina,
will include the construction, operation, and maintenance of approximately 595 miles of
transmission pipeline, crossing hundreds of streams in WV, VA, and NC, including significant
Yellow Lance habitats in the Tar and Neuse River basins. Direct impacts from utility crossings
include direct exposure or crushing of individuals, sedimentation, and flow disturbance; the most
Yellow Lance SSA Report Page 42 March 2017

significant cumulative impact involves the cleared ROW that allows for direct runoff and
increased temperature at the crossing location, and potentially allows access of all-terrain
vehicles from the ROW (which destroy banks and instream habitat).
4.2 Regulatory Mechanisms
State Endangered Species Laws
Each state within the range of the Yellow Lance has state-level legislation modeled after the
federal Endangered Species Act: in Maryland, it is the Nongame and Endangered Species
Conservation Act, in Virginia it is both the Virginia Endangered Species Act and the Endangered
Plant and Insect Species Act, and in North Carolina it is the North Carolina Endangered Species
Act. Animal species that are protected by the state laws are regulated by state wildlife agencies;
in the case of the Yellow Lance, that is the Maryland Department of Natural Resources, the
Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries, and the North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission.
The state endangered species protection laws allow the state wildlife agencies to identify,
document, and protect any animal species that is considered rare or in danger of extinction. In
most of the states illegal activities include take, transport, export, processing, selling, offering for
sale, or shipping species, and the penalty for doing so is a misdemeanor crime, usually resulting
in a fine of no more than $1,000 or imprisonment not to exceed a year (Pellerito 2002, entire).
There are no mechanisms for recovery, consultation, or critical habitat designation other than in
MD where recommendations, not requirements, can be made for lands to be protected or
acquired, and in NC where conservation plans must be developed for all state listed species
(Pellerito 2002, Snape and George 2010, p.346). In addition, nothing in the North Carolina
Endangered Species Act "shall be construed to limit the rights of a landholder in the
management of his lands for agriculture, forestry, development, or any other lawful purpose"
(NC GS 113-332).
State and Federal Stream Protections (Buffers & Permits)
A buffer is a strip of trees, plants, or grass along a stream or wetland that naturally filters out dirt
and pollution from rain water runoff before it enters rivers, streams, wetlands, and marshes
(SELC 2014, p.2). Several state laws require setbacks or buffers, and all allow variances/waivers
for those restrictions. In Maryland, the state Forest Conservation Act protects 50-foot buffers on
all streams, and the Chesapeake Bay Critical Area Act requires 100-foot mandatory buffers on
all tributary streams in the defined Critical Area, although all agricultural and silvicultural lands
are exempt. Similar to Maryland, Virginia's Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act requires 100-foot
buffers on all perennial streams in designated "Resource Protection Areas." North Carolina
previously had buffer requirements in specific watersheds (e.g., Tar-Pamlico, Neuse, Catawba,
Jordan Lake, and Goose Creek), however, as described below, the NC Legislature enacted a
Regulatory Reform effort, including "Riparian Buffer Reform" that allows for the amendment of
the buffer rules to allow/exempt development and delay implementation of nutrient management
(see Session Law 2012, section 8 and Session Law 2015-246, House Bi1144, G.S. 143-214.23A
Yellow Lance SSA Report Page 43 March 2017

(NCDEQ 2016, entire)). North Carolina also has recommendations for 200 foot riparian buffer
protections for streams draining to listed aquatic species habitats (NCWRC 2002, p.l l).
Section 401 of the federal Clean Water Act (CWA) requires that an applicant for a federal
license or permit provide a certification that any discharges from the facility will not degrade
water quality or violate water-quality standards, including state-established water quality
standard requirements. Section 404 of the CWA establishes a program to regulate the discharge
of dredged and fill material into waters of the United States.
Permits to fill wetlands and fill, culvert, bridge or re-align streams or water features are issued by
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers under Nationwide, Regional General Permits or Individual
Permits.
• Nationwide Permits are for "minor" impacts to streams and wetlands, and do not require
an intense review process. These impacts usually include stream impacts under 150 feet,
and wetland fill projects up to 0.50 acres. Mitigation is usually provided for the same
type of wetland or stream impacted, and is usually at a 2:1 ratio to offset losses and make
the "no net loss" closer to reality.
• Regional General Permits are for various specific types of impacts that are common to a
particular region; these permits will vary based on location in a certain region/state.
• Individual permits are for the larger, higher impact and more complex projects. These
require a complex permit process with multi-agency input and involvement. Impacts in
these types of permits are reviewed individually and the compensatory mitigation chosen
may vary depending on project and types of impacts.
State and Federal Water Quality Programs
Current State regulations regarding pollutants are designed to be protective of aquatic organisms;
however, freshwater mollusks may be more susceptible to some pollutants than the test
organisms commonly used in bioassays. Additionally, water quality criteria may not
incorporate data available for freshwater mussels (March et al. 2007, pp. 2,066-2,067). A
multitude of bioassays conducted on 16 mussel species (summarized by Augspurger et al. 2007,
pp. 2025-2028) show that freshwater mollusks are more sensitive than previously known to
some chemical pollutants, including chlorine, ammonia, copper, fungicides, and herbicide
surfactants. Another study found that nickel and chlorine were toxic to a federally threatened
mussel species at levels below the current criteria (Gibson 2015, pp. 90-91). The study also
found mussels are sensitive to SDS (sodium dodecyl sulfate), a surfactant commonly used in
household detergents, for which water quality criteria do not currently exist. Several studies
have demonstrated that the criteria for ammonia developed by EPA in 1999 were not protective
of freshwater mussels (Augspurger et al. 2003, p. 2,571; Newton et al. 2003, pp. 2,559-2,560;
Mummert et al. 2003, pp. 2,548-2,552). However, in 2013 EPA revised its recommended
criteria for ammonia. The new criteria are more stringent and reflect new toxicity data on
sensitive freshwater mollusks (78 FR 52192, August 22, 2013; p. 2). All of the states in the
range of the Yellow Lance have not yet adopted the new ammonia criteria. NPDES permits are
valid for 5 years, so even after the new criteria are adopted, it could take several years before
facilities must comply with the new limits.
Yellow Lance SSA Report Page 44 March 2017

In summary, despite existing authorities such as the Clean Water Act, pollutants continue to
impair the water quality throughout the current range of the Yellow Lance. State and Federal
regulatory mechanisms have helped reduce the negative effects of point source discharges since
the 1970s, yet these regulations are difficult to implement and regulate. While new water quality
criteria are being developed that take into account more sensitive aquatic species, most criteria
currently do not. It is expected that several years will be needed to implement new water quality
criteria throughout the range.
Regulatory Reform in North Carolina
North Carolina has undergone regulatory review and reform that is worthy of inention because of
implications to stream habitat protections for aquatic species in the state, particularly areas that
are the strongholds for species like the Yellow Lance. In the past six years (since 2010), there
have been several changes to state regulations, dubbed as "Regulatory Reform" and in 2016, the
changes are described in legislation titled as the "Regulatory Reduction Act." These changes
have far reach and the most recent reforms have affected significant environmental programs and
protections, including (see Smith 2013-2016 for detailed review of applicable Session Laws,
House and Senate Bills, and enacted Legislation):
• disinvestment in data collection on rare and endangered species by significant funding
reductions to the state's Natural Heritage Program;
• revision of the State Environmental Policy Act review process (from NCDEQ's website):
"Session Law 2015-90. .. overhauled the criteria under which a SEPA review of a
•
•
•
proposed project is evaluated. Prior to the passage of SL 2015-90, if a proposed
project involved any amount of public funds, involved the use of public lands, or had
significant environmental impacts as determined by the minimum criteria, then a
SEPA review was necessary. With the passage of SL 2015-90, two key criteria must
now be considered to determine if a proposed action may require a SEPA eview. The
first is the funding source. If a proposed action involves more than $10,000,000 of
funds provided by the State of North Carolina for a single project or action or related
group of projects or actions a SEPA review may be necessary. This is a change over
the previous requirement which included any public funds (i.e. city, county, bonds,
etc.). The second involves direct impacts resulting from the proposed project. If the
proposed action will result in substantial, permanent changes to the natural cover or
topography greater than or equal to ten acres of public lands a SEPA review may be
required. This is a change over previous requirements that required a SEPA review
for impacts to any type or amount of public lands" (NCDEQ 2016, entire);
eliminating or limiting stormwater and stream buffer rules (and allowing unlimited
development in a riparian buffer as long as the project complies with state stormwater
requirements) in the Neuse River basin, the Tar-Pamlico River basin and the Jordan Lake
watershed;
change of state water quality rules to include a new stormwater standard which eliminates
on-site stormwater controls, unless they are needed to meet specific state or federal laws;
reduction of 401 certification/404 permitting requirements by eliminating mitigation for
projects impacting less than 300 feet of stream and reduced mitigation rations from 2:1 to
1:1;
Yellow Lance SSA Report Page 45 March 2017

• limitation of state environmental agency authorities (G.S. 150B-19.3) and local
government authorities.
As the title of the legislation states, these regulatory changes are intended to "improve and
streamline the regulatory process in order to stimulate job creation, to eliminate unnecessary
regulation, to make various other statutory changes, and to amend certain environmental and
natural resource laws" (exact title of HB74 2013). The result of these regulatory changes could
impact aquatic species such as the Yellow Lance, as well as the habitats that the species require
for survival. For example, reduced resources to inventory, compile, and review data as well as
changed criteria for project review, changed rules and standards, and reduced mitigation
requirements could all result in project implementation without consideration of impacts to
species, thus potentially directly or indirectly impacting the habitats the species depend on,
resulting in degradation of stream quality and ultimately in species decline.
4.3 Climate Change
As mentioned in the Poff et al. 2002 (pp.ii-v) report on Aquatic Ecosystems and Global Climate
Change, likely impacts of climate change on aquatic systems include:
• Increases in water temperatures that may alter fundamental ecological processes, thermal
suitability of aquatic habitats for resident species, as well as the geographic distribution
of species. Adaptation by migration to suitable habitat might be possible, however human
alteration of dispersal corridors may limit the ability of species to relocate, thus
increasing the likelihood of species extinction and loss of biodiversity.
• Changes and shifts in seasonal patterns of precipitation and runoff will alter the
hydrology of stream systems, affecting species composition and ecosystem productivity.
Aquatic organisms are sensitive to changes in frequency, duration, and timing of extreme
precipitation events such as floods or droughts, potentially resulting in interference of
reproduction. Further, increased water temperatures and seasonally reduced streamflows
will alter many ecosystem processes, including increases in nuisance algal blooms.
• Climate change is an additional stressor to sensitive freshwater systems, which are
already adversely affected by a variety of other human impacts, such as altered flow
regimes and deterioration of water quality.
• As mentioned by Poff et al. (2002, pp.ii-v), aquatic ecosystems have a limited ability to
adapt to climate change. Reducing the likelihood of significant impacts will largely
depend on human activities that reduce other sources of ecosystem stress to ultimately
enhance adaptive capacity; these include maintaining riparian forests, reducing nutrient
loading, restoring damaged ecosystems, minimizing groundwater (and stream)
withdrawal, and strategically placing any new reservoirs to minimize adverse effects.
• Specific ecological responses to climate change cannot be easily predicted because new
combinations of native and non-native species will interact in novel situations.
• Since sedentary freshwater mussels have limited refugia from disturbances such as
droughts and floods, and since they are thermo-conformers whose physiological
processes are constrained by water temperature within species-specific thermal
preferences, climate-induced changes in water temperature can lead to shifts in mussel
community structure (Galbraith et al. 2010, p.1176).
Yellow Lance SSA Report Page 46 March 2017

4.4 Agricultural Practices
Nutrient Pollution
Farming operations, including Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs), can
contribute to nutrient pollution when not properly managed (EPA 2016, entire). Fertilizers and
animal manure, which are both rich in nitrogen and phosphorus, are the primary sources of
nutrient pollution from agricultural sources. If fertilizers are not applied properly, at the right
time of the year and with the right application method, water quality in the stream systems can be
affected. Excess nutrients impact water quality when it rains or when water and soil containing
nitrogen and phosphorus wash into nearby waters or leach into the water table/ground waters
causing algal blooms. Fertilized soils and livestock can be significant sources of nitrogen-based
compounds like ammonia and nitrogen oxides. Ammonia can be harmful to aquatic life if large
amounts are deposited to surface waters (see information in "State Water Quality Programs"
section below). The lack of stable stream bank slopes from agricultural clearing and/or the lack
of stable cover crops between rotations on farmed lands can increase the amount of nutrients that
make their way into the nearby streams by way of increased soil erosion (cover crops and other
vegetation will use excess nutrients and increase soil stability). Livestock often use streams or
created in-line ponds as a water source; this degrades water quality and stream bank stability and
reduces water quantity available for downstream needs.
Pumping for Irrigation
Irrigation is the controlled application of water for agricultural purposes through manmade
systems to supply water requirements not satisiied by rainfall. It is common practice to pump
water for irrigation from adjacent streams or rivers into a reservoir pond, or sprayed directly onto
crops. If the water withdrawal is excessive (usually over 10,000 gal/day) or done illegally
(without permit if needed, or during dry time of year, or in areas where sensitive aquatic species
occur without consultation), this may cause impacts to the amount of water available to
downstream sensitive areas during low flow months, resulting in dewatering of channels and
stranding of mussels.
Agriculture Exemptions from Permit Requirements
Normal farming, silviculture, and ranching activities are exempt from the 404 permitting
process. This includes activities such as construction and maintenance of farm ponds, irrigation
ditches, and farm roads. If the activity might impact rare aquatic species, the USACE does
require farmers to ensure that any "discharge shall not take, or jeopardize the continued existence
of, a threatened or endangered species, or adversely modify or destroy the critical habitat of such
species," and to ensure that "adverse impacts to the aquatic environment are minimized,"
however the USACE does not require the farmer to consult with appropriate State or Federal
Agencies regarding these sensitive species.
While there is an expectation for farmers to follow best management practices (BMPs), there are
often cases where BMPs are not followed and go un-noticed as many farming activities are in
Yellow Lance SSA Report Page 47 March 2017

rural locations and regulators are spread thin (Wells (USFWS) email to S.McRae (USFWS) on
5/13/2016).
4.5 Forest Conversion and Management
A forested landscape provides many ideal conditions for aquatic ecosystems. Depending on the
structure and function of the forest, and particularly if native, natural mixed hardwood forests
comprise the active river area (ARA), rain is allowed to slowly infiltrate and percolate (as
opposed to rapid surface runof�, a variety of food resources enter the stream via leaf litter and
woody debris, banks are stabilized by tree roots, habitat is created by occasional windthrow, and
riparian trees shade the stream and maintain an ideal thermal climate.
Forested ARAs, or riparian areas,
perform many functions that are
essential to maintaining water
quality, aquatic species survival,
and biological productivity
(NCWRC 2002, p.6).
Specifically, forested riparian
areas serve a role as (USFWS
2006, p.6):
• mechanical barriers to
Table 4-2 Range of buffer widths for specific riparian functional
values (from USFWS 2006, p.22)
I2ange of Avera�e of lVumber of
reported reported swdies
effective widths effective includecl in
Ri arian Buffer Function (meters) widths (meters) ana] sis
Sediment retention 7-300 44 33
Nutrient retention 4-177 25 37
Nitrogen 7-33 1$ 15
Phos harus 4-3Q lb 12
Sacteriolo�ical rekention 9-5$ 31 6
Miscellaneous ollutant remoeal 4-61 27 8
Sustain aquatic biota 23-100 35 13
Decritus input/structural camplexity 7-SO 37 18
Tem erature maderation 8�173 34 17
runoff, increasing surface
roughness to reduce flow velocity and promoting mechanical trapping of suspended
solids;
• sediment traps and bank stabilizers, where the tree root structures retain erodible soils and
stabilize streambanks;
• cover refugia and nest sites, where woody debris from adjacent forested areas provides
structural complexity of instream habitats;
• temperature regulation, as trees in the riparian area provide shading for temperature
regulation/microclimate maintenance; and
• food resources, as adequate food input (detritus, allochthonous material) comes from the
surrounding riparian zone (Stewart et al. 2000, p.210).
Wide, contiguous forested riparian buffers have greater and more flexible potential than other
options to maintain biological integrity (Table 4-2; Horner et al. 1999, p.2) and could ameliorate
many ecological issues related to land use and environmental quality (Naiman et al. 1993,
p.209).
Silvicultural activities when performed according to strict Forest Practices Guidelines (FPGs) or
Best Management Practices (BMPs) can retain adequate conditions for aquatic ecosystems,
however, when FPGsBMPs are not followed, these activities can also "cause measurable
impacts" (NCASI 2015, p.l) and contribute to the myriad of stressors facing aquatic systems in
the Southeast. Both small and large scale forestry activities have been shown to have a
significant impact upon the physical, chemical, and biological characteristics of adjacent small
streams (Allan 1995, p.107). Today, forests are harvested and converted for many reasons
including, but not limited to: fmancial gain to the property owner by timber harvest, residential
Yellow Lance SSA Report Page 48 March 2017

and commercial development, conversion for various agricultural practices, for the
manufacturing of wood and paper products, and for fuel for electricity generation (Alig et al.
2010, pp.2-3; Maestas 2013, p.l; National Geographic 2016, entire). In many cases, natural
mixed hardwood-conifer forests are clear-cut, then either left to naturally regenerate or replanted
in rows of monoculture species such as pine, used for the growing need for timber building
supplies and pulp products (Figure 4-8; Allen et al. 1996, p.4; Wear and Greis 2012, p.13; NCFA
2017, entire).
9a
sa
�a
� fi0
�
w 50
c
o �
�
34
20
10
��Planted pine tNatural pine ���' Oak—pine �FUpland hardwaod ��Lowland hardwood
Figure 4-8 Historical trends in forest area by broad management type, showing an increase
in planted pine over the past half-century (from Wear and Greis 2012, p.13)
These monoculture stands can impact overall water cycle dynamics (e.g., increased
evapotranspiration and overall reduced stream flows)(Swank and Miner, 1968, entire; Swank and
Douglass 1974, entire; Riggs et al. 2000, pp.118-119), as well as result in a reduction of
biodiversity in the canopy, mid and understory vegetation as well as the fauna that uses this now
monoculture area. Furthermore, the aquatic habitats of streams in these monoculture forested
areas lose heterogeneity in food resources due to reduced variety in allochthonous (i.e., energy
inputs derived from outside the stream system, or leaf matter that falls into stream) inputs, and
this effect is mirrored among invertebrate and fish populations, including filter-feeding mussels
and benthic insectivorous fish and amphibians (Webster et al. 1992, p.235; Allan 1995, p.129;
Jones et al. 1999, p.1454).
The clearing of large areas of forested wetlands and riparian systems eliminates shade once
provided by the canopies, exposing streams to more sunlight and increasing the in-stream water
temperature (Wenger 1999, p.35). The increase in stream temperature and light after
deforestation has been found to alter the macroinvertebrate and other aquatic species richness
and abundance composition in streams to various degrees depending on each species tolerance to
temperature change and increased light in the aquatic system (Kishi et al. 2004, p.283; Couceiro
et al. 2007, p.272; Caldwell et al. 2014, p.3).
Sediment runoff from cleared forested areas is a known stressor to aquatic systems (Webster et
al. 1992, p.232; Jones et al. 1999, p.1455; Broadmeadow and Nisbet 2004, p.286; Aust et al.
2011, p.123). The physical characteristics of stream channels are affected when large quantities
of sediment are added or removed (Watters 2000, p.263). Mussels and fish are potentially
impacted by changes in suspended and bed material load, bed sediment composition associated
with increased sediment production and runoff in the watershed, channel changes in form,
Yellow Lance SSA Report Page 49 March 2017
1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 204D 2016

position, and degree of stability; actively filling or scouring channels; and changes in channel
position that may leave mussels or fish exposed (Brim Box and Mossa 1999, p.100; USFWS
2003, p.53). Interstitial spaces in mixed substrates may become clogged with sediment
subsequently reducing habitat for the life history needs of aquatic species.
Stream crossings and inadequately buffered clearcut areas can be important sources of sediment
entering streams (Taylor et al. 1999, p.13). Many forestry activities are not required to obtain a
CWA 404 permit, as silviculture activities (such as harvesting for the production of fiber and
forest products) are exempted (USACE 2016, entire: USEPA 2017, p.l). Because forestry
activities often include the construction of logging roads through the riparian zone, this can
directly degrade nearby stream environments (Aust et al. 2011, p.123). Logging roads
constructed in wetlands adjacent to headwater drains and streams fall into this exemption
category, but may impact the aquatic system for years as these roads do not always have to be
removed immediately. Roads remain as long as the silviculture operation is ongoing, thus
wetlands/streams/ditches draining into the more sensitive areas may be heavily impacted by
adjacent fill and runoff if BMP's fail or are not maintained, causing sedimentation to travel
downstream into more sensitive in-stream habitats. Requirements maintain that flows are not to
be restricted by logging roads, but culverts are only required per BMP's and are not always
adequately sized or spaced. Furthermore, stream crossings tend to have among the lowest
implementation (Table 4-3), and this is particularly true in North Carolina (NCFS 2011, p.v;
NCASI 2015, p.4).
Forestry practices that do not follow BMPs can impact natural flow regime, resulting in altered
habitat connectivity. Logging staging areas, logging ruts, and not re-planting are all associated
impacts that are a threat to downstream aquatic species. BMP's require foresters to ensure that
"the discharge shall not take, or jeopardize the continued existence of, a threatened or
endangered species, or adversely modify or destroy the critical habitat of such species," and to
ensure that "adverse impacts to the aquatic environment are minimized," however, foresters are
not required to consult with appropriate state or federal agencies regarding these sensitive
species and ways to best reduce potential impacts prior to moving forward with management.
Around the turn of the 21 St century, biologists, foresters, and managers alike recognized the need
for wholesale implementation of BMPs to address many of the aforementioned issues related to
forest conversion and silvicultural practices. Now, forestry BMP manuals suggest planning road
systems and harvest operations to minimize the number of crossings. Proper construction and
maintenance of crossings reduces soil erosion and sedimentation with the added benefit of
increasing harvest operation efficiency (NCASI 2015, p.2). The non-point source programs for
forestry in North Carolina is described as "quasi-regulatory" because it has defined the legal
implications of non-compliance in a specific way (NCASI 2015, p. 1). FPGs (specific to North
Carolina) are codified performance standards that govern forestry-related land-disturbing
activities and BMPs are recommended actions/measures to minimize and control nonpoint
pollution runoff from forestry operations. The NC Forest Service has noted that "improving
BMP implementation of stream crossing BMPs will have the most positive influence on reducing
the risk to water quality on active harvest sites, followed by BMPs for rehabilitation, debris
entering streams, skid trails, and SMZs [streamside management zones]" (NCFS 2011, p.vi). In
Yellow Lance SSA Report Page 50 March 2017

the South, the region-wide average for overall BMP implementation in 2011 was 92% (Table 4-
3; NCASI 2015, pp.3-4).
Table 4-3. Forestry Best Management Practices Implementation Rates from the
Most Recent Surveys for States in the Southeastern US (Sources: SGSF 2012; NASF
2015 (excerpted from NCASI 2015, p.4)
Range of Implementation Rates Average
in SE States Implementation Rate
BMP Category SGSF (2012) NASF (2015) (from SGSF 2012)
Overall BMP Implementation 85% to 99% 85% to 99% 92%
Harvesting 85% to 99% 88% to 99% 95%
Forest Roads
Stream Crossings
SMZs
78% to 99% 84% to 99% 90%
72% to 98% 72% to 98% 89%
85% to 99% 86% to 98% 93%
Site Preparation 74% to 99% 74% to 99% 92%
Firebreaks 33% to 100% 64% to 100% 82%
Chemical Application 94% to 100% 93% to 100% 98.5%
'SGSF (2012) includes implementation rates for Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia,
Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and Virginia.
ZNASF (2015) includes implementation rates for Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky,
Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and
Virginia.
While FPGs and BMPs are widely adhered to (Table 4-3), they were not always common
practice, and even today there are instances (although rare) that do not rise to a level of threat
minimization that is adequate for the sensitive species (e.g., freshwater mussels and fish) in the
area. As an example, while NC's FPG .0201 indicates that "a SMZ shall be established and
maintained along the margins of intermittent and perennial streams. ..[and] shall be of sufficient
width to confine...visible sediment resulting from accelerated erosion", there is no information
on the required width. Even if mandated 50 or 100 foot buffer zones (e.g., in the Neuse and Tar
River basins) were enforced (see "Regulatory Reform" section above), data indicate that
minimum native, forested buffer widths of 200-feet on perennial streams and 100-feet on
intermittent streams, or the full extent of the 100-year floodplain, should be maintained in
watersheds supporting federally endangered and threatened aquatic species (NCWRC 2002,
pp.10-11; Broadmeadow and Nisbet 2004, p.286; NCNHP 2004, p. 4; USFWS 2006, p.17).
4.6 Invasive Species
The South Atlantic seaboard has many native species that are declining and nonnative nuisance
species are one of the major causes. It is estimated that 42% of Federally Threatened or
Endangered species are significantly impacted by nonnative nuisance species across the nation
and nuisance species are significantly impeding recovery efforts for them in some way
(NCANSMPC 2015, pp.8-9). There are many areas across the states of Maryland, Virginia, and
North Carolina where aquatic invasive species have invaded aquatic communities; are competing
with native species for food, light, or breeding and nesting areas; and are impacting biodiversity.
Yellow Lance SSA Report Page 51 March 2017

When an invasive species is introduced it may have many advantages over native species, such
as easy adaptation to varying environments and a high tolerance of living conditions that allows
it to thrive in its nonnative range. There may not be natural predators to keep the invasive species
in check; therefore, it can potentially live longer and reproduce more often, further reducing the
biodiversity in the system. The native species may become an easy food source for invasive
species, or the invasive species may carry diseases that wipe out populations of native species.
Examples of invasive species that affect freshwater mussels like the Yellow Lance are the Asian
Clam (Co�bicula fluminea), the Flathead Catfish (Pylodictis olivaris), and Hydrilla (Hydrilla
verticillata). The Asian Clam alters benthic substrates, competes with native species for limited
resources, and causes ammonia spikes in surrounding water when they die off en masse (Scheller
1997, p.2). The Asian Clam is ubiquitous across the southeastern United States and is present in
watersheds across the ranges of the Yellow Lance (Foster et al. 2017, p.l). The Flathead Catfish
is an apex predator known to feed on almost anything, including other fish, crustaceans, and
mollusks, and to impact host fish communities, reducing the amount of fish available as hosts for
the mussels to complete their life cycle (VDGIF 2017, entire; NCANSMPC 2015, p.75).
Hydrilla is an aquatic plant that alters stream habitat, decreases flows, and contributes to
sediment buildup in streams (NCANSMPC 2015, p.57). High sedimentation can cause
suffocation, reduce stream flow, and make it difficult for mussels' interactions with host fish
necessary for development. Hydrilla occurs in several watersheds where the Yellow Lance
occur, including recent documentation from the Neuse system and the Tar River. The dense
growth is altering the flow in these systems and causing sediment buildup, which can cause
suffocation in filter-feeding mussels. While data are lacking on Hydrilla currently having
population-level effects on the Yellow Lance, the spread of this invasive plant is expected to
increase in the future.
4.7 Dams and Barriers
One of the greatest known extinction episodes in the first half of the twentieth century
took place in the Southeast — the virtual disappearance of the Coosa River molluscan
fauna. Dams on the Coosa River destroyed all the shoals on which the snails and
mussels depended... Today, most of the remnants of this once diverse fauna teeter on the
brink of extinction. —G.W.Folkerts (1997, p.l l)
Extinction/extirpation of North American freshwater mussels can be traced to impoundment and
inundation of riffle habitats in all major river basins of the central and eastern United States
(NCWRC 2015a, p.109). Humans have constructed dams for a variety of reasons: flood
prevention, water storage, electricity generation, irrigation, recreation, and navigation (Eissa and
Zaki 2011, p.253). Manmade dams and natural dams (either created by beavers or by
aggregations of woody debris) have many impacts on stream ecosystems. Reductions in the
diversity and abundance of mussels are primarily attributed to habitat shifts causes by
impoundment (Neves et al. 1997, p.63):
• Upstream of dams — the change from flowing to impounded waters, increased depths,
increased buildup of sediments, decreased dissolved oxygen, and the drastic alteration in
Yellow Lance SSA Report Page 52 March 2017

resident fish populations inevitably can threaten the survival of mussels and their overall
reproductive success.
• Downstream of dams — fluctuations in flow regimes, minimal releases and scouring
flows, seasonal dissolved oxygen depletion, reduced or increased water temperatures, and
changes in fish assemblages can also threaten the survival and reproduction of many
mussel species.
Dams have also been identified as causing genetic isolation in river systems — resident fish can
no longer move freely through different habitats and may become genetically isolated from other
fish populations throughout the river; furthermore, as host fish, this can cause genetic
segregation in the mussel populations as well.
Interestingly, recent studies have shown that some mussel populations may be more temporally
persistent immediately downstream of small dams, more abundant and diverse, and attain larger
sizes and grow faster than do conspecifics in populations further upstream or downstream
(Gangloff 2013, p.476 and references therein). In today's rapidly changing landscape, it is
possible that these small dams and their impoundments may perform some key ecological
functions including filtration and detoxification of anthropogenically elevated nutrient loads,
oxygenating low-gradient streams during low-water periods, and stabilizing portions of the
stream beds that are needed for the persistence of fish and mollusk taxa (Gangloff 2013, pp.478-
479). Additional benefits of impoundments may include (Gangloff 2013, p.479 and references
therein):
• retention of fine sediments and associated toxicants, as in the case of the Lake Benson
Dam in the Swift Creek (Neuse) watershed,
• impediments to the spread of invasive species, as in the case of Bellamy's Mill Dam on
Fishing Creek (Tar) that appears to prevent the upstream spread of Flathead Catfish, and
• attenuation of floods from urban or highly agrarian watersheds.
As mentioned above, improperly constructed culverts at stream crossings act as significant
barriers, and have some similar effects as dams on stream systems. Fluctuating flows through
the culvert can vary significantly from the rest of the stream, preventing fish passage and
scouring downstream habitats. If a culvert ends up being perched above the stream bed, aquatic
organisms cannot pass through them. These barriers not only fragment habitats along a stream
course, they also contribute to genetic isolation of the aquatic species inhabiting the streams.
4.8 Conservation Management
Conservation management actions include in situ actions such as habitat protection and stream
restoration as well as ex situ actions such as captive propagation, ultimately leading to species
population restoration.
"It is...widely recognized that the future of rare aquatic species is best secured by protecting and
restoring biological integrity of entire watersheds" (Shute et al. 1997, p.448 and references
therein). While land acquisition is the most obvious means of affecting watershed protection, it
is not feasible to acquire entire watersheds. Shute et al. (1997, p.448) offer up "Ecosystem
Yellow Lance SSA Report Page 53 March 2017

Management" as the most effective method of protecting the greatest number of species,
however, they warn that "the complex nature of aquatic ecosystems and the watershed scale
necessary for aquatic ecosystem protection is problematic... [It] is expensive, time consuming,
and requires considerable coordination with and commitment from various agencies,
organizations, and private individuals."
The Service and State Wildlife Agencies are working with numerous partners to make
Ecosystem Management a reality, primarily by providing technical guidance and offering
development of conservation tools to meet both species and habitat needs in aquatic systems
from Maryland to North Carolina. There is a lot of effort to work with agriculture producers
through the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Natural Resource Conservation Service to install
riparian buffers along streams (J.Slacum (USFWS) email to S.McRae (USFWS) on ll/30/2016).
Land Trusts are targeting key parcels for acquisition, federal and state biologists are surveying
and monitoring species occurrences, and recently there has been a concerted effort to ramp up
captive propagation and species population restoration via augmentation, expansion, and
reintroduction efforts.
In 2014, North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission staff and partners began a concerted
effort to propagate the Yellow Lance in hopes of augmenting existing populations in the Tar and
Neuse River basins. In July 2015, 270 Yellow Lances were stocked into Sandy Creek, a
tributary of the Tar River (NCWRC 2015b, p.7). Annual monitoring to evaluate growth and
survival is planned, and additional propagation and stocking efforts will continue in upcoming
years.
4.9 Summary
Of the past, current, and future influences on what the Yellow Lance needs for long term
viability, the largest threats to the future viability of the species relate to habitat degradation from
stressors influencing water quality, water quantity, instream habitat, and habitat connectivity.
All of these factors are influenced by climate change. We did not assess overutilization for
scientific and commercial purposes or disease, because these risks do not appear to be occurring
at a level that affects Yellow Lance populations. Impairment of water quality, declines in flows,
riparian and instream habitat fragmentation and degradation, as well as management efforts, are
carried forward in our assessment of the future conditions of Yellow Lance MUs and
populations, and the viability of the species overall.
Yellow Lance SSA Report Page 54 March 2017

CHAPTER 5 — FUTURE CONDITIONS
Thus far, we have considered Yellow Lance life history characteristics and we have identified
the habitat and demographic requisites needed for viability and we estimated the current
condition of those needs through the lens of the 3Rs (Chapters 2 and 3). Next, we reviewed the
factors that may be driving the historical, current, and future conditions of the species (Chapter
4). In this chapter, we predict the species' future conditions given a range of plausible future
scenarios. As with estimates of current condition, future forecasts were made using the concepts
of resiliency, redundancy, and representation to describe the future viability of the Yellow Lance.
5.1 Future Scenario Considerations
We identified the main drivers of change for the future scenario analyses to be human population
growth and subsequent urbanization rates, both of which are predicted to result in patterns of
increased urban sprawl across the landscape (Terando et al. 2014, p.l). According to the United
States Census, the human population in the southeastern US has grown at an average annual rate
of 36.7% since 2000 (US Census 2016, pp. 1-4), by far the most rapidly growing region in the
country. This rapid growth has resulted in expanding urbanization, sometimes referred to as
"urban sprawl." Urban sprawl increases the connectivity of urban habitats while simultaneously
fragmenting non-urban habitats such as forests and grasslands (Terando et al. 2014, p. l). In turn,
species and ecosystems are impacted by the increased sprawl, including impacts to water
pollution, local climate conditions, and disturbance dynamics (Terando et al. 2014, p.l). One
way to forecast how these changes will affect the Yellow Lance is to look at the spatial pattern
and extent of urban sprawl across historically and currently occupied watersheds, and build a
model predicting the effects of that sprawl to the habitat elements that influence Yellow Lance
populations.
To forecast future urbanization, we developed future scenarios that incorporate the SLEUTH
(Slope, Land use, Excluded area, Urban area, Transportation, Hillside area) model, which
simulates patterns of urban expansion that are consistent with spatial observations of past urban
growth and transportation networks, including the sprawling, fragmented, "leapfrog"
development that has been the dominant form of development in the Southeast (Terando et al.
2014, p.2). Terando et al. (2014) projected urban sprawl changes for the next 50 years for the
fast-growing Southeastern United States, using simulations that point to a future in which the
extent of urbanization in the Southeast is projected to increase by 101% to 192%. This
projection is based on the "business-as-usual" (BAU) scenario in which the net effect of growth
is in line with that which has occurred in the past (Terando et al. 2014, p.l; Figure 5-1), and as
mentioned above, is in line with the Southeast being the fastest growing region in the country.
Yellow Lance SSA Report Page 55 March 2017

Figure 5-1 `Business-as-usual" urbanization scenario for the Southeast US from Terando et al. 2014, p.3. Red areas are
the urban extent as classified by their methodology. (b) is the initial urban land cover in 2009; (c) is the projected urban
land cover in 2060; and (d) is the projected urban land cover in the Piedmont ecoregion showing a connected urban
landscape.
As discussed in section 4.1, the development promulgated from urban sprawl is expected to
impact the habitat elements that were identified as essential for the survival of the Yellow Lance.
Consequently, water quality and quantity will likely decline, habitat connectivity will become
more fragmented, and instream substrate habitat may become less suitable for the species to
survive. As such, urban sprawl will, almost certainly, influence the ability of the species to
respond to climate change (Hannah 2011, p. 1141). Given all scenarios developed by the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), greenhouse gas emissions are expected to
continue at or above current rates which will lead to continued warming (Figure 5-2; IPCC 2013,
p.7). Warming in the Southeast is expected to be greatest in the summer (NCCV 2016) which is
predicted to increase drought frequency, while annual mean precipitation is expected to increase
slightly, leading to increased flooding events (Figure 5-3; IPCC 2013, p.7; NCCV 2016).
In order to predict future changes in climate, scientists rely on climate model simulations that are
driven by assumptions about future human population growth, changes in energy generation and
land use, socio-economic development, and technology change. The IPCC's Fifth Assessment
Report (ARS), published in 2014, presents findings based on a set of scenarios that use
Representative Concentration Pathways (RCPs). The RCPs are representative of several
different scenarios that have similar greenhouse gas emissions characteristics on a time-
dependent trajectory to reach a certain projected outcome (Wayne 2013, p.l). There are four
RCPs, identified by the amount of radiative forcing (i.e., the change in energy in the atmosphere
due to greenhouse gases) reached by 2100: one high pathway (RCP8.5); two intermediate
stabilization pathways (RCP6.0 and RCP4.5); and one low trajectory pathway (RCP2.6 or
RCP3PD)(Wayne 2013, p.l l).
Yellow Lance SSA Report Page 56 March 2017

a 1�
N
�
�
�
�
.�
`a
�
N
�
�
�
�
c�
�
0
E:�
7
�
5
4
3
2
�
d 4 t� 4 0 0 4 t�i Q � O
��o ���. �d�, �� �� �ah �d�o ��'1 �d� �a� �,,,4
Year
�v3ESSAGE 8.5
AIM fi.D
GCAM �.5
IMAGE �.5
Figure 5-2 Changes in radiative forcing relative to pre-industrial conditions. Bold colored lines show the four RCPs; thin
lines show individual scenarios from approximately 30 candidate RCP scenarios that provide information on all key
factors affecting radiative forcing (from Moss et al., 2010).
RCP2.6 assumes that through drastic policy intervention, greenhouse gas emissions would be
reduced almost immediately, leading to a slight reduction in today's levels by 2100; RCP8.5
assumes that emissions would be more or less unabated due to a lack of climate-change reversal
policies (Wayne 2013, p.15). For RCP4.5 and RCP6.0, emissions are assumed to be relatively
stable throughout the century, however RCP6.0 does not incorporate climate-reversal policies
into forecasts, while RCP4.5 incorporates a number of climate policies into forecasts (Wayne
2013, p.15). As cited from DeWan et al. (2010, p.4), "it is difficult to predict the human choices
that will shape our future emissions, and thus what the world might look like in 2100."
Changes in climate may affect ecosystem processes and communities by altering the abiotic
conditions experienced by biotic assemblages resulting in potential effects on community
composition and individual species interactions (DeWan et al. 2010, p.7). This is especially true
for aquatic systems where climate change can trigger a cascade of ecological effects. For
example, increases in air temperatures can lead to subsequent increases in water temperatures
which, in turn, may lower water quality parameters (like dissolved oxygen), ultimately
influencing overall habitat suitability for species like the Yellow Lance.
Despite the recognition of potential climate effects on ecosystem processes, there is uncertainty
about what the exact climate future for the Southeastern US will be and how the ecosystems and
species in this region will respond. In the "Threats" section of the North Carolina Wildlife
Action Plan (NCWRC 2015a, p.5-48), climate change is seen as a"low" threat to the Yellow
Lance, with Small Scope (affecting 1-10% of the total population or occurrences) and Slight
Severity (likely to only slightly degrade/reduce affected occurrences or habitat, or reduce the
population by 1-10%). Furthermore, in an assessment of ecosystem response to climate change,
Yellow Lance SSA Report Page 57 March 2017

factors associated with climate change ranked well below other factors that were deemed more
imminent risks to Yellow Lance populations (e.g., development, pollution, water withdrawals,
flood regime alteration, etc.; NCNHP 2010, entire). However, it should be recognized that the
greatest threat from climate change may come from synergistic effects. That is, factors
associated with a changing climate may act as risk multipliers by increasing the risk and severity
of more imminent threats (Arabshahi and Raines 2012, p.8). As a result, impacts from rapid
urbanization in the region might be exacerbated under even a mild to moderate climate future.
For future scenario predictions, we considered the "extreme" climate futures under RCPs 8.5 and
2.6 for the Pessimistic and Optimistic Scenarios respectively. Alternate climate scenarios were
used to evaluate more moderate and/or stabilizing climate futures for the Status Quo and
Opportunistic Scenarios (see Table 5-1 for details). Both of the "stabilizing" RCPs have a
similar trajectory given our 50-year time frame (Figure 5-2); therefore, both RCP4.5 or RCP6.0
were used to help inform predictions related to a more moderate climate future. Regardless of a
pessimistic, optimistic, opportunistic, or status quo climate future, the following systematic
changes are expected to be realized to varying degrees in the Southeastern US (NCILT 2012,
p.27; IPCC 2013, p.7):
➢ More frequent drought
➢ More extreme heat (resulting in increases in air and water temperatures, Figure 5-3)
➢ Increased heavy precipitation events (e.g., flooding)
➢ More intense storms (e.g., frequency of major hurricanes increases)
➢ Rising sea level and accompanying storm surge
�8� .
�n �� hr � rf �s.m �ON
id
aa
:o
�
ar� M �Y +r� � aw .W � Sie � �le� 4ar�:
� rFl4 30F] � SC+.�6 FG*+
���
�
-- — `r+�
W iItQ7111�
'.�ppe��+�9FFR�kf
�a6omac
Li1yYf Q�ii�l, YQIOA
Chewr+•�[n�e�r
4o-�w.R�mlm
t �� f$V'
�dIG EhiY
r�4�iiMQ4
{7��h�4�n�
.cnamr�xSv kl ary�
�y
�S
S.3
4.3
1]
a�a
��
AA
i�
�4
94
Cha gn m Mv�iai Mer�4� fi+r�nKu�r i�F i c'k^",42`]7a ra 74Y6aC4} �.i:� }i
�a �2 � i J. d @ 90 72 74 YC {8 t� 22 2+
Figure 5-3 Predicted change in annual mean maximum air temperature under RCP4.5 (NCCV 2016)
Yellow Lance SSA Report Page 58 March 2017

5.1.1 The Scenarios
The Yellow Lance has declined in overall distribution and abundance. The species currently
occupies approximately 43% of its historical range with most remaining populations being small
and fragmented, occupying sporadic reaches compared to presumed historical populations, and
several are isolated from one another. The prevailing hypothesis for this decline is habitat
degradation, resulting from the cumulative impacts of land use change and subsequent
watershed-level landscape changes that presumably impacted water quality, water quantity,
habitat connectivity, and instream habitat suitability (see Chapter 4).
Populations in both large and small MUs face risks from both natural and anthropogenic sources.
Climate change has already begun to affect the watersheds where Yellow Lance occurs, resulting
in higher air temperatures and increased evaporation, and changing precipitation patterns such
that water levels rangewide have already reached historic lows (NCILT 2012, p.6). These low
water levels put the populations at elevated risk for habitat loss.
These risks, alone or in combination, could potentially result in the extirpation of additional
populations, increasing population fragmentation, and, in turn, negative effects on species
redundancy and representation. Given small and fragmented contemporary populations of
Yellow Lance, maintaining future viability is largely reliant on preventing further declines in
current populations and restoring/recovering population numbers and connectivity (where
feasible). Because we have significant uncertainty regarding if and when additional flow loss,
water quality impairment, or connectivity issues may occur, we have forecasted what the Yellow
Lance may have in terms of the 3Rs under four plausible future scenarios.
Four scenarios, including a status quo scenario, were used to characterize the uncertainty
regarding plausible futures for the Yellow Lance. Resiliency, representation, and redundancy
were forecasted for each scenario using each of four possible climate futures coupled with
variable levels of urbanization predicted by the SLEUTH BAU. Current levels of conservation
management were assumed to be constant across all scenarios unless commitment of specific
actions are currently, or will be imminently, in place. The expected future resiliency of each MU
was forecasted based on events that were predicted to occur under each scenario. As with
current condition estimates, estimates were made at the lowest hierarchical level (MUs) and were
then scaled up to the population (i.e., river basin) level.
Predictions of Yellow Lance resiliency, redundancy, and representation were forecasted using a
50-year time horizon. This time horizon was chosen to correspond to the range of available
urbanization and climate change model forecasts. Furthermore, 50-years represents a time frame
during which the effects of management actions can be implemented and realized on the
landscape, and it is a reasonable time frame (including approximately 4-5 generations) for the
species to respond to potential changes on the landscape.
For these projections, high condition MUs were defined as those with high resiliency at the end
of the predicted time horizon (50 years). MUs in high condition are expected to persist into the
future, beyond 50 years, and have the ability to withstand stochastic events. MUs in moderate
condition were defined as having lower resiliency than those in high condition but are still
Yellow Lance SSA Report Page 59 March 2017

expected to persist to 50 years. Populations in moderate condition have lower abundances and
reduced reproductive potential than those in high condition. Finally, those MUs in low condition
were defined as having low resiliency and may not be able to withstand stochastic events. As a
result, low condition MUs were predicted to be much less likely to persist 50 years into the
future.
Yellow Lance SSA Report Page 60 March 2017

Table 5-1 Future Scenario Summary Table
Scenario Name
1) Status Quo Scenario
2) Pessimistic Scenario
3) Optimistic Scenario
4) Opportunistic Scenario
Climate Future
Curre nt CI i mate effects
continue on trend into
the future, resulting in
increased heat, drought,
storms and flooding
Moderate to Worse
Climate Future (RCP8.51)-
exacerbated effects of
climate change
experienced related to
heat, drought, storms and
flooding
Moderate to Improved
Climate Future (trending
towards RCP 2.6z)
resulting in minimal
effects of heat, drought,
storms and flooding
Moderate Climate Future
(RCP4.5/63) - some
climate change effects
experienced; some areas
impacted more than
others by heat, drought,
storms and flooding
�Representative concentration pathway 8.5
Z Representative concentration pathway 2.6
3 Representative concentration pathway 4.5/6
4Business as usual
SWater quality
6Interbasin transfer
Urbanization
Urbanization
continues on trend
with current levels
Urbanization rates at
high end of BAU4
model (�200%)
Urbanization rates
realized at lower
levels than BAU
model predicts
(<100%)
Moderate BAU
urbanization rates
(�100%) realized
Species Condition
�urrent level of species response
to impacts on landscape; current
levels of propagation &
augmentation and/or
translocation capacity
Species response to synergistic
impacts on landscape result in
significant declines coupled with
limited propagation capacity
and/orlimited abilityto
augment/reintroduce propagules
Optimisticspecies response to
impacts; targeted propagation
and/or restoration efforts
utilizing existing resources and
capacity
Selective improved species
response to impacts as a result of
targeted propagation and/or
restoration efforts utilizing
current resources and capacity
Future Condition Category Descriptions
�
Water Quality Condition Water Quantity Condition
Current level of regulation and ,
oversight, including limited ; Current level of regulation and
protective WQsstandards ; oversight, includingsustained
requirements and utilization of ; IBTs6 and irrigation withdrawals;
basictechnologiesforeffluent ; currentflowconditions
treatment '
Declining water quality
resultingfrom increased
impacts, limited regulation and
restrictions, and overall
reduced protections
Degraded flow conditions
resulting from climate change
effects, increased withdrawals
and IBTs, limited regulation, and
overall reduced protections
Slightly increased impacts ; Improved flow conditions
tempered by utilizing improved;through increased oversight and
technologies and implementing; implementation of flow
protection strategies � improvement strategies
Moderate increase in WQ
impacts resulting from
continued levels of regulation,
protection, and technology
Targeted strategies to improve
flow conditions in priority areas
Habitat Condition
Current level of regulation,
barrier improvement/removal
projects, and riparian buffer
protections
Degraded instream and riparian
habitat conditions from
increased impacts, limited
regulation, fewer barrier
improvement/removal projects,
and overall reduced riparian
buffer protections
Existing resources targeted to
highest priority barrier
removals; riparian buffer
protections remain intact;
targeted riparian connectivity
projects; regulatory mechanisms
remain the same
Targeted increase in riparian
connectivity and protection of
instream habitat in priority areas
through targeted conservation
efforts
Yellow Lance SSA Report Page 61 March 2017

5.2 Scenario 1— Status Quo
Under the Status Quo scenario, factors that influence current populations of Yellow Lance were
assumed to remain constant over the 50 year time horizon. Climate models predict that, if
emissions continue at current rates, the Southeast Region will experience a rise in low flow
(drought) events (II'CC 2013, p.7). Likewise, this scenario assumed the Business as Usual
pattern of urban growth which predicted that urbanization would continue to increase rapidly
(Terando et al. 2014, p.l). The Status Quo Scenario also assumed that current conservation
efforts would remain in place but that no new actions would be taken. Below describe how
factors affecting populations, including water quality, flow, and riparian cover, are expected to
change given the Status Quo Scenario. Given predicted habitat conditions and current
population factors (i.e., initial conditions) we then forecast Yellow Lance viability using the 3R
framework.
• Patuxent — Urbanization is predicted to result in up to 50% developed area within the
basin in the next 50 years (NLCD 2011; Table 5-1). Urban sprawl felt from Baltimore
and Washington DC growing towards each other will likely contribute to an overall
decline in water quality, flow conditions, and habitat connectivity in affected watersheds
(see Section 4.1). Given this scenario, it is likely that the Patuxent Basin would
experience comparable effects, thus resulting in overall decline in Yellow Lance habitat
condition (Table 5-2), resulting in the likely extirpation of this population.
• Potomac — Urbanization affecting the Potomac Basin (largely a result of the growing
Washington DC metropolitan area) is predicted to increase the proportion of developed
area in the Difficult Run MU to over 55% (NLCD 2011; Terando et. al. 2014, p.l).
Increased urbanization is expected to lower water quality via increased impervious
surface runoff and non-point source pollution (see Section 4.1). Additionally, this basin
is already experiencing nutrient loading and associated eutrophication from treated
wastewater inputs and stormwater, both of which are expected to continue in the future
under the status quo. Urbanization is also expected to increase the number of road
crossings, in turn, potentially decreasing habitat connectivity. Lowered habitat quality
(Table 5-2), coupled with a projected decline in habitat connectivity is expected limit
available habitat where the species was once known to occur, and the Yellow Lance is
predicted to remain extirpated under the Status Quo Scenario.
• Rappahannock — While predominantly a rural watershed, urbanization from the continued
southward expansion of Washington DC will likely affect portions of the MU in the next
50 years (Terando et al. 2014, p.l). Stormwater runoff and sedimentation are predicted to
continue to affect water quality, thus continued low habitat conditions throughout the MU
will likely prevent the species from persisting under this scenario (Table 5-2).
• York — While water quantity and habitat connectivity conditions will likely remain the
same in the Status Quo Scenario, this basin is predicted to see persistent declines in water
quality and instream habitat from continued intensive agriculture practices (NLCD 2011),
thus contributing to low habitat conditions that are unsuitable for Yellow Lance
persistence in this basin (Table 5-2).
• James — Habitat conditions will likely remain unchanged in the Status Quo Scenario. The
extreme headwaters MU for this population will likely remain resilient (albeit at low
Yellow Lance SSA Report Page 62 March 2017

levels because of the continued low population factors) through a Status Quo Scenario,
resulting in continued low population and high habitat conditions into the future.
Chowan — Climate induced change, along with continued sedimentation from agricultural
practices, is predicted to result in reduced flow in the Nottoway drainage as well as
degraded instream habitats in both the Nottoway and Meherrin MUs (B.Watson
(VADGIF) email to S.McRae (USFWS) on 10/3/2016; Table 3-2). The Yellow Lance is
currently presumed extirpated in the Meherrin MU and re-establishment without human
intervention is unlikely. Habitat quality in the Nottoway MU is predicted to decline, thus
painting a relatively dire picture for the future of Yellow Lance persistence in the
Chowan Basin under the Status Quo Scenario.
Tar — Continued climate induced changes that reduce flows (NCILT 2012, p.27), coupled
with the continuation of water quality impacts are predicted to result in poor habitat
conditions throughout the Upper/Middle Tar MU. Factors affecting water quality in the
Upper/Middle Tar MU are wastewater treatment (e.g. basic effluent treatment
technologies) and reduced riparian habitat protections (see Section 4.2; Table 5-2). Both
the Fishing Creek and Sandy/Swift Creek MUs are predicted to maintain moderate
habitat conditions in the Status Quo Scenario, thus perpetuating existing moderate/high
population conditions into the future.
Neuse — Urbanization in the Middle Neuse River Basin is predicted to result in continued
declines in water quality from stormwater runoff and wastewater effluent issues (see
Section 4-1). Additionally, this scenario predicts declines in water quantity as the area
continues to withdraw water to support continued population growth and declines in
habitat connectivity by maintaining existing dam infrastructure and population-growth
inducing more road crossings; all of these factors contribute to declining instream habitat
for the species. These factors are likely to contribute to a precipitous overall decline in
habitat for the species (Table 5-2).
5.2.1 Resiliency
Given the Status Quo Scenario, extant populations were predicted to persist in MUs where
habitat conditions (described above and in Table 5-2) are expected to remain sufficient for
Yellow Lance reproduction and survival. Only the Sandy/Swift MU and Fishing Creek MU
were predicted to remain moderately resilient, while the Johns Creek MU and the Upper/Middle
Tar MU were predicted to have low resiliency at the end of the predictive time horizon (Table 5-
2). All other MUs were predicted to become extirpated.
Scaling up to the population level, only one population (Tar) is expected to have moderate
resiliency and one population (James) is expected to retain low resiliency under the Status Quo
Scenario. All other populations (five of seven currently extant populations) of Yellow Lance are
predicted to become extirpated in 50 years under the Status Quo Scenario.
Yellow Lance SSA Report Page 63 March 2017

Table 5-2 Yellow Lance Resiliency under Scenario 1- Status Quo
Population Factors Habitat Elements
Combined
Population/ MU Population Water Water Instream Habitat Combined
Management Unit Occupancy Abundance Reproduction Factors Quality Quantity Connectivity (Substrate) Habitat Elements Overall
Patuxent Q) Q) � {l� LoW LoW LoW LoW �
Potomac Q) Q) � � Very Low Very Low Low Low QJ
Rappahannock � � � {b LoW High Low LoW Low {b
York {b {b � (6 Low Low Low Low �
James LOW
iohns creek Low Low Low High High High High Low
Chowan .. ...... ... Q�
Nottoway {7} � � {7} LoW LoW LoW LoW {7}
Meherrin (b � � {� Low High Low {�1
Tar
Upper/Middle Tar Low Low LOw Low Low Low Low Low Low Low
LowerTar � � � � LoW LOw LOw �
Fishing Ck Subbasin LOW
SandySwiftCk High
Neuse {b
Middle Neuse Tribs � � � � Very Low Very Low Low Low Low �
5.2.2 Representation
Given our measures of representation,
including Physiographic, Latitudinal
and River Basin Variability, we
predicted that the Yellow Lance will
have limited representation at the end
of the predictive time horizon. Under
the Status Quo Scenario, the species
is expected to lose 75% of its known
River Basin Variability with
populations remaining only in the
James and Tar River basins.
Physiographic Variability is also
expected to decline in the Mountains
(75%), Piedmont (84%), and Coastal
Plain (80%). As for Latitudinal
Variability, the species' northernmost
occurrence is expected to move south
from the Patuxent (under current
conditions) to the James (under
predicted future conditions), and the
species' southernmost occurrence is
expected to move north from the
Neuse (under current conditions) to
the Tar (under predicted future
conditions), thus further contracting
species distribution (Figure 5-4).
Yellow Lance SSA Report Page 64 March 2017
�ver esins-
MU Ftesiliency: Population Resiliency: ,,,,�.�,
� Stettl6 � p,�om..c
Moderate Moderate physiagrephic Provinces: f-- ��. q,oP,no���M
� Low �� Law Mf?UNTAINS ''°*
�.�.
� Likely Extirpated Likely Extirpated PEE�MONT cnow.�
COASTAL PLAW T `-P•m�"°
M.�..

5.2.3 Redundancy
Under the Status Quo Scenario, we predicted that the number of resilient Yellow Lance
populations will decline considerably with likely extirpation in eight of twelve currently extant
MUs; only the Tar Population retains more than one moderately resilient MU (Table 5-2). This
expected loss in both the number and distribution of resilient populations is likely to make the
species vulnerable to stochastic disturbance events.
5.3 Scenario 2 — Pessimistic
Factors that negatively influence Yellow Lance populations (see Chapter 4) get worse under the
Pessimistic Scenario (Table 5-1). Reflecting Climate Model RCP8.5 (Wayne 2013, p.l l),
effects of climate change are expected to be magnified beyond what is experienced in the Status
Quo Scenario. Effects are predicted to result in extreme heat (Figure 5-5), more storms and
flooding, and exacerbated drought conditions (IPCC 2013, p.7). Based on the results of the
Annual Mean MaxTemperature for South Rtlantic-Gulf Region (Mean Modelj
s
a
�
a
c Z
9
195U 19@0 1979 1980 199m 2��G 201❑ 2020 2030 204G ZG50 ZOBO 207G 208� 2C190 21��
, Historical , RCPd.5 . RCP8.5 [} Value (] Relative change
Figure 5-5 Time Series of Annual Mean Maximum Temperature under RCP8.5 (shown in red) (NCCV 2016)
SLEUTH BAU model (Terando et al. 2014, entire), urbanization in Yellow Lance watersheds
could expand to triple the amount of developed area resulting in large increases of impervious
surface cover and, potentially, consumptive water use. Increased urbanization and climate
change impacts are likely to result in increased impacts to water quality, flow, and habitat
connectivity, and we predict that there is limited capacity for species restoration under this
scenario.
Patuxent — High urbanization rates are predicted to result in up to 200% increased
developed area within the basin in the next 50 years, or double of what is currently
occurring (NLCD 2011; Table 5-1). This is predicted to further degrade habitat
conditions, especially through water quality stressors and instream habitat unsuitability
(see Section 4.1), thus the species is not expected to persist under the Pessimistic
Scenario.
Potomac — Like many of the watersheds in the vicinity of the Washington DC, high
urbanization rates under the Pessimistic Scenario (Table 5-1) are predicted to deteriorate
water quality conditions, flow conditions will be reduced through consumptive use, and
riparian and instream habitat protections will be compromised by impacts from urban
sprawl (see Section 4.1), thus resulting in low habitat conditions that are unsuitable for
the species existence. The species is expected to remain extirpated from the Potomac
under the Pessimistic Scenario.
Yellow Lance SSA Report Page 65 March 2017

• Rappahannock — Under the Pessimistic Scenario, urban sprawl will likely affect water
quality and habitat conditions in many of the lower areas of the MU (see Section 4-1),
and based on the current low condition of Yellow Lance in the Rappahannock basin, the
species response to the synergistic impacts is predicted to result in extirpation.
• York — Given the low current condition in the York MU, further declines in habitat
conditions (Table 5-3) are expected to have continued negative effects, thus resulting in
the inability of the species to respond and adapt to such conditions.
• James — Habitat conditions in the Johns Creek MU are predicted to decline only slightly
under a Pessimistic Scenario, due primarily to climate-induced changes; the reduced
habitat conditions will not sustain a robust population. Therefore, the overall condition
of the species in the Pessimistic Scenario would remain low.
• Chowan — The Chowan Population is composed of the Meherrin (currently extirpated)
and the Nottoway (currently extant) MUs. The Pessimistic Scenario does not involve
human intervention that would repopulate extirpated MUs, so the Meherrin is predicted
to remain extirpated, while the Nottoway is predicted to experience a decline in habitat
conditions (Table 5-3) that will subsequently negatively influence Yellow Lance habitat
availability, and is predicted to result in loss of the species from this basin.
• Tar — Climate change is predicted to result in an increase in the number and duration of
droughts in the Tar Basin (see Section 4-3; Table 5-1). Low flows combined basic
effluent treatment in the Upper Tar basin is likely to make the Upper/Middle Tar MU
uninhabitable for the Yellow Lance. Conversely, while the habitat conditions in the
Fishing Creek and Sandy/Swift MUs are predicted to decline under more extreme climate
and urbanization futures, the species is expected to persist, but reduced to low resiliency.
• Neuse - High urbanization rates (up to 200% in 50-years, or double of what is currently
occurring) is predicted to further degrade habitat conditions, especially through water
quality stressors and instream habitat unsuitability (see Section 4-1), thus the species is
not expected to persist in this MU under the Pessimistic Scenario.
5.3.1 Resiliency
The Pessimistic Scenario projects the condition of the Yellow Lance populations under a more
extreme climate and urbanization future, with increased impacts to habitat conditions resulting in
a reduced species response. Habitat conditions are only expected to be able to support the
continued survival of two currently extant populations, the James and the Tar (Table 5-3). We
predict that no highly or moderately resilient populations will remain at the end of the predictive
time horizon, thus the remaining three MUs (Johns Creek, Sandy/Swift, and Fishing Creek
Subbasin) are predicted to have low resiliency. All other MUs are predicted to either become or
remain extirpated from their current/historic range. Similar to Status Quo Scenario, six of the
eight populations of Yellow Lance are predicted to become extirpated in 50 years; however, the
population conditions in the Pessimistic Scenario are expected to be lower than those predicted
for the Status Quo Scenario (Table 5-2, Table 5-3).
Yellow Lance SSA Report Page 66 March 2017

Table 5-3 Yellow Lance Resiliency under Scenario 2- Pessimistic
Population Factors Habitat Elements
Combined
Population/ MU Population Water Water Instream Habitat Combined
Management Unit Occupancy Abundance Reproduction Factors Quality Quantity Connectivity (Substrate) Habitat Elements Overell
Patuxent ¢ ¢ � � Very Low Low Very Low Low �b
rocomac � Q � � Very Low Low Very Low Very Low Very Low �
Rappahannock Q Q Q � �ow Very �ow Very �ow Very �ow 4
York � � � � �ow �ow very �ow �ow {b
James LoW
�ohns creek Low Low Low Low High Low
Chowan �
Notcoway Q Q Q1 � Low Very Low Low Very Low Low �i
Meherrin � {IJ Q) Q) LOw LOw LOw LOw LOw �
Tar LoW
Upper/Middle Tar � � � � Very Low Very Low Low Very Low Very Low �
LowerTar � (b � � Low Low Low Low �
Fishing ck subbasin Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Low
Sandy Swift Ck Low LOw Low Low Low
Neuse {b
Middle Neuse Tribs � � � b Very Low Very Low Low Very Low Very Low �
5.3.2 Representation
We predicted that the Yellow Lance
will have very limited representation
in the form of Physiographic,
Latitudinal, and River Basin
variability. The species is expected
to lose 75% of its known River Basin
Variability, retaining representation
in only in the James and Tar River
Basins. The species is also expected
to retain minimal Physiographic
Variability in the Piedmont (9%), the
Mountains (25%), and the Coastal
Plain (20%). At the population level,
only two populations (James and Tar)
are expected to remain representative
at the end of the predictive time
horizon (Figure 5-6).
5.3.3 Redundancy
Under the Pessimistic scenario, it is
predicted that the Yellow Lance will
lose redundancy, with likely
extirpation in nine of the twelve
MUs, and only two populations
(James and Tar) are predicted to be
extant, though in relatively poor
condition, at the end of the 50 year time horizon.
Yellow Lance SSA Report Page 67 March 2017
River Basins:
MU Resiliency: Population Resiliency: �t�,e�,
�Sfates �.—�pa�ma
- Low ��_ i,I Low physiographic Pmvinces: qappanann.�c.p
- Likely Extirpated Likely Exfirpated MOUNTAENS
�eme=
P3eonaoNr �no�a�
COASTAL PLAIN r r-Pem1���
uo�ao

5.4 Scenario 3 - Optimistic
Factors that influence population and habitat conditions of Yellow Lance are expected to be
somewhat improved given the Optimistic Scenario. Reflecting Climate Model RCP2.6 (Wayne
2013, p.l l), climate change effects are predicted to be minimal under this scenario, so effects of
increased temperatures, storms, and droughts are not reflected in Optimistic predictions as they
were in Status Quo and Pessimistic scenario predictions. Urbanization is also predicted to have
less of impact in this scenario as reflected by effects that are slightly lower than BAU model
predictions (Table 5-1). Because water quality, flow, and habitat impacts are predicted to be less
severe in this scenario as compared to others, it is expected that the species will maintain or have
a slightly positive response. While the capacity for species restoration was kept at current levels
for this scenario, predicted responses to targeted conservation activities were more positive based
on the predicted habitat conditions under this scenario.
• Patuxent — Even a best case is predicted to result in increased urbanization from the
sprawl of Baltimore and Washington DC (Table 5-1), ultimately resulting in low water
quality and instream habitat conditions (see Section 4-1). Moderate flow conditions and
overall habitat connectivity, coupled with targeted species restoration, are predicted to
result in low to moderate habitat conditions which will allow the species to persist, but at
low levels at the end of 50 years (Table 5-4).
• Potomac — Despite potential habitat improvements under an Optimistic Scenario, there
are no interventions in this scenario (e.g., reintroductions) that would result in the
repopulation of this currently presumed extirpated basin.
• Rappahannock — Under the Optimistic Scenario, water quality conditions are predicted to
improve via reduced sedimentation and better stormwater controls, thus the instream and
riparian habitat conditions are expected to hold in moderate condition (Table 5-4).
Targeted species restoration is predicted to promote a more optimistic response to
impacts therefore the species is likely to persist at the end of our predicted time horizon.
• York — Water quality, flow, and habitat conditions are predicted to remain in moderate
condition under the optimistic future, thus enabling the species to persist at low levels.
� James — Both habitat and population conditions are predicted to remain resilient under the
Optimistic Scenario, and potential targeted species restoration is likely to improve the
species adaptive capacity in the Johns Creek MU.
• Chowan — Given minimal climate change effects and lower levels of urbanization, water
quality, flow, and habitat conditions are predicted to remain in moderate condition under
the optimistic future. A"best case" species response to these conditions will likely
enable the species to persist, but only in the Nottoway MU, as species restoration in the
Meherrin MU is not likely under this scenario.
• Tar — Given the Optimistic Scenario, both urbanization and climate-induced impacts are
expected to be minimal (Table 5-1). As such, habitat conditions, including water quality,
flows, and instream and riparian habitat, are predicted to enable persistence at high levels
in the Sandy/Swift and Fishing Creek Subbasin MUs. Further, current species restoration
efforts in this scenario will be targeted to the highest condition areas to improve overall
resiliency, especially in the Fishing Creek Subbasin.
Yellow Lance SSA Report Page 68 March 2017

• Neuse — Targeted species restoration efforts in the few areas least affected by
urbanization, coupled with optimal species response, are predicted to enable the
persistence of the species out to 50 years, albeit at low levels.
5.4.1 Resiliency
The Optimistic Scenario projects the condition of the Yellow Lance populations if the current
risks will be slightly improved by the end of the predictive time horizon. Because of the more
optimistic lens, considerably more populations are predicted to remain extant (Table 5-4).
Specifically, the Tar River Population is predicted to be moderately resilient under the Optimistic
Scenario with the Sandy/Swift and Fishing Creek MUs in high condition. The Rappahannock
population is also predicted to be moderately resilient, while five other MUs are predicted to be
characterized by low resiliency. No extirpations that have not already occurred are predicted
under the Optimistic Scenario, thus only the Potomac population is lost from historic levels of
representation.
Table 5-4 Yellow Lance Resiliency under Scenario 3- Optimistic
Pooulation Factors Habitat Elements
Combined
Population/ MU Population Water Water Instream Habitat Combined
Management Unit Occupancy Abundance Reproduction Factors Quality Quantity Connectivity (Substrate) Habitat Elements Overall
Patuxent Low Low Low Low Low Low Low
Potomac Q Q Q Q LOW LOw LOw LOw �i
Rappahannock LOW High
vork Low Low Low Low High Low Low
James LO W
lohns Creek High Low Low Low High High High High High Low
Chowan LO W
Nottoway Low Low Low Low Low
Meherrin {� � (� � High �
Tar
Upper/Middle Tar High
LowerTar � � � (b High �
Fishing CkSubbasin High High High High High High High High
SandySwiftCk High High High High High High High High High
Neuse LO W
n�tiddle rveuse rribs Low Low Low Low Low Very Low Low Low
5.4.2 Representation
Under the Optimistic Scenario, it is predicted that the Yellow Lance will retain current levels of
representation. As such, the species will continue to retain 87% of its known River Basin
Variability (i.e., it will continue to remain representative in all river basins except the Potomac).
The species is predicted to retain limited Physiographic Variability in the Coastal Plain (30%)
and moderate variability in the Piedmont (44%) and in the Mountains (50%).
At the population level, two populations (Rapphannock and Tar) are predicted to have moderate
resiliency, while the remaining five populations (Patuxent, York, James, Chowan and Neuse) are
predicted to have low resiliency (Figure 5-7).
Yellow Lance SSA Report Page 69 March 2017

5.4.3 Redundancy
Under the Optimistic Scenario, it is predicted that the Yellow Lance will maintain existing levels
of redundancy, with varying resiliency in nine of twelve MUs. Only the Rappahannock and Tar
populations are predicted to have multiple, moderately resilient MUs. Scaling up to the
population level, this leaves the species with seven of the eight (historically) populations.
5.5 Scenario 4 — Opporiunistic
Under the Opportunistic Scenario, those landscape-level factors (e.g., development and climate
change) that are having an influence on populations of Yellow Lance get moderately worse,
reflecting Climate Change Model RCP4.5 or RCP6 (Wayne 2013, p.l l) and SLEUTH BAU
(Terando et al. 2014; Table 5-1). Effects of climate change are expected to be moderate,
resulting in some increased impacts from heat, storms, and droughts (IPCC 2013, p.7).
Urbanization in this scenario reflects the moderate BAU SLEUTH levels, indicating
approximately double the amount of developed area compared to current levels. Overall, it is
expected that the synergistic impacts of changes in water quality, flow, and habitat connectivity
will negatively affect the Yellow Lance. However, in this scenario, species restoration is
Yellow Lance SSA Report Page 70 March 2017
River Basins:
MU Resiliency: Population Resiliency: pa� ��
-� High Moderate Q States Poa�
Moderaie Physiographic Pmvinces�, � aa�anannocs
„ Low MOUNTAINS Y°"k
- Low Likely Eafrpated pIE�MONT cno».�
_ Likely Extirpated
COASThLPLAIN "��Pam°`°
oNa�,a

targeted in areas that are less heavily impacted, ultimately resulting in a patchy distribution of a
few resilient populations across the species range.
• Patuxent — Moderate urbanization in this watershed will likely lead to degraded water
quality and habitat connectivity (Table 5-5), thus habitat conditions are predicted to
become unsuitable for Yellow Lance.
• Potomac — Species restoration is not likely in this highly urbanized watershed, therefore
the species is expected to remain extirpated from this basin.
• Rappahannock — Water quality, flows, and overall habitat conditions are predicted to be
moderate at the end of the 50 year time horizon under the Opportunistic Scenario (Table
5-5); therefore, the less impacted areas of the watershed are likely to remain suitable for
Yellow Lance, and targeted species restoration in these areas is likely.
• York — This basin is predicted to continue to be characterized by degraded habitat
conditions leading to a low likelihood of species persistence.
• James — Habitat conditions remain high and the population continues in low condition
under the opportunistic scenario.
• Chowan — the moderate climate future willlikely affect habitat conditions in the
Nottoway MU, thus the species is expected to persist at low levels into the future. The
Meherrin MU will remain unoccupied.
• Tar — under the opportunistic scenario, there will be moderate climate-induced impacts
resulting in continued drought issues in the Upper Tar and potential storm related
windthrow issues in the Sandy/Swift MU. Habitat in the lower Tar is not expected to
sustain the species, however moderate habitat conditions will likely sustain a moderately
resilient population condition for the species into the future.
• Neuse — impacts from urbanization, including declining water quality from stormwater
runoff and decreased flows from consumptive use, along with minimal development
restrictions will lead to species extirpation under the Opportunistic Scenario.
5.5.1 Resiliency
The Opportunistic Scenario projects the condition of the Yellow Lance populations if the risks
continue at moderately increased levels compared to what they are now. Under this scenario, the
remaining extant populations occur in areas where habitat conditions support continued
reproduction and survival of the species, at varying levels. None of the populations are expected
to have high resiliency under this scenario. Only the Fishing Creek and Sandy/Swift MUs retain
moderate resiliency, whereas the Johns Creek, Rappahannock, Nottoway, and Upper/Middle Tar
MUs retain low resiliency. At the population level, only one population (Tar) retains moderate
resiliency. Under this scenario, it is predicted that four of the eight populations of Yellow Lance
will become extirpated in 50 years.
Yellow Lance SSA Report Page 71 March 2017

Table 5-5 Yellow Lance Resiliency under Scenario 4- Opportunistic
Population Factors Habitat Elements
Gombined
Population/ MU Population Water Water Instream Habitat Combined
Management Unit Occupancy Abundance Reproduction Factors Quality Quantity Connectivity (Substrate) Habitat Elements Overall
Patuxent � � � � Low Low Low Low {6
Potomac � � q Q Very Low Very Low Low Low �
Rappahannock Low Low Low High Low Low
vork � � � � Low High Low Low Low �
James LoW
lohns Creek Low Low Low High High High High High Low
Chowan LoW
Nottoway Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Low
Meherrin � {h � {6 LoW Hlgh LoW {�J
Tar
Upper/Middle rar Low Low Low Low Low Low Low
LowerTar Q {� � � Low Low Low �
Fishing Ck Subbasin High High High
Sandy Swift Ck
Neuse {�
Midale Neuse rribs � Q� � � Very Low Very Low Low Low Low Q
5.5.2 Representation
Under the Opportunistic Scenario, it is
predicted that the Yellow Lance will have
reduced representation. The species will
only retain 50% of its known River Basin
variability, remaining in the Rappahannock,
James, Chowan and Tar River basins. The
species also retains limited Physiographic
variability in the Piedmont (31%) and
Coastal Plain (20%) and moderate variability
in the Mountains (50%). At the population
level, only the Tar Population retains
moderate condition representation, whereas
the Rappahannock, James, and Chowan
retain low condition representation under the
Opportunistic Scenario (Figure 5-8).
5.5.3 Redundancy
Under the Opportunistic scenario, it is
predicted that the Yellow Lance will have
reduced levels of redundancy, with likely
extirpation in six of the twelve MUs, and
only the Tar Population is predicted to have
multiple moderately resilient MUs into the
future. This expected loss in both the
number and distribution of resilient
populations is likely to make the species
vulnerable to stochastic disturbance events.
Yellow Lance SSA Report Page 72 March 2017
�€�ve� e�s��,s:
MU Resiliency: Population Residiency� �„�a�,
� States ,Pom�
Mode�aie Mode�ate physiogrephic Provinces: �" � Ra�an,,,�o�k
- Low . _ Law MOUNTAINS '"°"'
� Li3cely Extirpafad Likel E�tir ated J8�9
V P PIEDMONT cn�a�
COASTAL PLAI N ��gM�

5.6 Status Assessment Summary
Future Viability Summary
The goal of this assessment was to describe the viability of the Yellow Lance in terms of
resiliency, representation, and redundancy by using the best science available at the time of the
analysis. To capture the uncertainty associated with the degree and extent of potential future
risks and their impacts on species' needs, each of the 3Rs were assessed using four plausible
future scenarios (Status Quo, Pessimistic, Optimistic, and Opportunistic). These scenarios were
based, in part, on the results of urbanization (Terando et. al. 2014) and climate models (IPCC
2013) that predict changes in habitat used by the Yellow Lance. The results of the predictive
analysis describe a range of possible conditions in terms of the number and distribution of
Yellow Lance populations (Table 5-6). It is important to note that not all scenarios have the
same probability of occurrence at any one time step. To account for this, a discretized range of
probabilities (Table 5-7) were used to describe the likelihood of scenario occurrence at a 50 year
time-step based on professional judgment (Table 5-8). (Note: the range of likelihoods in Table
5-7 was based on IPCC guidance (Mastrandea et al. 2011) and has been accepted and is
understood relatively well by and in the scientific community).
Table 5-6 Summary of Current and Future Scenario Outcomes
Future Scenarios of Population Conditions
Populations: Management Units
Patuxent Very Low Likely Extirpated Likely Extirpated Low Likely Extirpated
Potomac Presumed Extirpated Likely Extirpated Likely Extirpated Likely Extirpated Likely Extirpated
Rappahannock Low Likely Extirpated Likely Extirpated Moderate Low
York Very Low Likely Extirpated Likely Extirpated Low Likely Extirpated
James: Johns Creek Low Low Low Low Low
Chowan: Nottoway Low Likely Extirpated Likely Extirpated Low Low
Chowan: Meherrin Presumed Extirpated Likely Extirpated Likely Extirpated Likely Extirpated Likely Extirpated
Tar: Upper/Middle Tar High Low Likely Extirpated Moderate Low
Tar: LowerTar Presumed Extirpated Likely Extirpated Likely Extirpated Likely Extirpated Likely Extirpated
Tar: Fishing Ck Moderate Moderate Low High Moderate
Tar: Sandy-Swift High Moderate Low High Moderate
Neuse: Middle Neuse Low Likely Extirpated Likely Extirpated Low Likely Extirpated
Yellow Lance SSA Report Page 73 March 2017

Table 5-7 Explanation of confidence terminologies used to estimate the likelihood
of scenario (after IPCC guidance, Mastrandrea et al. 2011).
Confidence
Terminology
Very likely
Likely
As Likely As Not
Unlikely
Very unlikely
Explanation
We are greater than 90% sure
that this scenario will occur.
We are 70-90% sure that this
scenario will occur.
We are 40-70% sure that this
scenario will occur.
We are 10-40% sure that this
scenario will occur.
We are less than 10% sure that
this scenario will occur.
Table 5-8 Likelihood of Scenario occurrence at 50 years
Likelihood of Scenario
Occurring at 50 Years Very Li kely Li kely
As Li kely
As N ot
As Likely
As Not
An important assumption of the predictive analysis was that future population resiliency is
largely dependent on water quality, water flow, riparian, and instream habitat conditions. Our
assessment predicted that at least seven (of 8) currently extant Yellow Lance populations would
experience negative changes to these important habitat requisites. Predicted viability varied
amongst scenarios and is summarized below and in Table 5-6.
Given Scenario 1, the "Status Quo" option, a substantial loss of resiliency, representation, and
redundancy is expected. Under this scenario, we predicted that no MUs would remain in high
condition, two in moderate condition, two in low condition, and the remaining MUs would be
likely extirpated. Redundancy would be reduced with likely extirpation in eight of twelve
currently extant MUs; only the Tar Population retains more than one moderately resilient MU.
Representation would be reduced, with only two (25%) of the former river basins occupied, and
with reduced variability in the Mountains, Piedmont, and Coastal Plain. This scenario is very
likely at the 50 year time-step (Tables 5-7, 5-8).
Given Scenario 2, the "Pessimistic" option, we predicted a near complete loss of resiliency,
representation, and redundancy. Redundancy would be reduced to two populations, and the
resiliency of those populations is expected to be low. Nearly all MUs were predicted to be
extirpated, and, of the remaining three MUs, all would be in low condition. All three measures
Yellow Lance SSA Report Page 74 March 2017

of representation are predicted to decline under this scenario, leaving remaining Yellow Lance
populations underrepresented in River Basin, Latitudinal, and Physiographic variability. Nearly
all Piedmont representation is predicted to be lost. This scenario is likely at the 50 year time-step
(Tables 5-7, 5-8).
Given Scenario 3, the "Optimistic" option, we predicted slightly higher levels of resiliency,
representation, and redundancy than was estimated for current condition. Two MUs are
predicted to be in high condition, two in moderate condition, five in low condition, and the three
currently presumed extirpated MUs would remain extirpated. Despite predictions of population
persistence for all populations, only the Tar Population is expected to retain a high level of
resiliency. Existing levels of representation are predicted to remain unchanged under this
scenario. This scenario is as likely as not at the 50 year time-step (Tables 5-7, 5-8), primarily
because it will take many years for effects of management actions to be realized on the
landscape.
Given Scenario 4, the "Opportunistic" option, we predicted reduced levels of resiliency,
representation, and redundancy. No MUs would be in high condition, two would be in moderate
condition, four in low condition, and six would be likely extirpated. Redundancy would be
reduced by half with six of twelve MUs predicted to be extirpated. Representation is predicted
to be reduced with only four (50%) of the former eight river basins occupied, and with reduced
variability in the Mountains, Piedmont, and Coastal Plain. This scenario is likely at the 50 year
time-step (Tables 5-7, 5-8).
Current Viabilitv SummarX
The historical range of the Yellow Lance included streams and rivers in the Atlantic Slope
drainages from the Patuxent River Basin south to the Neuse River Basin with the documented
historical distribution in 12 MUs within eight former populations. The Yellow Lance is
presumed extirpated from 25% (3) of the historically occupied MUs. Of the remaining nine
occupied MUs, 17% are estimated to have high resiliency, 8% moderate resiliency, and 67% low
resiliency. Scaling up from the MU to the population level, one of eight former populations (the
Tar Population) was estimated to have moderate resiliency, while the remaining six extant
populations (Patuxent, Rappahannock, York, James, Chowan, and Neuse populations) were
characterized by low resiliency. The Potomac Population is presumed to be extirpated thus
eliminating 13% of the species' historical range. 86% of streams that remain part of the current
species' range are estimated to be in low or very low condition, potentially putting the Yellow
Lance at risk of extirpation. Once known to occupy streams in three physiographic regions, the
species has also lost substantial physiographic representation. An estimated 50% loss has
occurred in Mountain watersheds, an estimated 56% loss has occurred in Piedmont watersheds,
and an estimated 70% loss has occurred in Coastal Plain watersheds.
Yellow Lance SSA Report Page 75 March 2017

Overall Summary
Estimates of current and future resiliency for Yellow Lance are low, as are estimates for
representation and redundancy. The Yellow Lance faces a variety of threats from declines in
water quality, loss of stream flow, riparian and instream fragmentation, and deterioration of
instream habitats. These threats, which are expected to be exacerbated by urbanization and
climate change, were important factors in our assessment of the future viability of the Yellow
Lance. Given current and future decreases in resiliency, populations become more vulnerable to
extirpation from stochastic events, in turn, resulting in concurrent losses in representation and
redundancy. Predictions of Yellow Lance habitat conditions and population factors suggest
possible extirpation in up to five of seven currently extant populations. The two populations
predicted to remain extant are expected to be characterized by low occupancy and abundance.
Yellow Lance SSA Report Page 76 March 2017

References
Alderman, J.M. 2003. Status and Distribution of Fusconaia masoni and Elliptio lanceolata in
Virginia. USFWS Grant Agreement:1148-401 81-99-G-113. 118pp.
Alig, R. S.Stewart, D.Wear, S.Stein, and D.Nowak. 2010. Conversions of Forest Land: Trends,
Determinants, Projections, and Policy Considerations. Chapter in Advances in Threat
Assessment and Their Application to Forest and Rangeland Management. U.S. Forest Service
General Technical Report PNW-GTR-802.
https://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/pubs/gtr802/Voll/pnw_gtr802vo11_alig.pdf (accessed: 2/15/2017)
Allan, J.D. 1995. Stream Ecology: Structure and Function of Running Waters. Chapman &
Hall. New York.
Allan, J.D., D.L. Erickson, and J.Fay. 1997. The influence of catchment land use on stream
integrity across multiple scales. Freshwater Biology 37:149-161.
Allen, A.W., Y.K. Bernal, and R.J. Moulton. 1996. Pine Plantations and Wildlife in the
Southeastern United States: An Assessment of Impacts and Opportunities. Information and
Technology Report 3, U.S. Department of Interior, Washington, D.C. 40pp.
http://www.nwrc.usgs.gov/wdb/pub/others/1996_03.pdf (Accessed: 2/9/2017)
Arabshahi, I. and C. Raines. 2012. Defense, National Security & Climate Change: Building
Resilience and Identifying Opportunities Related to Water, Energy and Extreme Events.
Workshop Synthesis Report. Association of Climate Change Officers. 33pp.
Archambault, J.M., W.G. Cope, and T.J. Kwak. 2014. Influence of sediment presence on
freshwater mussel thermal tolerance. Freshwater Science 33(1):56-65.
Augspurger, T., A.E. Keller, M.C. Black, W.G. Cope, and F.J. Dwyer. 2003. Water Quality
Guidance for Protection of Freshwater Mussels (Unionidae) from Ammonia Exposure.
Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, Vol. 22, No. 11, pp. 2569-2575.
Augspurger, T., F. J. Dwyer, C. G. Ingersoll, and C. M. Kane. 2007. Advances and opportunities
in assessing contaminant sensitivity of freshwater mussel (Unionidae) early life stages.
Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 26:2025-2028.
Aust, W.M., Carroll, M.B., Bolding, M.C., and C.A. Dolloff. 2011. Operational forest stream
crossings effects on water quality in the Virginia Piedmont. Southern Journal of Applied Forestry
35:123-130.
Berg, D.J., T.D. Levine, J.A. Stoeckel, and B.K. Lang. 2008. A conceptual model linking
demography and population genetics of freshwater mussels. Journal of the North American
Benthological Society, 27(2):395-408.
Yellow Lance SSA Report Page 77 March 2017

Bogan, A.E., J.Levine, and M.Raley. 2009. Determination of the systematic position and
relationships of the lanceolate Elliptio complex (Mollusca: Bivalvia: Unionidae) from six river
basins in Virginia. NC Museum of Natural Sciences, Raleigh, NC. 37pp.
Brabec, E., S. Schulte, and P.L. Richards. 2002. Impervious surfaces and water quality: a
review of current literature and its implications for watershed planning. Journal of Planning
Literature 16(4): 499-514.
Brim Box, J. and J. Mossa. 1999. Sediment, land use, and freshwater mussels: Prospects and
problems. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 18: 99-117.
Bringolf, R.B., R.M. Heltsley, T.J. Newton, C.B. Eads, S.J. Fraley, D. Shea, and W.G. Cope.
2010. Environmental occurrence and reproductive effect of the pharmaceutical fluoxetine in
native freshwater mussels. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 29(6):13ll-1318.
Britton, J.C. and S.L.H. Fuller. 1979. The freshwater bivalve mollusca (Unionidae, Sphaeriidae,
Corbiculidae) of the Savannah River Plant, South Carolina. Savannah River Plant Publications
SRO-NEPR-3. Department of Energy. 37pp.
Broadmeadow, S. and T.R. Nisbet. 2004. The effects of riparian forest management on the
freshwater environment: a literature review of best management practices. Hydrology and Earth
System Sciences: 8(3) 286-305.
Burkholder, J., B. Libra, P. Weyer, S. Heathcote, D. Kolpin, P.S. Thorne, and M. Wichman.
2007. Impacts of Waste from Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations on Water Quality.
Environmental Health Perspectives 115(2):308-312.
Caldwell, P. C.Segura, S.G.Laird, G.Sun, S.G.McNulty, M.Sandercock, J.Boggs, and J.M.Vose.
2014. Short-term stream water temperature observations permit rapid assessment of potential
climate change impacts. Hydrological Processes:
https://www.srs.fs.usda.gov/pubs/ja/2014/ja_2014_caldwell_OOl.pdf (accessed: 2/9/2017).
Carroll, C., J.A. Vucetich, M.P. Nelson, D.J. Rohlf, and M.K. Phillips. 2010. Geography and
recovery under the U.S. Endangered Species Act. Conservation Biology 24:395-403.
Center for Biological Diversity. 2010. Petition to List 404 Aquatic, Riparian and Wetland
Species from the Southeastern United States as Threatened or Endangered under the Endangered
Species Act. Apri120, 2010. 1145pp.
Center for Watershed Protection. 2003. Impacts of Impervious Cover on Aquatic Systems.
Watershed Protection Research Monograph No. 1. Ellicott City, MD. 158pp.
Chen, L.-Y., A.G. Heath, and R.J. Neves. 2001. Comparison of oxygen consumption of
freshwater mussels (Unionidae) from different habitats during declining dissolved oxygen
concentration. Hydrobiologia 450:209-215.
Yellow Lance SSA Report Page 78 March 2017

Conrad, T.A. 1836. Monography of the Family Unionidae, or Naiads of Lamark, (Fresh Water
Bivalve Shells), of North America. Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, PA. No.3,32-33.
Couceiro, S., Hamada, N., Luz, S., Forsberg, B., and Pimentel, T. 2007. Deforestation and
sewage effects on aquatic macroinvertebrates in urban streams in Manaus, Amazonas, Brazil.
Hydrobiologia.575:271-284. (http://www.ephemeroptera-
galactica.com/pubs/pub_c/pubcouceiros2007p271.pd� (accessed: 4/27/2016)
Dauer, D.M., H.G. Marshall, J.R. Donat, M.F. Lane, P.L. Morton, S.C. Doughten, and F.A.
Hoffman. 2005. Status and Trends in Water Quality and Living Resources in the Virginia
Chesapeake Bay: York River (1985-2004). Report Prepared for VA Department of
Environmental Quality by Old Dominion University, Norfolk, VA. 79pp.
DeWan, A., N. Dubois, K. Theoharides, and J.Boshoven. 2010. Understanding the impacts of
climate change on fish and wildlife in North Carolina. Prepared by Defenders of Wildlife.
Washington, DC, 218pp.
Dimmock, R.V. and A.H. Wright. 1993. Sensitivity of Juvenile Freshwater Mussels to hypoxic,
thermal and acid stress. The Journal of the Elisha Mitchell Scientific Society, 109(4): 183-192.
Eads, C. and J. Levine. 2009. Propagation and culture of three species of freshwater mussel:
Alasmidonta varicose, Medionidus conradicus, and Elliptio lanceolata from July 2008-June
2009. NC State University, Raleigh, NC. 16pp.
Eads, C. and J. Levine. 2011. Refinement and Growout Techniquies for Four Freshwater
Mussel Species. NC State University, Raleigh, NC. 15pp.
Eissa, A.E. and M.M. Zaki. 2011. The impact of global climatic changes on the aquatic
environment. Procedia Environmental Sciences, Volume 4:251-259.
doi:10.1016/j .proenv.2011.03.030
Folkerts, G.W. 1997. State and fate of the world's aquatic fauna. p. 1-16 In: Benz, G.W. and
D.E. Collins (editors). 1997. Aquatic Fauna in PeriL• The Southeastern Perspective. Southeast
Aquatic Research Institute Special Publication 1, Lenz Design and Communications, Decatur,
GA. 553 pp.
Foster, A.M., P. Fuller, A. Benson, S. Constant, D. Raikow, J. Larson, and A. Fusaro.
2017. Corbicula fluminea. USGS Nonindigenous Aquatic Species Database, Gainesville, FL.
https://nas.er.usgs.gov/queries/factsheet.aspx?speciesid=92 Revision Date: 1/8/2016
Gangloff, M.M. 2013. Taxonomic and ecological tradeoffs associated with small dam removals.
Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems, 23:475-480. DOI: 10.1002/aqc.2383
Galbraith, H.S., D.E. Spooner, and C.C. Vaughn. 2010. Synergistic effects of regional climate
patterns and local water management on freshwater mussel communities. Biological
Conservation 143: 1175-1183.
Yellow Lance SSA Report Page 79 March 2017

Georgia Department of Natural Resources (GADNR). 2016. Conservation Status Assessment
Maps. http://www.georgiawildlife.com/conservation_status_assessment maps (Accessed:
9/1/2016).
Gibson, K.J. 2015. Acute Toxicity Testing on Freshwater Mussels (Bivalvia: Unionidae) and
Freshwater Snails (Gastropoda: Caenogastropoda). Unpublished Master's Thesis. 129 pp.
Giddings, E.M.P., Bell, A.H., Beaulieu, K.M., Cuffney, T.F., Coles, J.F., Brown, L.R.,
Fitzpatrick, F.A., Falcone, James, Sprague, L.A., Bryant, W.L., Peppler, M.C., Stephens, Cory,
and McMahon, Gerard, 2009, Selected physical, chemical, and biological data used to study
urbanizing streams in nine metropolitan areas of the United States, 1999-2004: U.S. Geological
Survey Data Series 423, 11 p. + data tables.
Haag, W. 2012. North American Freshwater Mussels: Natural History, Ecology, and
Conservation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, NY.
Hannah, L. 2011. Climate Change, Connectivity, and Conservation Success. Conservation
Biology, Vo125(6): 1139-1142.
Horner, R. R., C. W. May, E. H. Livingston, and J. Maxted. 1999. Impervious cover, aquatic
community health, and stormwater BMPs: is there a relationship? Proceedings of the Sixth
Biennial Stormwater Research Conference, Tampa, Florida.
Integrated Taxonomic Information System. 2016. ITIS Standard Report Page: Elliptio
lanceolata. http://www.itis.gov (Accessed 8/29/2016).
International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2013. Summary for Policymakers. In: Climate
Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth
Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Stocker, T.F., D. Qin,
G.-K. Plattner, M. Tignor, S.K. Allen, J. Boschung, A. Nauels, Y. Xia, V. Bex and P.M. Midgley
(eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.
IPCC. 2014. Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and
III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Core
Writing Team, R.K. Pachauri and L.A. Meyer (eds.)]. IPCC, Geneva, Switzerland, 151 pp.
International Union for Conservation for Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN). 2001. IUCN
Red List of Threatened Species, version 3.1.
http://www.iucnredlist.org/static/categories_criteria_3_1 (accessed: 12/19/2016)
Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin. 2016. Potomac Basin Facts.
https://www.potomacriver.org/potomac-basin-facts/ (accessed: 9/6/2016)
James River Association. 2016. State of the James. http://jrava.org/about-the james-river/state-
of-the james/state-of-the-james-2/ (accessed: 9/1/2016).
Yellow Lance SSA Report Page 80 March 2017

Jenkins, R.E. and N.M. Burkhead, 1993. Freshwater fishes of Virginia. American Fisheries
Society, Bethesda, Maryland. 1079 pp.
Johnson, R.I. 1970. The systematics and zoogeography of the Unionidae (Mollusca: Bivalvia)
of the southern Atlantic slope. Bull. Mus. Comp. Zool., Harvard Univ. 140:263-449.
Jones III, E.B.D., G.S. Helfman, J.O. Harper, and P.V. Bolstad. 1999. Effects of Riparian
Forest Removal on Fish Assemblages in Southern Appalachian Streams. Conservation Biology
13(6):1454-1465.
Kishi, D., Murakami, M., Nakano, S., &amp; Taniguchi, Y. (2004). Effects of forestry on the
thermal habitat of Dolly Varden (Salvelinus malma). Ecological Research. 19: 283-290.
Lea, I. 1828. Unio lanceolatus. Transactions of the American Philosophical Society.
Philadelphia, PA. http://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/26103 259-267.
Lea, I. 1832. The Genus Unio, Together with Descriptions of New Genera and Species in the
Families Naiades, Melaniana and Colimacea. Transactions of the American Philosophical
Society. Philadelphia, PA. pp.8-9.
Levine, J. 2012. Fish Host Identification, Culture, and Propagation of the Tar Spinymussel and
Yellow Lance, Two Rare Endemic Mussels of the North Carolina Piedmont from August 2009-
September 2012. USGS/LTSFWS, Raleigh, NC. 41pp.
Maestas, A. 2013. Study: Rising Demand of Southeast Trees Puts Wildlife, Biodiversity at Risk;
Landmark study examines rapidly expanding forest biomass energy development in Southeastern
U.S.. National Wildlife Federation. http://www.nwf.org/News-and-Magazines/Media-
Center/News-by-Topic/Wildlife/2013/ 12-OS-13-Rising-Demand-for-Southeast-Trees-Could-
Impact-Wildlife-Habitat. aspx
Mallin, M.A. and L.B. Cahoon. 2003. Industrialized Animal Production - A Major Source of
Nutrient and Microbial Pollution to Aquatic Ecosystems. Population and Environment
24(5):369-385.
March, F.A., F.J. Dwyer, T. Augspurger, C.G. Ingersoll, N. Wang, and C.A. Mebane. 2007. An
evaluation of freshwater mussel toxicity data in the derivation of water quality guidance and
standards for copper. Environmental Toxicology Chemistry, Oct 16(10): 2066-74.
doi:10.1897/06-560R.1
Martin, E. and C. Apse. 2014. Northeast Aquatic Connectivity: An Assessment of Dams on
Northeastern Rivers. The Nature Conservancy & Northeast Association of Fish and Wildlife
Agencies. Brunswick, ME. 102 pp.
Mastrandrea, M.D., C.B. Field, T.F. Stocker, O. Edenhofer, K.L. Ebi, D.J. Frame, H. Held, E.
Kriegler, K.J. Mach, P.R. Matschoss, G.-K. Plattner, G.W. Yohe, and F.W. Zwiers, 2010.
Yellow Lance SSA Report Page 81 March 2017

Guidance Note for Lead Authors of the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report on Consistent Treatment
of Uncertainties. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Available at
<http://www.ipcc.ch> (accessed: 10/24/2016)
Moss, R.H., J.A. Edmonds, K.A. Hibbard, M.R. Manning, S.K. Rose, D.P. vanVuuren, T.R.
Carter, S. Emori, M. Kainuma, T. Kram, G.A. Meehl, J.F.B. Mitchell, N. Nakicenovic, K. Riahi,
S.J. Smith, R.J. Stouffer, A.M. Thompson, J.P. Weyant, and T.J. Wilbanks. 2010. The next
generation of scenarios for climate change research and assessment. Nature, Vo1463:747-756.
doi:10.103 8/nature08 823
Mummert, A.K., R.J. Neves, T.J. Newcomb, and D.S. Cherry. 2003. Sensitivity of juvenile
freshwater mussels (Lampsilis fasciola, Villosa iris) to total and un-ionized ammonia.
Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 22(11)2545-2553.
Naiman, R.J., J. Decamps, and M. Pollock. 1993. The role of riparian corridors in maintaining
regional biodiversity. Ecological Applications 3(2): 209-212.
National Climate Change Viewer (NCCV). 2016. Provided by United States Geological Survey.
https://www2.usgs.gov/climate_landuse/clu rd/nccv.asp (accessed: 9/2/2016)
National Council for Air and Stream Improvement, Inc. (NCASI). 2012. Forestry best
management practices and conservation of aquatic species. White paper. Research Triangle Park,
NC: National Council for Air and Stream Improvement, Inc. 23 pp.
National Geographic. 2016. Deforestation: Here's what you need to know about the warming
plante, how it's affecting us, and what's at stake.
http: //environment.nationalgeographic. com/environment/global-warming/deforestation-over
(accessed: 5/9/2016).
NatureServe. 2015. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application].
Version 7.1. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available http://explorer.natureserve.org.
(Accessed: December 19, 2016).
Neves, R.J., A.E. Bogan, J.D. Williams, S.A. Ahlstedt, and P.W. Hartfield. 1997. Status of
Aquatic Mollusks in the Southeastern United States: A Downward Spiral of Diversity; Chapter 3
(pp.44-86) in Aquatic Fauna in Peril: The Southeastern Perspecitve, edited by G.W. Benz and
D.E. Collins (1997), Special Publication 1. Southeast Aquatic Research Institute. Lenz Design
and Communicaitons, Decatur, GA. 554pp.
New Hampshire Estuaries Project (NHEP). 2007. The Impacts of Impervious Surfaces on
Water Resources. University of New Hampshire, Durham, NH. 2pp.
Newton, T.J. 2003. The effects of ammonia and freshwater unionid mussels. Environmental
Toxicology and Chemistry 22(11):2543-2544.
Yellow Lance SSA Report Page 82 March 2017

Nichols, S.J. and D. Garling. 2000. Food-web dynamics and trophic-level interactions in a
multispecies community of freshwater unionids. Canadian Journal of Zoology 78:871-882.
North Carolina Aquatic Nuisance Species Management Plan Committee. 2015. North Carolina
Aquatic Nuisance Species Management Plan. Raleigh, NC. 96pp.
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (NCDEQ). 2016. 401 & Buffer
Permitting Statutes & Rules. https://deq.nc.gov/about/divisions/water-resources/water-
resources-rules/401-certification-express-review-statutes-rules-guides (accessed: 9/1/2016).
NCDEQ. 2016. State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). http://deq.nc.gov/permits-
regulations/sepa (accessed: 9/2/2016).
NCDEQ. 2016. Neuse River Basin. http://www.ncwater.org/basins/neuse/index01072015.php
(accessed: 9/1/2016),
NCDEQ. 2016. Tar-Pamlico River Basin. http://www.ncwater.org/basins/Tar-
Pamlico/index.php (accessed: 9/1/2016).
North Carolina Forestry Association (NCFA). 2017. Forest Management Basics.
https://www.ncforestry.org/teachers/forest-management-basics/ (accessed: 2/7/2017)
North Carolina Forest Service. 2011. North Carolina Forestry BMP Implementation Survey
Report 2006-2008.
http://www.ncforestservice.gov/water quality/pdf/nc_bmp_imp_survey_2011_report_es.pdf
(accessed: 9/2/2016)
North Carolina Interagency Leadership Team (NCILT). 2012. Climate Ready North Carolina:
Building a Resilient Future. Raleigh, NC. 152pp.
North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP). 2004. Final Draft: Riparian Ecosystem
Protection Standards for the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program. NCDENR, Raleigh, NC.
7pp.
NCNHP. 2010. North Carolina Ecosystem Response to Climate Change: DENR Assessment of
Effects and Adaptation Measures. Raleigh, NC.
NCNHP. 2014. Natural Heritage Program List of the Rare Animal Species of North Carolina.
Compiled by H.E. LeGrand, Jr., J.A. Ratcliffe, and J.T. Finnegan. Publication of the NC
Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Raleigh, NC. 170pp.
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC). 2002. Guidance Memorandum to
Address and Mitigate Secondary and Cumulative Impacts to Aquatic and Terrestrial Wildlife
Resources and Water Quality. Raleigh, NC. 25pp.
Yellow Lance SSA Report Page 83 March 2017

NCWRC. 2015a. North Carolina Wildlife Action Plan. Raleigh, NC.
http://www.ncwildlife.org/plan (accessed: 9/2/2016)
NCWRC. 2015b. Wildlife Diversity Program Quarterly Update: Third Quarter. Raleigh, NC.
13 pp. http://www.ncwildlife.org/Portals/0/Conserving/documents/2015-WDP-Third-Qtr-
Report.pdf (accessed: 9/2/2016).
Orlando, E.F., A.S. Kolok, G.A. Binzcik, J.L. Gates, M.K. Horton, C.S. Lambright, L.E. Gray,
Jr., A.M. Soto, and L.J. Guillette, Jr. 2004. Endocrine-Disrupting Effects of Cattle Feedlot
Effluent on an Aquatic Sentinel Species, the Fathead Minnow. Environmental Health
Perspectives 112(3): 353-358.
Pandolfo, T.J. 2014. Biotic and Abiotic Influences on Common and Imperiled Freshwater
Mussels at Multiple Spatial and Temporal Scales with Inferences to Global Change. Ph.D.
dissertation at NC State University, Raleigh, NC. 179pp.
Pellerito, R. (updated by R. Wisch). 2002. State Endangered Species Chart. Animal Legal and
Historical Center, Michigan State University College of Law.
https://www.animallaw.info/article/state-endangered-species-chart (accessed: 9/1/2016).
Poff, N.L., M.M. Brinson, and J.W. Day, Jr. 2002. Aquatic ecosystems & Global climate
change: Potential Impacts on Inland Freshwater and Coastal Wetlands Ecosystems in the United
States. Pew Center on Global Climate Change. 56pp.
Radford University. 2014. Virginia's Rivers (Part 4): James River.
http://www.radford.edu/jtso/GeologyofVirginia/VirginiasRivers/Drainage-4.htm1(accessed:
9/1/2016).
Redford, K.H., G. Amoto, J. Baillie, P. Beldomenico, E.L. Bennett, N. Clum, R. Cook, G.
Fonseca, S. Hedges, F. Launay, S. Lieberman, G. M. Mace, A. Murayama, A. Putnam, J.G.
Robinson, H. Rosenbaum, E.W. Sanderson, S.N. Stuart, P. Thomas, and J. Thorbjarnarson. 2011.
What does it mean to successfully conserve a(vertebrate) species? Bioscience 61:39-48.
Ren, W., Y. Zhong, J. Meligrana, B. Anderson, W.E. Watt, J. Chen, H. Leung. 2003.
Urbanization, land use, and water quality in Shanghai: 1947-1996. Environment International
29(5):649-659.
Riggs, S.R., D.V. Ames, D.R. Brant, and E.D. Sager. 2000. The Waccamaw Drainage System:
Geoloogy and Dynamics of a Coastal Wetland, Southeastern North Carolina. Report submitted
to the NC DENR Division of Water Resources, Raleigh, NC. 165pp.
Scheller, J.L. 1997. The effects of dieoffs of Asian Clams (Corbidula fluminea) on Native
Freshwater Mussels (Unionidae). Master of Science thesis. Virginia Polytechnic Institute and
State University. 100pp. https://theseslib.vt.edu/theses/available/etd-52297-
202145/unrestricted/thesis£pdf (accessed: 10/19/2016).
Yellow Lance SSA Report Page 84 March 2017

Shaffer, Mark L., and Bruce A. Stein. 2000. Safeguarding our precious heritage. Precious
heritage: the status of biodiversity in the United States. Oxford University Press, New York, pp.
301-321.
Shea, C.P., J.T. Peterson, M.J. Conroy, and J.M. Wisniewski. 2013. Evaluating the influence of
land use, drought and reach isolation on the occurrence of freshwater mussel species in the lower
Flint River Basin, Georgia (U.S.A.). Freshwater Biology 58:382-395.
Shute, P.W., R.G. Biggins, and R.S. Butler. 1997. Management and Conservation of Rare
Aquatic Resources: A Historical Perspective and Recommendations for Incorporating Ecosystem
Management, Chapter 17 (pp. 445-466) in Aquatic Fauna in Peril: The Southeastern Perspecitve,
edited by G.W. Benz and D.E. Collins (1997), Special Publication 1. Southeast Aquatic
Research Institute. Lenz Design and Communicaitons, Decatur, GA. 554pp.
Smith, M.P., R. Schiff, A. Olivero, and J. MacBroom. 2008. The Active River Area: A
Conservation Framework for Protecting Rivers and Streams. The Nature Conservancy, Boston,
MA. 64 pp.
Smith, R. 2013-2016. Smith Environment Blog: Environmental Law and Policy from a North
Carolina Point of View. http://www.smithenvironment.com (accessed: 5/24/2016).
- April 18, 2013: The Legislative Game of Jenga
- April 29, 2013: Regulatory Reform 3.0
- May 13, 2013: Regulatory Reform — Existing Rules
- November 8, 2013: Regulatory Reform and the Environment I: A Brief History
- November 21, 2013: Regulatory Reform and the Environment IL• Targeting
Environmental Rules
- December 4, 2014: Regulatory Reform and the Environment III: The Future
- May 21, 2014: 2014 Regulatory Reform
- July 15, 2014: Status of Regulatory Reform Legislation
- September 23, 2014: Regulatory Reform 2014
- March 26, 2015: Regulatory Reform 2015 — The Senate Bill
- April 30, 2015: What is the SEPA Problem?
- May 7, 2015: Reforming Riparian Buffers Out of Existence
- July 13, 2015: Regulatory Reform 2015: A New NC Senate Proposal
- January 6, 2016: 2015 in Review — Budget Trends
- January 12, 2016: 2015 in Review — Legislation
Snape, William J. and Susan George. 2010. "State Endangered Species Acts." In Endangered
Species Act: Law, Policy, and Perspectives, edited by Donald C. Bauer and William Robert
Irvin, 344-359. 2nd ed. Chicago, IL: ABA Section of Environment, Energy, and Resources,
c2010.
Southern Environmental Law Center (SELC). 2014. State Court Ruling Clarifies All Georgia
Waters Protected by Buffers. https://www.southernenvironment.org/news-and-press/press-
releases/state-court-ruling-clarifies-all-georgia-waters-protected-by-buffers (accessed: 9/1/2016)
Yellow Lance SSA Report Page 85 March 2017

Sparks, B.L. and D.L. Strayer. 1995. Effects of low dissolved oxygen on juvenile Elliptio
complanata (Bivalvia: Unionidae). Journal of the North American Benthological Society,
17(1):129-134.
Spooner, D. and C.C. Vaughn. 2008. A trait-based approach to species' roles in stream
ecosystems: climate change, community structure, and material cycling. Oecologia 158:307-317.
Strayer, D.L., and H.M. Malcom. 2012. Causes of recruitment failure in freshwater mussel
populations in southeastern New York. Ecological Applications 22: 1780-1790.
Stewart, J.S., D.M. Downes, L. Wang, J.A. Wierl, and R. Bannerman. 2000. Influences of
riparian corridors on aquatic biota in agricultural watersheds. In International Conference on
Riparian Ecology and Management in Multi-Land Use Watersheds. American Water Resources
Association Proceedings. Portland, OR.
Swank, W. T., and N. H. Miner. 1968. Conversion of Hardwood-Covered Watersheds to White
Pine Reduces Water Yield, Water Resour. Res., 4(5), 947-954, doi:10.1029/WR004i005p00947.
Swank, W.T. and J.E. Douglass. 1974. Streamflow Greatly Reduced by Converting Deciduous
Hardwood Stands to Pine. Science Vol. 185, Issue 4154:857-859.
DOI:10.1126/science.185.4154.857
Taylor, S.E., R. Rummer, K.H. Yoo, R.A. Welch, and J.D. Thompson. 1999. What we know and
don't know about water quality at stream crossings. Journal of Forestry 97(8):12-17.
Terando, A.J., J. Costanza, C. Belyea, R.R. Dunn, A. McKerrow, and J.A. Collazo. 2014. The
Southern Megalopolis: Using the Past to Predict the Future of Urban Sprawl in the Southeast
U.S. PLoS ONE 9(7): e102261. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0102261
Trombulak, S.C. and C.A. Frissell. 2000. Review of Ecological Effects of Roads on Terrestrial
and Aquatic Communities. Conservation Biology, Vol 14, No.l : 18-33.
Turgeon, D.D., J.F. Quinn, A.E. Bogan, E. V. Coan, F.G. Hochberg, W.G. Lyons, P. M.
Mikkelsen, R.J. Neves, C. F. E. Roper, G. Rosenberg, B. Roth, A. Scheltema, F.G. Thompson,
M. Vecchione, and J.D. Williams. 1998. Common and scientific names of aquatic invertebrates
from the United States and Canada. American Fisheries Society Special Publication, Series 26.
526 pp. http://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/70162654
Turgeon, D. D., Bogan, A. E., Council of Systematic Malacologists., & American Malacological
Union. (1988). Common and scientific names of aquatic invertebrates from the United States and
Canada. Bethesda, Md: American Fisheries Society.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2004. Information Regarding Compliance with the Federal
Clean Water Act Sction 404(F)(1) Provisions for the Construction of Forest Roads within
Wetlands, in North Carolina. Wilmington District, Regulatory Division. Wilmington, NC. Spp.
Yellow Lance SSA Report Page 86 March 2017

U.S. Census. 2016. United States Population Growth by Region.
https://www.census.gov/popclock/data_tables.php?component=growth (accessed: 7/27/2016).
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2016. Nutrient Pollution — The Sources and
Solutions: Agriculture. https://www.epa.gov/nutrientpollution/sources-and-solutions-agriculture
(accessed: 5/25/2016).
USEPA. 2017. Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. https://www.epa.gov/cwa-404/exemptions-
permit-requirements (accessed: 2/9/2017)
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2003. Draft recovery plan for Cumberland elktoe,
oyster mussel, Cumberlandian combshell, purple bean, and rough rabbitsfoot. Atlanta, GA.
USFWS. 2006. Final Draft: Riparian Buffers — Management Recommendations for Sites-
Specific Water Quality Protection and Restoration Planning in Waters Supporting Federally-
Listed Aquatic Species. Raleigh, NC. 75pp.
USFWS. 2016a. USFWS Species Status Assessment Framework: An integrated analytical
framework for conservation. Version 3.4 dated August 2016.
USFWS. 2016b. Species status assessment report for the Texas hornshell (Popenaias popeii),
Version 1.0. July 2016. Albuquerque, NM.
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 2014. Effects of Urbanization on Stream Ecosystems.
http://water.usgs.gov/nawqa/urban/ (accessed: 10/5/2016)
Vaughn, C.C. 2012. Life history traits and abundance can predict local colonisation and
extinction rates of freshwater mussels. Freshwater Biology 57: 982-992.
Villella, R. F. 2006. Impact of aluminum-laden sediment discharge on native freshwater
mussels in the Potomac River: final report. U.S. Geological Survey, Leetown Science Center,
Kearneysville, WV 25430. 30 pp.
Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation — Division of Natural Heritage. 2016.
Natural Heritage Resources of Virginia: Rare Animals. Compiled by Steve Roble. Natural
Heritage Technical Report 16-07. Richmond, VA. 62pp. http://www.dcr.virginia.gov/natural-
heritage/document/anlist2016.pdf (accessed: 12/19/2016)
Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries (VDGIF). 2010. Nottoway River Biologist
Report. https://www.dgif.virginia.gov/wp-content/uploads/2010-Nottoway-River-Bio-Rpt-l.pdf
(accessed: 9/ 1 /2016).
VDGIF. 2015. Virginia's 2015 Wildlife Action Plan. Henrico, VA. 109pp.
VDGIF. 2016. Rappahannock River. https://www.dgi£virginia.gov/waterbody/rappahannock-
river-upper/ (accessed: 9/1/2016).
Yellow Lance SSA Report Page 87 March 2017

VDGIF. 2017. Flathead Catfish Factsheet. Henrico, VA.
https://www.dgif.virginia.gov/wildlife/fish/flathead-catfish/ (accessed: 3/3/2017).
Watters, G.T. 2000. 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. pp. 261-274. Ohio Biological Survey.
Wayne, G. 2013. The Beginner's Guide to Representative Concentration Pathways. Version
1.0. Skeptical Science. 25pp.
Wear, D.N. and J.G. Greis. 2012. The Southern Forest Futures Project: summary report. Gen.
Tech. Rep. SRS-GTR-168. Asheville, NC: USDA-Forest Service, Southern Research Station.
54pp.
Webster, J.R., S.W. Golladay, E.F. Benfield, J.L. Meyer, W.T. Swank, and J.B. Wallace. 1992.
Catchment disturbance and stream response: An overview of stream research at Coweeta
Hydrologic Laboratory. In River conservation and management, ed. P.J. Boon, P. Calow and
G.E. Petts, 231-253. Chichester, England: John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Wenger, S. 1999. A Review of the Scientific Literature on Riparian Buffer Width, Extent, and
Vegetation. University of Georgia, Institute of Ecology, Athens, GA. 59pp.
Williams, J.D., A.E. Bogan, J. Brim Box, N.M. Burkhead, R.S. Butler, A. Contreras-Arquieta,
K.S. Cummings, J.T. Garner, J.L. Harris, R.G. Howells, S.J. Jepsen, N.A. Johnson, T.J. Morris,
T.L. Myers, E. Naranjo Garcia, and J.M. Wisniewski. In press. Conservation status of North
American freshwater mussels. Journal of Freshwater Mollusk Conservation and Biology.
Wilson, C.O. 2015. Land use/land cover water quality nexus: quantifying anthropogenic
influences on surface water quality. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 187(7):424.
Wisniewski, J.M., C.P. Shea, S. Abbott, and R.C.Stringfellow. 2013. Imperfect Recapture: A
Potential Source of Bias in Freshwater Mussel Studies. American Midland Naturalist 170:229-
247.
Wolf, E.D. 2010. Propagation of species at risk: Atlantic Pigtoe on military installations. A
report to the Department of Defense Legacy Resource Management Program. Project No. 09-
450.
Wolf, S, B. Hartl, C. Carroll, M.C. Neel, and D.N. Greenwald. 2015. Beyond PVA: Why
recovery under the Endangered Species Act is more than population viability. Bioscience doi:
10.1093/biosci/biu218 200-207.
Yeager, M.M., D.S. Cherry, and R.J. Neves. 1994. Feeding and burrowing behaviors of juvenile
rainbow mussels, Villosa iris (Bivalvia: Unionidae). Journal of the North American
Benthological Society 13:217-222.
Yellow Lance SSA Report Page 88 March 2017

APPENDIX A- US Museum of Natural History — Lance Specimen Photos
(provided by Matt Ashton, MD DNR)
Yellow Lance SSA Report Page A89 March 2017

Yellow Lance SSA Report Page A90 March 2017

Specimens from Virginia localities:
Yellow Lance SSA Report Page A91 March 2017

Yellow Lance SSA Report Page A92 March 2017

Yellow Lance SSA Report Page A93 March 2017

Yellow Lance SSA Report Page A94 March 2017

Yellow Lance SSA Report Page A95 March 2017

Yellow Lance SSA Report Page A96 March 2017

APPENDIX B- YELLOW LANCE DISTRIBUTION INFORMATION
PatuxentRiver Population ................................................................................................................... B98
Patuxent River Management Unit ............................................................................................................ B98
PotomacRiver Population ................................................................................................................. B 100
Potomac River Management Unit .......................................................................................................... B100
Rappahannock River Population ........................................................................................................ B 102
Rappahannock River Subbasin Management Unit ................................................................................ B 102
YorkRiver Population ....................................................................................................................... B 109
York River Management Unit ............................................................................................................... B 109
JamesRiver Population ...................................................................................................................... B 113
James River (Johns Creek) Management Unit ....................................................................................... B113
ChowanRiver Population .................................................................................................................. B 115
Nottoway River Management Unit ........................................................................................................ B 115
Meherrin River Management Unit ......................................................................................................... B 120
TarRiver Population .......................................................................................................................... B 122
Upper/Middle Tar River Management Unit ........................................................................................... B 122
Lower Tar River Management Unit ....................................................................................................... B 127
Sandy-Swift Creek Management Unit ................................................................................................... B132
Fishing Creek Subbasin Management Unit ........................................................................................... B 129
NeuseRiver Population ..................................................................................................................... B 134
Middle Neuse Tributaries Management Unit ......................................................................................... B 134
Yellow Lance SSA Report Page B97 March 2017

Patuxent River Population
Consists of one MU: Hawlings-Patuxent Rivers
Patuxent River Management Unit
.. � �..�•+�
_ ^ I�
, �
i✓
.r �,}k 'L'qy, v
. -�;,h.���R�
a
,.. .. g ,,,�n.. . �� �.,,�
+.� . �} �� , ��
. a— �,��� w� � : e ... R���
�t
. y�:••."��� 1�i�
� . i
aR� _ . ..
.. .. , �e-.5t� �. 'C�£ _�*f. . , . {.
C ...�_ p� +'
' r � f 11� .
� � : +s � �
�
Headwaters A. -� �.�,.�° _ " -
Patuxent River ' �;�'' - # ,;,f
I � � IT� YV�
Y . w+' _ �� 7f� i& ' `f /`�� �� � ''eW a�' I':+ '_, .
#�.� .� ��'' � � '' i ' � . µY .. r-
� �� ��T�_ y � . dw�� �'
�.. - - � ,,..�
� �""'°x ' �
��� ' �+`Y "fi�• "�� -0�r-Y"` � • ?� �
1 , f.'..• �+„, . �� n.n 4 L 4 �y,M.:ry �. �, � ` �
- �.r' �� -. " � qr n
1
d ,,.,�, � ,P, � . - .
��., ,� ,� �- , .
4��4r� �—.'��'"` r�� , .
N �FY1 � e" �� '"E� -. � • 1 '
�ap5 � ,�.I � � ' `R rr..s . ��5 } ...
+G„' � .r.,,_�� • r � „ ' � . " '
- t t� . �rr � ...
.�.y,,, �.,,�. �,� �pp�.r ��- _ ,
�.� r� x _ ' T' _
� —+�,r.r,.e�"�4:�.c- •
If„�i �iri'F iJ i45�v'riF'd.�.
�r. Patuxent River
. _ �:,,4,„ - ; �,. - ,
,� � „ ,� : - ; e�.
. � e g�� 41 ..
- f Y � � .
-���- ���..i� , � _ s
f '� "� � �5�w
��
� ��,,. ;
'�' . �
� r+w��'-..� 1
_ � ���
� •�r. �.*i�
�, .f f�
_f. �vr
v� �.._^'�=
. �.�� �.
� � . 9Ya" '� �4 R"a
� t, �
� ' �� ' Rik
' �
� .. .
� ... �5/' ����yf• Y.ra� . - �_ •.�'i " y��r�k
+ .�I4 �_!� } r.�.. �.r++�- .'� ,� , . '�ry,���..
�� � �+� T�,.
0 3 5 hldes "_,.f., � "`
1 i E ' � � y` ..t � � `
�
. I _ � _ _.., ,
� .ar�� '
.w e ;.rr.
� ,t..�
� �����.��.�� � ��
• Ye{IOK1' L�fIC@ OCC Utl�flte
� 1�5pair�Q S���mS
�' �'i�d��` �'ISC�ciP� $I��
� D�rns
Survey Summary: This MU consists of two HUC 10 watersheds: Headwaters Patuxent River and
Upper Patuxent River. In 1913, a Yellow Lance specimen was collected from the Patuxent River
eight miles below Laurel, MD. In1952, four valves from two specimens were collected in the
Hawlings River, a tributary to the Patuxent River. In 2015, a live Yellow Lance was collected
from the Hawlings River, approximately 2 miles upstream of the 1952 site. Although specimens
have not yet been confirmed (and thus, not mapped or considered in this analysis), the Canadian
Museum of Nature has two specimens (one per site) that were collected in 1964 from Cattail
Creek and the Little Patuxent River, within the Patuxent River drainage.
Yellow Lance SSA Report Page B98 March 2017

Water Quality Information: In 2011, portions of the upper Patuxent River watershed were listed
as impaired for aquatic life and wildlife due to Total Suspended Solids (note: impaired streams
do not show up on map above because GIS layers were unavailable at time of report release).
The biostressor analysis indicated that excess sediment was a major stressor affecting the
biological integrity of the watershed (MDE 2016). In 2014, portions of the watershed were also
listed as impaired for aquatic life and wildlife due to chlorides and sulfates (MDE 2016). There
are 146 non-major NPDES discharges and three major (including Maryland City WRF and
Bowie WWTP) NPDES discharges in the MU. This river is also fragmented by two water
supply reservoirs, one with dual use as a hydroelectric facility.
Land Use Land Cover Summary Statistics:
Areal Statistics for Headwaters Patuxent Ri�er Subksasin
Watershed 4b Imp Surface
Watershed 4b �eveloped
Watershed 4b Agriculture
Watershed °k Forest
,4RA 4b Imp Surtace
AR,4 4b �eveloped
AF2,4 4b Agriculture
AR,4 45 Forest
� 2.1
�14.8
42.3
37.7
� 0.9
❑ 7.7
25
50.3
20 40 60 80
L15G510 Qigit HL1C 0 206000601
Areal Statistics fiar Llpper Patuxent River 5uGbasin
Watershed 45 Imp Surtace
Watershed °k �eveloped
Watershed %Agriculture
Watershed 96 Forest
AF2A °k Imp Surface
AR,4 % �eveloped
ARA 4b Agriculture
,4R,4 9b Forest
� s.s
29.8
� 18
38.8
❑ 5.3
�18.3
�9 0.2
37.8
20 40 60 80
L15G510 �igit HL1C 0 206000604
100
100
Yellow Lance SSA Report Page B99 March 2017

Potomac River Population
Consists of one MU: Potomac River
Potomac River Management Unit
� i .r�a+i�^
�
t':i7a7 , ir �'y�� �n s .
I I
i4 ��'y'ti ■.l�+i i� '
_�
_ �
Difficult Run —
Potomac River�
�
. � � , .:
� . ' � �# " ..
� .
�� .r
. . _ ' . � � � ,�� r
_1 � � �.�,.i �
i.F �
� ._ 4.'1}t � B
�� ' . , � �� � . �: � �. ''� � �,
I �� � � � � � � �
`� �.�� � � �
�. _� . a.�,.. �� �
�'�"' ,
.��W .1n iJt
'i1
..:.�� -
� ��m
,,.�.:.
,, ..�� ,�„„
p�, �#.
.r
r��
I 4�41� . '��
• � —� Mfd� �yi.." .
ha h.�� .
� . ' — . � + . ._. . "t'. 1 F'Y.��. a+ . 5 � ..
.... ��.� ..a -.. � '. .
�k,M � • � . �•�r . ? �4lqsN{�1L
• I 4 .5. 5,i�7}'°1 A5. � .
.. y ' ,k tI.F�6.�+������u� ,n%',`��'
, � � � � � �.
-.�. . ,� t
. � .. ,
��� _ - � ' .. ' r�y.�.�+n"" . 5, -
A;� $ `
`;��' � � ., . . •
� ,
YI� ��
* �i � � t x _ '� _ _ yhWti��'
Q S 5 3 Mile� `-,
�4 „ '
� L I 1 r +� �� },
, . .����
� hlanagemen! U nr�
• Y�Ilow L�nC� CiCtiJrr�nC@
Ifflp89fEb �1f$�fflS
� P�P[�E� �isc#�arg� sii�
� EhaEns
Survey Summary: This MU consists of one HUC 10 watershed: Difficult Run-Potomac. Pre-
1970s record (NMNS #42792) in the Potomac River near Washington D.C. Two individuals
reported from 2004 survey.
Water Quality Information: Based on 2012 data from Virginia, there are 12 stream reaches,
totaling �23 miles that are impaired for aquatic life in the Virginia portion of the Difficult Run-
Potomac watershed. Impairment is indicated by low benthic-macroinvertebrate bioassessment
scores, E.coli, PCP in fish tissue, and Heptachlor epoxide, which is from urban runoff. There are
137 non-major NPDES discharges in the MU and 2 major NPDES discharges into this portion of
the Potomac watershed. Mining and agriculture in the upper basin, as well as urban sewage and
Yellow Lance SSA Report Page B100 March 2017

runoff in the lower basin have caused severe eutrophication problems and overall deterioration of
water quality.
Land Use Land Cover Summary Statistics:
Areal Statistics for aifficult Run-Potomac Ri�er Subbasin
Watershed 9� Imp Surtace �12.7
Watershed °k �eveloped 55.7
Watershed °k Agriculture � 2
Watershed � Forest 36.5
ARFl 95 Imp Surtace ❑ 7.1
.RRA % �eveloped 33
AR,4%Agriculture � 1.1
AR,4 % Forest 44.2
20 40 60 SO 100
L15G510 Digit HL1C 0 207000810
Yellow Lance SSA Report Page B101 March 2017

Rappahannock River Population
Consists of one MU: Rappahannock River Subbasin
� T ~.
l
wnw;`
Rappahannock River Subbasin Management Unit
- ' ��-
,�
fi���
' ' � I`-� i I n« . - _ . - _ . _ irl.:.'.1._ '
�~ ��^f� f y��y�.�� ��. I �
AYR�.s .. r,.i..�`+'� �1f�' . L. ._ . 4Fj.5.:R�luii�R
i
�.- - _ , �
�
",1�{::, F . � � � I� .. . .L, �, y:&'y
F �' �,
fi ti` !'
M'
. . . . . . , A.�i�.ti��rb"�'�� �� �,��
� � � � � T y . ,. . a7,aN rt't` ' riw
� ki'���ti`' � _
. Carter Run ' - -
� i # i �y�."�
i � .r rm
Thumb Run
Thornton
River
. �
�
Hazel .�
River
� 'i��
, _o
-- �
-�,y,,.,
'�
Mountain Run
Blue Run
y..�„ ,�.. _ ..
y '��
� �.�rs °� 3 i4iI�Q5
� , � , �
�
r� �iyb'S�1.�'�+a'i
-„',4
��.�_iil�� .�,�
_sT+�y
���
4 s1 '
�1�
�
=
Am�� �
,;
Massaponax 4h
p,� Creek '`���
4 � µ{.
5
�
�
, �
�
'�
.w
.d�
.,.
�..
� hlanagemen! U nr�
• Y�Ilow L�nC� CiCtiJrr�nC@
Impa�reb Str�eams
� P�P[�E� �isc#�arg� Sii�
'lIE �ams
Survey Summary: This MU includes several tributaries — Blue Run, Great Run, Marsh Run,
Thumb Run, and the Rapidan and Rappahannock rivers in ten HUC 10 watersheds (Thumb Run,
Thornton River, Hazel River, Mountain Run, Cedar Run, Blue Run, Mine Run, Carter Run,
Marsh Run, and Massaponax Creek). Many surveys have documented the presence of Yellow
Lance, with an occasional observation of upwards of 50 individuals. The species was first seen
in the late 1980s, and has been observed most recently in 2011 in the Rappahannock River,
although very few individuals were seen during that survey. Reproduction and recruitment were
documented in the MU in 2007.
Yellow Lance SSA Report
Page B102
March 2017
� �. * } �
�+ � . . .
�' �' ,.+ . . ��{{ .. _.

[NOTE: Because Johnson (1970) synonymized many lance species, many of the records in
Virginia basins are unconfirmed, and possible misidentifications. Survey and distribution
information for Yellow Lance reported here are only those records that have been confirmed by
VDGIF staff with species expertise.]
Water Quality Information: Based on 2012 data, there are 20 stream reaches, totaling �77 miles
that are impaired for aquatic life in the Rappahannock River watershed. Impairment is indicated
by low benthic-macroinvertebrate bioassessment scores, pH and temperature issues, and E.coli;
several of these can be attributed to septic systems or nonpoint source runoff into streams. There
are 93 non-major NPDES discharges in the MU and 11 major NPDES discharges, including
several city and package WWTPs.
Land Use Land Cover Summary Statistics:
Areal Statistics for Thumh Run-Rappahannock Rir�er SuGbasin
Watershed % Imp Surtace I 02
Watershed 4b �eveloped � 4
Watershed %Ageiculture 32.5
Watershed 45 Forest 62.8
ARA % Imp� Surtace � 0.1
AR,4 4b �eveloped � 3
AR,4 % Agriculture 38.3
AR,4 4b Forest 56.4
20 40 60 80 100
L15G510 �igit HL1C 0 208010301
Yellow Lance SSA Report Page B103 March 2017

Areal Statistics for Thornton River Suksbasin
Watershed k Imp Surtace I O.d
Watershed95�eveloped ❑ 4.8
Watershed 96 Agriculture 2g
Watershed 45 Forest 65.5
AR,4 °k Imp Surface � 0]
,4R,4 °% �eveloped ❑ 7.6
AR,4 96 Agrieulture 35.1
ARA k Forest 54.4
0 20 40 60 80 100
L15G510 ❑igit HL1C 0 208010303
Areal StaEistics for Hasel River Sudksasin
Watershed °k Imp Surtace I 0.3
Watershed "k �eveloped ❑ 6.2
Watershed 95 Agriculture 32.6
Watershed °k Forest 60.3
FtiRA 96 Imp Surface I 0.2
ARA % �eveloped ❑ 5.1
AR,4 45 Agriculture 4i.2
AR,4 °k Forest 47.2
0 20 �0 60 80 100
L15G510 �igit HL1C 0 2�8010304
Yellow Lance SSA Report Page B104 March 2017

Areal Statistics far Carter Run-Rappahannack River Subbasin
Watershed 95 Imp Surtace � �.7
Watershed % �eveloped � 9.1
Watershed %Agriculture 41
Watershed % Forest 49
ARFl 96 Imp Surtace I 0.3
ARA °k �eveloped ❑ 6.3
ARei °k Agriculture 40
ARFl � Farest 51.9
0 20 40 60 80 100
L1SG510 Qigit HL1G 0 208010302
Areal Statistics far Marsh Run-Rappahannock River Subtsasin
Watershed 95 Imp Surtace � 1.1
Watershed % �eveloped � 8.5
Watershed %Agriculture 32.9
Watershed % Forest 50.4
ARFl 96 Imp Surtace � '�.�
ARA °k �eveloped ❑ 6.8
ARe1 °k Agriculture 37.6
N�A � Farest 39
0 20 40 60 80 100
L1SG510 Qigit HL1G 0 208010306
Yellow Lance SSA Report Page B105 March 2017

Areal 5tatisticsfnr Maun4ain Run SuGbasin
Watershed 95 Imp Surtace � 3.1
Watershed % �eveloped �15.5
Watershed %Agriculture 52.6
Watershed % Forest 27.8
ARFl 96 Imp Surtace � 2.2
ARA °k �eveloped �10.7
ARei °k Agriculture 54.3
ARFl � Farest 25.1
0 20 4� 60 80 100
L1SG510 Qigit HL1G 0 2080103�5
Areal Statistics for Blue Run-Rapidan River Subtrasin
Watershed 95 Imp Surtace � �.9
Watershed °k �eveloped ❑ 7.6
Watershed °k Agriculture 457
Watershed � Forest 5.3
ARFl 95 Imp Surtace � 0.4
ARA °k ❑eveloped � 4
AR,4 % Ag ri eu Itu re 5 7.6
ARA % Forest 33.9
0 20 40 60 SO 100
L15G510 �igit HL1C 0 208010308
Yellow Lance SSA Report Page B106 March 2017

Areal Statistics far Cedar Run-Rapidan Rir�er Subbasin
Watershed 95 Imp Surtace � 0.8
Watershed % �eveloped ❑ 6.6
Watershed %Agriculture 50.6
Watershed % Forest 36.5
ARFl 96 Imp Surtace � 0.7
ARA °k �eveloped ❑ 5.7
ARei °k Agriculture 55.8
ARFl � Farest 27.9
0 20 4� 60 80 100
L1SG510 Qigit HL1G 0 208010310
Areal Sfatistics fnr Mine Run-Rapidan Rir�er Suh�asin
Watershed 9� Imp Surtaee � 0.8
Watershed °k �eveloped � 8.5
Watershed °k Agriculture 22
Watershed � Forest 64.2
ARFl 95 Imp Surtace � �.6
.RRA % �eveloped ❑ 5.4
AR,4%Agriculture �20.7
ARA % Forest 58.9
0 20 40 60 SO 100
L15G510 �igit HL1C 0 208010311
Yellow Lance SSA Report Page B107 March 2017

Areal 5tatis�ics far Massaponax Creek-Rappahannnck Rir�er 5ul�ksasin
Watershed 95 Imp Surtace
Watershed % �eveloped
Watershed %Agriculture
Watershed % Forest
ARFl 96 Imp Surtace
ARA °k �eveloped
ARei °k Agriculture
ARFl � Farest
� 9.1
33.4
�14.1
43.8
❑ 5
�20.6
�11.3
43.7
20 40 60
L1SG510 Qigit HL1G 0 208010401
80 100
Yellow Lance SSA Report Page B108 March 2017

York River Population
Consists of one MU: Mattaponi-South Anna River (York MU)
York River Management Unit
r{�
. ¢6.'4�,.—..
�
f �,
'.�',. If .7�4,
� G� "
�r
f �.
. . � �'K'+�'!, ro ;k
.S.
A
1
e t i ���
i�
Upper �
South Anna
River
r '..F�, : . �} �4 � �
s� ' x
'+L� .a ,y#'� -�� .
t""- `���'f�r . .� v�d�,"� ..
� �
,yry M1 "
L'�fNmY'i f .
' ; e; .d y."A - -
P'
♦ "' f
- - �r�fvu�� I
- 5.
Q � F5 B 5 6Ai1��
� i � � � a
Middle South
Anna River
�
A�
9.'����; xxh
i�' �4���,•
i. i� i l i.4 J
�` Lower South
Anna ftiver
.-� �
. a.,; -�
, �4'.i . ...
,� ' e �' -. ' ..�
ie
- � 1� �� ,4t'4. �e � � � ?�e �i:' "
i, x� xil:��,x. -�4��..� r� ii�1N+:�
�y� J R �.� � � � . �4�n'C'
. '° �' v � . �{q[hsP37Rx�S 5..-
�; ! �yMi FY.'� ,� X..
.�' k � 4�
� �s�l`I'��iA�l�l� � I��
� YeII�oFH' L9nGe CI€c UfIE`f1Ce
� Ir�p�irep 5kredrn�
� NPDE3�rscnar�eSite
�F �mns
Survey Summary: This MU consists of 6 HUC 10 watersheds: Pamunkey Creek, Matta River,
Poni River, Upper South Anna River, Middle South Anna River, and Lower South Anna River.
Several surveys document the presence of Yellow Lance in this MU — presumably first seen in
1973, and as recent as 2007 in the South Anna River. Abundance is described as "rare" and no
information exists on reproduction or recruitment.
Water Quality Information: Based on 2012 data, there are 13 stream reaches, totaling �44 miles
that are impaired for aquatic life in the Po/South Anna River watersheds. Causes of impairment
are indicated by low benthic-macroinvertebrate bioassessment scores, low dissolved oxygen, pH,
Yellow Lance SSA Report Page B109 March 2017

and E.coli. There are 50 non-major and one major NPDES discharges in the MU, including the
Ashland WWTP.
Land Use Land Cover Summary Statistics:
Areal Statistics far Pamunkey Creek 5uhbasin
Watershed 95 Imp Surtace � 0.8
Watershed % �eveloped ❑ 7.9
Watershed %Agriculture 31.3
Watershed % Forest 54.5
N�,4961mpSurtace � 0.4
ARA °k �eveloped ❑ 4.5
ARe1 °k Agriculture 27
ARFl � Farest 48.6
0 20 �0 60 8� 100
L15G510 Qigit HL1C 0 208010605
Areal Statistics for Poni RiWer Subhasin
Watershed 9� Imp Surtaee � 1.1
Watershed °k �eveloped � 9.6
Watershed °k Agriculture �12.2
Watershed � Forest 632
ARFl 95 Imp Surtace � 0.5
.RRA % �eveloped ❑ 5.2
AR,4%Agriculture ❑ 6
ARA % Forest 48.2
0 20 40 60 SO 100
L15G510 �igit HL1C 0 208010501
Yellow Lance SSA Report Page B110 March 2017

Areal Statistics for Matta River-Mattaponi Ri�er 5uhGasin
Watershed 95 Imp Surtace � 1
Watershed % �eveloped ❑ 7.4
Watershed%Agriculture �14.1
Watershed % Forest 63.6
ARFl 96 Imp Surtace � 0.7
ARA °k �eveloped ❑ 5
ARei °k Agriculture � 8.4
ARFl � Farest 48.8
0 20 40 60 80 100
L1SG510 Qigit HL1G 0 208010502
Areal Statistics for llpper South Anna Ri�er Subbasin
Watershed 95 Imp Surtace � 0.9
Watershed °k �eveloped ❑ 6.3
Watershed °k Agriculture 24.9
Watershed � Forest 61.7
ARFl 95 Imp Surtace � 0.4
ARA °k ❑eveloped � 3.7
AR,4%Agrieulture �21.5
ARA % Forest 58.4
0 20 40 60 SO 100
L15G510 �igit HL1C 0 2�8010601
Yellow Lance SSA Report Page B111 March 2017

Areal Statistics far Middle Sauth Anna RiWer Suk�nasin
Watershed 95 Imp Surtace � �.7
Watershed % �eveloped ❑ 6.4
Watershed%Agriculture �14.8
Watershed % Forest 68.5
ARFl 96 Imp Surtace I 0.3
ARA °k �eveloped � 3.2
ARei °k Agriculture � 9.5
ARFl � Farest 59.4
0 20 40 6� 80 100
L1SG510 Qigit HL1G 0 208010602
Areal Statistics for Lnwer South Anna Ri�er Subbasin
Watershed 95 Imp Surtace � 0.6
Watershed °k �eveloped ❑ 5.8
Watershed °k Agriculture 24.7
Watershed � Forest 59
ARFl 95 Imp Surtace � 0.4
ARA °k ❑eveloped � 4."I
AR,4%Agrieulture �14.9
ARA % Forest 54.7
0 20 40 60 SO 100
L15G510 �igit HL1C 0 2�8010603
Yellow Lance SSA Report Page B112 March 2017

James River Population
Consists of one MU: Johns Creek
James River (Johns Creek) Management Unit
'fk:r�F-�' — ' �',
5if�t ! ' y�r.ol��rcd �
C.i9� • �
�y} , *
�
� ._. �, �S7
,�;, '-:_ ` �p"' � i�
�* '�° +� � � `- �� �
�,�"`* o ,� . ``
� �
�� ��� _.
, '� � •.
� .
e
-.r. , �$
� � �f r
- z ,, �
' ._ " . . . �.yJ n'r �.
-; ,� �
� - '0�1k , �v
y .ia�L
,. �.�
�
.
,
�
� L
�. � : U„-.�� . _. ,� :
�` • �
� i .h "
_ �� i ,• ;� _k . .
, ... �. - . '� ..� � �.u�� Ilal� ; k�. . � }v e"
�� � . ' . � � .y�Yll.l
� � . � �
. i? r � .. ' .�
r .i � ;. ,J . e'4'.� ...ry . _ '.
F,� �
� � ,
. l
f , . ; �
L 1 , �I: � , til �'
y t�
S . �:l�_�.L�,4�± i � r � �r'J
�' �..
^ r � � y} St ,� *
- * e� � o ,� � ,� �G .
�� � � � �' �� � �
f� �.,� � ,� � }", � � "� ��
�w� � � �
��`vrrvx�`L•'irr`�... �I�rbtr `` ° . �.:�k
- --kb5-� t .-i44 — � - �
� 1 i5 3 � h1111e� . " � � x}� ,��x�• •
i � � �. i �
- . , . ,�.
� ��r��er�er�w u nrt
� Yeuow �ance �cc unence
� I�p�on2rJ SkrEdrns
� �1PdE��S�scharg�S�e
� oa�s
Survey Summary: The only confirmed records of Yellow Lance in the James basin exist in Johns
Creek (see NOTE in Rappahannock Survey Summary above). The species was first seen in
1984, and last observed in 2004. Most survey efforts documented less than a handful of
specimens although one 2004 effort found 31. Abundances have been described as "rare" or
"uncommon" and reproduction has been documented.
Water Quality Information: Based on 2012 data, there are no impaired stream reaches in the
Johns Creek watershed. There is one non-major NPDES discharge in the MU.
Yellow Lance SSA Report Page B113 March 2017

Land Use Land Cover Summary Statistics:
Areal Statistics for Johns Creek 5uhbasin
Watershed 95 Imp Surtace I 0.3
Watershed % �eveloped � 2.6
Watershed%Agriculture ❑ 4.9
Watershed % Forest 91.5
ARFl 9� Imp Surtace � 0.5
ARA °k �eveloped ❑ 4.3
ARe1 °k Agriculture � 9.5
AR,A � Farest 84:4
20 40 60 80 100
L15G510 �igit HL1C 0 208020111
Yellow Lance SSA Report Page B114 March 2017

Chowan River Population
Consists of two MUs: Nottoway River; Meherrin River
Nottoway River Management Unit
� ,
h
1�a'
Little N
River 7�
��_4, a=+
— ..� •; ,
_ '3r "
�. .ri.5� N.d�� Y�0. -i,
r F -s
. I1 aL��i�IM1,� ,��
1 �
� 'p - � � ,,' ., q,�
� � �li��*
. � + . iy��.' .
Butterwood
aY Creek
. �
�
� � #
��
��
Tommeheton
a
�
x Wiil
,pa
�
, {
' �r�{ ,.�.
ri
r� R��nL.. j _
T� .
Buckskin reek
�
Mill Creek
•
Creek � . � � �
Sturgeon Creek
. _„�r� :�: Three Creek
.�
� ' � ,�;, ���
_ —'' _�l` . ;�L�1ta�*YAhS
�a� � _ _ r �F .. - �y � � _ _ .
1�� �
'— - - �
_ ' _ , J -r—+y
Jt 5 r'� 4+ y
�,
. .w et+ , �k I• i� w,.� ..
--. f�� � x,
4 5 t0 f�41es . �� ,
,,,. I i i � ' I� .����
}� f
.�t�' _
, �, .
tirv5�
� #hanagement L�nll
• '��UrntLarxe�Gc�nce
Imp�ared 3tre�ms
� ��aEsnrscn��ro�
� Dams
Survey Summary: This MU consists of 7 HUC 10 watersheds: Little Nottoway River,
Tommeheton Creek, Sturgeon Creek, Butterwood Creek, Buckskin Creek, Three Creek, and Mill
Creek. Several surveys in the Nottoway River basin have noted the presence of "Yellow Lance"
(one with as many as 781 individuals, although the exact identity of each specimen was not
confirmed — see NOTE in Rappahannock Survey Summary above). The species has been seen as
recently as 2011 in the Nottoway River, albeit in extremely low numbers. There is no
information on reproduction or recruitment in this MU.
Water Quality Information: Based on the 2012 data, there are there are 29 stream reaches,
totaling �155 miles that are impaired for aquatic life in the Nottoway River watersheds. Causes
Yellow Lance SSA Report Page B115 March 2017

of impairment are indicated by low benthic-macroinvertebrate bioassessment scores, low
dissolved oxygen, pH, and E.coli, and sources are from urban stormwater and natural conditions.
There are 32 non-major and four major NPDES discharges in the MU.
Land Use Land Cover Summary Statistics:
Areal Statistics for Little Nottnway Rir�er-Nnttnway Ri�er Subk�asin
Watershed 9� Imp Surtaee � �.7
Watershed °k �eveloped � 3.9
Watershed °k Agriculture �15.6
Watershed � Forest 70.9
ARFl 95 Imp Surtace I 0.1
.RRA % �eveloped � 'I
AR,4%Agriculture ❑ 6.6
AR,4 % Forest 70.2
20 40 60 SO 100
L15G510 Digit HL1C 0 301020101
Areal Statis�ics fnr Tommeheton Creek-Nottnway River Sub6asin
Watershed 9� Imp Surtaee � 1.5
Watershed °k �eveloped � 8.4
Watershed °k Agriculture �13.1
Watershed � Forest 65.1
ARFl 95 Imp Surtace I 0.3
.RRA % �eveloped � 2.8
AR,4%Agriculture � 3]
ARA % Forest 66.�
20 40 60 SO 100
L15G510 �igit HL1C 0 301020102
Yellow Lance SSA Report Page B116 March 2017

Areal Statistics for Sturgean Creek-Nattaway Ri�er Suksbasin
Watershed 95 Imp Surtace � �.6
Watershed % �eveloped ❑ 4.5
Watershed%Agriculture �18.1
Watershed % Forest 6�.8
ARFl 96 Imp Surtace I 0.2
ARA °k �eveloped � 2.1
ARei °k Agriculture ❑ 7.8
ARFl � Farest 66.7
0 20 40 6� 80 100
L1SG510 Qigit HL1G 0 301020103
Areal Statistics for Butterwaod Creek-Stony Creek Subtrasin
Watershed 95 Imp Surtace � 0.4
Watershed °k �eveloped � 3.7
Watershed °k Agriculture �16.2
Watershed � Forest 68.5
ARFl 95 Imp Surtace I 0.2
ARA °k �eveloped � 1.8
AR,4%Agrieulture ❑ 5.7
ARA % Forest 69.5
0 20 40 60 SO 100
L15G510 �igit HL1C 0 3�1020105
Yellow Lance SSA Report Page B117 March 2017

Areal Statistics 6or Buckskin Creek-Nattaway Ri�er Suksbasin
Watershed 95 Imp Surtace � 0.4
Watershed % �eveloped � 3.6
Watershed%Agriculture �14.9
Watershed % Forest 63.2
ARFl 96 Imp Surtace I 0.3
ARA °k �eveloped � 2.8
ARei °k Agriculture �12.6
ARFl � Farest 51.2
0 20 40 60 80 100
L1SG510 Qigit HL1G 0 301020104
Wreal Statistics far Three Creek Subbasin
Watershed 95 Imp Surtace � 0.7
Watershed °k �eveloped ❑ 5.7
Watershed °k Agriculture �16.7
Watershed � Forest 57.8
ARFl 95 Imp Surtace � 0.4
ARA °k ❑eveloped � 3.9
AR,4%Agrieulture ❑ 7.�
ARA % Forest 44.5
0 20 40 60 SO 100
L15G510 �igit HL1C 0 301020110
Yellow Lance SSA Report Page B118 March 2017

Areal Statistics for Mill Creek-Nattaway Ri�er SuqGasin
Watershed 95 Imp Surtace
Watershed % �eveloped
Watershed %Agriculture
Watershed % Forest
ARFl 96 Imp Surtace
ARA °k �eveloped
ARei °k Agriculture
ARFl � Farest
� 0.7
❑ 5.9
29.3
37.8
� 0.7
❑ 5.5
�14.1
29.3
20 4� 60
L1SG510 Qigit HL1G 0 301020112
80 100
Yellow Lance SSA Report Page B119 March 2017

Meherrin River Management Unit
s�''
..
�. ,�t�. ��
� ,, ».,
� ;����_# r ..� � ,
�� '�
Fy.}6 .
._ �,' }ti `� _ , '
G
�}�:.
�. _,:.
.
� .
L
_ W �•s .
. ' _�e•.
.. . - � .. �. vF�
w��
i_ �
r f .
�'. .. � _J ` ' �
. i4„ .
' -�� '�� � ..
- .. .es ^w�`«�rl..-" '
�.w�. �, � - .
� 9 6 �f+les �
i , � � i
5 I La �5 .p � ' '�i�ti L V + �irNv�.
, �- 7��ilLLN�l4 ., iW
` �y µ . � ylrr��~ � �
. . �-+F."'"�` I� . ,•�,,
- �tiyw �
�
.. � *^y�.
*�;,, �.
i
;'
�
�
�kldi���i11�t°If u�l�
��
� YeIfOwLan[eOCCUfI�f1Ce
� lo�p�i++ed Skr��rns
'� NPa�S ��scharg�Sibe
�F ��ns
Survey Summary: This MU consists of two HUC 10 watersheds: Great Creek and Reedy Creek.
The VA Natural Heritage database has one record of a Yellow Lance in the Meherrin River,
found during a survey in 1990 and another found in Great Creek in 1994.
Water Quality Information: Based on the 2012 data, there are there are four stream reaches,
totaling �34 miles that are impaired for aquatic life in the Meherrin River watersheds. Indicators
of impairment are low benthic-macroinvertebrate bioassessment scores, low dissolved oxygen,
pH, and E.coli. There are 16 non-major and 2 major NPDES discharges in the MU.
�
Yellow Lance SSA Report Page B120 March 2017

Land Use Land Cover Summary Statistics:
Areal Statisfics fer Great Creek Subhasin
Watershed 9� Imp Surtaee � 1.6
Watershed °k �eveloped � 8.7
Watershed°kAgriculture �14.i
Watershed � Forest 66.3
ARFl 95 Imp Surtace � 0.7
.RRA % �eveloped ❑ 4.4
AR,4%Agriculture ❑ 7.6
AR,4 % Forest 70
0 20 40 60 SO 100
L15G510 Digit HL1C 0 301020405
Areal Statistics tor Reedq Creek-Meherrin Rir�er 5uGbasin
Watershed 95 Imp Surtaee � 1.3
Watershed °k �eveloped ❑ 8.1
Watershed%Agriculture �14.6
Watershed % Forest 53.9
ARFl 95 Imp Surtace � 0.4
ARA °k �eveloped ❑ 4.1
AR.A °k Agriculture � 8.7
ARFl � Farest 36
0 20 4� 60 8� 100
L15GS 10 Oigit HL1C 0 301020406
Yellow Lance SSA Report Page B121 March 2017

Tar River Population
Consists of four MUs: Upper/Middle Tar River; Lower Tar River; Sandy-Swift Creek; Fishing
Creek Subbasin
Upper/Middle Tar River Management Unit
� , ,
� �r.v� ` -�`^ �� �,r, 6 �
. , ��i ya�"�,�„'+!4"..� .. i•�"'�*'• i,�F � �f�
,.� � "" � _ - - �ky„�.. . - - _ .
{�• M,�� -
_ ,
� .- _ I }
f y «�.t�su ..
r:h� ��l t.,x �„ a 4r'.� , , `� x_ a ,.
� . ,��s,a� 5'� I
�
��taqi�r� fr� � !
�,. �� T'`'�`,t�
4 � �
Tabbs Creek '. "
* �
�r_.. . '�i:u+ ' � r �.5. i
�'
+� �
I I
. Lynch Creek �� �- ,•,�� �•- {
,�.,�F
Aycock Creek
M'
. �
Crooked'C�reek
, - � �.
� ," y = � ::,, -
Tar River Reservoir
��,, �"' v� � ,
� _ -.- - - : ,,�,,,�� .,:,�+�, � . � ��
- I � ., ��KL� ' j; �k �
I �'.. _
r a:�d �
.I
� 4+ytr- •
51
�
I •
.�T i,�,t � � r..j � _ . �
a
�7m5�' 1 � �
Mi _r _��
Q 4 75 � $ hrlll�g * ` .
r y ,
i � � � i -�� -
� TI1������.:7t 4 ��
� Yelloll'L7nCe�CeUfIEf1Ce
� I�p�r�0 Skr�drn5
� N P bE3 �rsc narg� Sibe
3�F aa�s
Survey Summary: This MU includes the tributaries Fox Creek, Crooked Creek, Ruin and Tabbs
Creek, as well as the mainstem of the upper and middle Tar River in six HUC 10 watersheds
(Aycock Creek, Tabbs Creek, Lynch Creek, Crooked Creek, Stony Creek, and Tar River
Reservoir). Many surveys efforts have documented the presence of Yellow Lance over the
years; the species was first seen in 1966 and it has been documented as recently as 2016 in the
Tar River. Recent abundances have been described as "rare" or "uncommon" — where one
survey in the 1990 documented upwards of 1001ive individuals (Tar River sites), most other
surveys have documented 25 to 31 individuals, and most recently (2014), 25 live individuals (Tar
Yellow Lance SSA Report Page B122 March 2017

River sites). Tributary sites do not have the same abundances as mainstem sites — the most
collected during a given survey was six in Fox Creek (1993). Reproduction and recruitment have
been confirmed as recently as 2015 (Tar River sites).
Water Quality Information: Based on 2014 data, there are seven impaired stream reaches totaling
�38 miles in this MU. Indicators of impairment are low DO and low benthic-macroinvertebrate
assessment scores, and the entire basin is classified as Nutrient Sensitive Waters (NCDEQ 2016,
pp.115-117). There are 102 non-major NPDES discharges, including several package WWTPs
and biosolids facilities, and 3 major (Oxford WWTP, Louisburg WWTP, and Franklin County
WWTP) NPDES discharges in this MU.
Land Use Land Cover Summary Statistics:
Areal Statistics for Aycnck Creek-Tar Rirrer SuqGasin
Watershed 96 Imp Surtace � 0.6
Watershed % �eveloped ❑ �.8
Watershed °k Agriculture 22.7
Watershed � Forest 60.2
ARFl 95 Imp Surtace I 0.3
AR.A °k ❑eveloped � 2.6
AR,4%Agriculture �15.3
AR,4 % Forest 65.5
20 40 60 SO 100
L15G510 �igit HL1C 0 302010101
Yellow Lance SSA Report Page B123 March 2017

Areal Statis4ics for TaGhs Creek-Tar RiWer Subbasin
Watershed 95 Imp Surtace � 2.3
Watershed % �eveloped �1'1.6
Watershed%Agriculture �15.8
Watershed % Forest 62.8
ARFl 96 Imp Surtace � 0.9
ARA °k �eveloped ❑ 5.6
ARei °k Agriculture � 9.1
ARFl � Farest 70.3
0 20 40 6� 80 100
L1SG510 Qigit HL1G 0 302010102
Areal Statistics for Lpnch Creek-Tar River Subhasin
Watershed 95 Imp Surtace � '�.�
Watershed °k �eveloped ❑ 6.�
Watershed °k Agriculture 24.3
Watershed � Forest 55.8
ARFl 95 Imp Surtace � 0.5
ARA °k ❑eveloped � 2.6
AR,4%Agrieulture �14.8
ARA % Forest 55.3
0 20 40 60 SO 100
L15G510 �igit HL1C 0 302010103
Yellow Lance SSA Report Page B124 March 2017

Areal Statistics far Crnnked Creek-Tar River 5uhGasin
Watershed 95 Imp Surtace � 'I.3
Watershed % �eveloped � 9
Watershed %Agriculture 27.7
Watershed % Forest 50.1
ARFl 96 Imp Surtace I 0.4
ARA °k �eveloped � 3.3
ARei°kAgriculture �16.5
ARFl � Farest 50.6
0 20 40 60 80 100
L1SG510 Qigit HL1G 0 302010104
Areal Statistics far Stony Creek SudGasin
Watershed 95 Imp Surtace � 2.4
Watershed % �eveloped �1'1.6
Watershed %Agriculture 31.8
Watershed % Forest 41.1
,4RR 9� Imp Surtace � 1.5
ARA °k �eveloped ❑ 6.9
ARe1 °k Agriculture �16.8
AR,A � Farest �?.�
0 2� 4� 60 80 1�0
L18G510 Qigit HL1C 0 302010105
Yellow Lance SSA Report Page B125 March 2017

Areal 5tatistics far Tar RiWer Reserrfair-Tar Ri�er Suhhasin
Watershed 95 Imp Surtace
Watershed % �eveloped
Watershed %Agriculture
Watershed % Forest
ARFl 96 Imp Surtace
ARA °k �eveloped
ARei °k Agriculture
ARFl � Farest
� 1.8
�11.4
31.2
38
� 1.3
❑ 7.7
�15.3
38.4
20 40 60
L1SG510 Qigit HL1G 0 302010106
80 100
Yellow Lance SSA Report Page B126 March 2017

� �ar�a�emenr u r��t
� YeIfOwLan[eOCCUfI�f1Ce
� lo�p�i++�d Skr��rns
'� NPa�S ��scharg�Sibe
�F ��ns
Survey Summary: The Yellow Lance was first documented from this MU (consisting of one
HUC 10 watershed: Otter Creek) in 1966 (H.Athearn collection) with 18 shells; two surveys in
1987 documented two live specimens.
Water Quality Information: Based on the 2014 data, there are one impaired stream reach totaling
�4 miles in this MU. Causes are indicated by very low benthic-macroinvertebrate assessment
scores, and the entire basin is classified as Nutrient Sensitive Waters. There are 16 non-major
and one major (Tarboro WWTP) NPDES discharges in this MU.
Yellow Lance SSA Report Page B127 March 2017
Lower Tar River Management Unit

Land Use Land Cover Summary Statistics:
Areal Statistics for Qtter Creek-Tar River Sub6asin
Watershed 9� Imp Surtace
Watershed °k �eveloped
Watershed °k Agriculture
Watershed � Forest
ARFl 95 Imp Surtace
.RRA % �eveloped
AR,4 % Ag ri cu Itu re
AR,4 % Forest
� 1.9
� 9.1
38.1
25.5
� �
❑ 5.8
31.5
�17. �
20 40 60
L15G510 Digit HL1C 0 302010302
SO 100
Yellow Lance SSA Report Page B128 March 2017

Fishing Creek Subbasin Management Unit
F� M �'�
��� ., _ . .
.�k � �l
} �E � �
4 �I � .
'� - � . � �� ���{.i�`ty
T
�� ' _ �� tj� i��l&Ui �ti.`
i _, „� �.r.n G _ _ . _
,N , � ; �— ' ��� .,
�rl+ .��
� — — — '�p�� _ w _ — � � �i5
I�
Y I '
�r-�
7 tP. 4
�� r
' Upper Fishing �x �,�-�:� �
. a/.Y
�� �' Creek
P
�ii �5
e„} W •
� �
-�
. a�.?'�
...0.�7
.. � i�l'�� 4 ^ � �� * � 1/
� iii
I } i�ei; I,I
„� � .'� Lower Fishing
5h'.r i'
� Creek
Shocco Creek
.a.. �
�,,�,"� 5 ��., � � '
_ � �,
•
q �+ µ�t„a,� �,.:rr,
� y f _!. F.� 7�9NJe� . -., y I vS=�'a �
- . �+ ._.- \.
a
��- � r
� N44f . - � _..
t �l �.���* ..' � �µ � .. �K�,"ti.'+�.
r �L r_ ti.y . .
_� � � , _�,,.
% 4 �.�4 5
:�"� '� � ,'
- � - -- �
'4 4.25 �.�a Milea ` � :.�,�" •
i � � i .�.
� '
�
� #�iar►agemerrt l�nn
• �'�Uc�Lance�ccu�rence
Impa�red 3tr�e�ms
� ��oEsnrscn�sro�
� �arns
Survey Summary: This MU consists of three HUC 10 watersheds: Shocco Creek, Upper Fishing
Creek and Lower Fishing Creek. The Yellow Lance has been documented via many surveys in
both Shocco Creek and Fishing Creek, and a couple of surveys in Richneck Creek. The species
was first seen in 1983, and has been seen as recently as 2016. Most surveys describe abundances
as "rare" with usually less than a handful observed in each effort; the most seen was nine live
individuals in Fishing Creek (1994, 2004, and 2005). Recruitment was observed in 2015..
Water Quality Information: Based on 2014 data, there is one impaired stream reach totaling �14
miles in this MU. Cause of impairment is due to low DO. There are 23 non-major and one
major (Warrenton WWTP) NPDES discharges in this MU.
Yellow Lance SSA Report Page B129 March 2017

Land Use Land Cover Summary Statistics:
Areal Statistics fnr Shoccn Creek Subhasin
Watershed 9� Imp Surtace I 0.3
Watershed °k �eveloped � 3.2
Watershed °k Agriculture �11.1
Watershed � Forest 70.9
ARFl 95 Imp Surtace 0
ARA % developed � �.6
AR,4%Agriculture ❑ 4.7
AR,4 % Forest 63.9
0 20 40 60 SO 1�0
L15G510 digit HL1C 0 302010201
Areal Statistics for Llpper Fishing Creek Sudbasin
Watershed 95 Imp Surtace � 0.7
Watershed % �eveloped ❑ 5.6
Watershed%Agriculture �12.2
Watershed % Forest 71.5
ARFl 96 Imp Surtace I 0.2
ARA °k �eveloped � 1.8
ARe1 °k Agriculture ❑ 5.3
ARFl � Farest 68
Q 2Q �� 6� 8� 100
L15G510 Qigit HL1C 0 302010203
Yellow Lance SSA Report Page B130 March 2017

Jkreal Statistics for Lower Fishing Creek SuGGasin
Watershed 95 Imp Surtace
Watershed % �eveloped
Watershed %Agriculture
Watershed % Forest
ARFl 96 Imp Surtace
ARA °k �eveloped
ARei °k Agriculture
ARFl � Farest
� 0.5
❑ 5.3
0.1
29.1
I 0.3
� 3.2
25.6
24.3
20 4� 60
L1SG510 Qigit HL1G 0 302010206
80 100
Yellow Lance SSA Report Page B131 March 2017

Sandy-Swift Creek Management Unit
� M�n�gernenk U nit
s Yello�rr Lance �Dccur�rk�
� Ie�p3�rE�d Skr� �rn5
� NF�E� �rscnarge Sl�e
�1F Dams
Survey Summary: This MU consists of two HUC 10 watersheds: Sandy Creek and Swift Creek.
Many surveys in this system have documented the presence of Yellow Lance; it was first seen in
1988, and most recently in 2016. Abundances have usually been described as "rare/uncommon"
to "common". During one survey in 1996, 50 live individuals were observed, however surveys
from 2010-2014 found fewer than 5 individuals per effort; more recent surveys in 2015 and 2016
documented 53 and 45 live individuals, respectively. Recruitment was documented in 2016.
Water Quality Information: Water Quality Information: Based on 2014 data, there is one
impaired stream reach totaling �5 miles in this MU. Cause of impairment is due to low benthic-
macroinvertebrate assessment score. There are 21 non-major NPDES discharges in this MU.
The entire Sandy Creek HUC and the upper portion of the Swift Creek HUC are designated as an
ORW Special Management Strategy Area, which is a classification intended to protect unique
Yellow Lance SSA Report Page B132 March 2017

and special waters having excellent water quality and being of exceptional or national ecological
or recreational significance (NCDEQ 2016).
Land Use Land Cover Summary Statistics:
Areal Statistics for 5andy Creek Suhbasin
Watershed 95 Imp Surtace � 1.6
Watershed % �eveloped ❑ 7.9
Watershed %Agriculture 21.1
Watershed % Forest 56.5
N�,4961mpSurtsce I 0.4
ARA °k �eveloped � 2.8
ARe1 °k Agriculture �12.7
ARFl � Farest 63
0 20 �0 60 8� 100
L15G510 Qigit HL1C 0 30z010107
Areal 5tatistics for Swift Creek Suhbasin
Watershed 9� Imp Surtaee � '�.�
Watershed °k �eveloped � 7.2
Watershed °k Agriculture 37.6
Watershed � Forest 27.4
ARFl 95 Imp Surtace � 0.8
.RRA % �eveloped ❑ 5.1
AR,4 % Ag ri cu Itu re 29.5
ARA % Forest 24.8
0 20 40 60 SO
L15G510 �igit HL1C 0 302010108
Yellow Lance SSA Report Page B133 March 2017

Neuse River Population
Consists of one MU: Middle Neuse Tributaries
Middle Neuse Tributaries Management Unit
- . �M,s,� • �..� � } , —
"��,� ��,,. +�� . tif, ir`
� .
� rI
i .. t�`,�„�n" �,,,k�
,.�h�:� � Kyu.�i
_{ � . �
s : ,, . ��.. �
�� '�� i �'' � .
� �iiYP�'} I �� � `
! R" � -
�'� �= ''�„ � Upper Little River � �;
�, Jf ..;��t`� �. , ... _
" � � � ,+.
I l! ~ � 6 iY i'. ..
VI. - �'
� M� . .. M�9•�Ili_ � + � '.,�y�*`i�R
�r�
�
��n71�t'
� �� n
�
�
� ,
i i ry. i. . :
� � _ � V�� �Lower
� Little River
�
t. _� _,.w � .
5 T � i�����rI.S`�.
-��- . � Middle �� • .
r � �,� ". � �
Creek
��.,� s,,� „},, ,,,,.,..
� =' ,� �
�� �
� ,� .
�'4 i_ s L*'��5 ��^ ti � � � .
Mill Creek � 3;r '
I i.,�� ,a� �+
. x,, � t �
,, , � _
•���i4��
. dG���
r_._. � � — — � wtr
13 4 8 hlilaa ;� , - � 'p-
i � � � i
l �
I '
1�' w`�
� #danagemerrt l�nu
. veua�r�anceoccu�rence
Impa�reb 3tr�eams
� t��aEsnw�cnarg�src�
�i �tns
Survey Summary: This MU includes the tributaries Swift, Middle, and Mill Creek and the Little
River in five HUC 10 watersheds (Upper and Lower Little River, Swift Creek, Middle Creek, and
Mill Creek). The Yellow Lance was first seen in 1991, and most recently in 2012. Most surveys
report very low numbers observed (usually only one live individual or just shell material),
although one effort in 1994 documented 18 live individuals. There is no information about
reproduction or recruitment for this MU. Despite many survey attempts, the species was last
seen in the Little River in 2009, and only one individual has been seen in Swift Creek in 2015.
Yellow Lance SSA Report Page B134 March 2017

Water Quality Information: Based on the 2014 data, there are 15 impaired stream reaches
totaling �94 miles in this MU. There are many indicators of impairment, including low benthic-
macroinvertebrate assessment scores, low pH, poor fish community scores, and low DO. There
are 124 non-major and 6 major (Apex WRF, Central Johnston county WWTP, Cary WWTP,
City of Raleigh, Dempsey Benton WTP, and Terrible Creek WWTP) NPDES discharges in this
MU.
Land Use Land Cover Information:
Areal StaSistics fnr Swift Creek Sudbasin
Watershed 95 Imp Surtace � 7.5
Watershed °k �eveloped 35
Watershed °k Agriculture � 16.3
Watershed � Forest 35.9
ARFl 95 Imp Surtace ❑ 3.$
ARA % �eveloped 20.4
AR,4%Agriculture � 7.7
ARA % Forest 42.8
L15G510 �igit HL1C 0 302020110
Areal Statistics for Middle Creek Sukshasin
Watershed 95 Imp Surtace
Watershed % �eveloped
Watershed °.� Agriculture
Watershed % Forest
ARt195 Imp Surtace
ARA °k �eveloped
ARe1 °k Agriculture
,4RA � Farest
0 20 40 60 SO
❑ 5.�
26.5
�2�.6
32.4
� 2.6
�13.5
� 9.9
38.8
20 4� 60
L15G510 Qigit HL1C 0 302020109
8� 100
Yellow Lance SSA Report Page B135 March 2017

Areal 54atistics for Upper Little Ri�er Suh4sasin
Watershed 95 Imp Surtace � 1.6
Watershed % �eveloped � 9.2
Watershed %Agriculture 34.1
Watershed % Forest 39.1
ARFl 96 Imp Surtace � 0.6
ARA °k �eveloped ❑ 4.4
ARei °k Agriculture �17.8
ARFl � Farest 4�.1
0 20 40 60 80 100
L1SG510 Qigit HL1G 0 302020115
Areal 54atistics 6or Lawer Little Ri�er Suh4sasin
Watershed 95 Imp Surtace � 2.7
Watershed % �eveloped �'12.9
Watershed %Agriculture 0.3
Watershed % Forest 21.9
ARFl 96 Imp Surtace � �.2
ARA °k �eveloped �10.2
ARe1 °k Agriculture 29.7
N�A � Farest �21.6
0 20 4� 60 80 100
L1SG510 Qigit HL1G 0 302020116
Yellow Lance SSA Report Page B136 March 2017

Rreal Statistics far Mill Creek Subksasin
Watershed 95 Imp Surtace
Watershed % �eveloped
Watershed %Agriculture
Watershed % Forest
ARFl 96 Imp Surtace
ARA °k �eveloped
ARei °k Agriculture
ARFl � Farest
� 1.2
❑ 5.2
41.7
24.3
� 0.6
� 3.7
24.9
23.2
20 4� 60
L1SG510 Qigit HL1G 0 302020113
80 100
Yellow Lance SSA Report Page B137 March 2017

APPENDIX C- VA and NC Yellow Lance "Heat Maps"
���� r�e r���� �� �i �� �� 1I��t�e r�h �� �f th e Y�I I��rr �a n�
���fi���� ���a���,f�t�r� � r� d�� r�re�r L��ti� n�
�lirgania � ;
FEUC f� 5l.'at�P51� � �a
�]ccupi�d h�Tar�et Speae� � ��"
�` '
� ,. a .
, t� ,
� �
�Y .�,,��...��``�' �'': -,;-�,�._4��'
' Fs� � `'� ��
_��{ �
' �+s /� �4
� A A Ri
� +
��' �
•r .,�F�„_.ti L n �'.
. , � 3 � � �4 * • �
. ��y• .• �. � .
� + E° � �
. � � � � . i
�
, _ � � �''� - �
_.� _ •� .,� �.- � .
,
• ,r �
_ # �� P� � � � .-
. � -�
�-
� "•+�;.+k �� .�•� {`r. "' � �. '
+�' � � �
�� � ; � ��, Y� � � .�
� � �
� � �� { + � �� #� � �.`' �
�' �, # + . '* � o � � , . '�� r'.
w� ,� ' . ,
� ..: � +„
. � � �, � � �°� . � r �' ; . F `'
, .
F . ,, �+�� # � � * .�
�� • . �
- . � •�.r..• ; + . ` 4 , � . 7
� �,�'� t � j •
�T..��` � � �P
'+���y_��/:. �� • ' ! C � .�•+� w •# �� -�, • '
�� � �� � � �t_ �
b , i+
o� .�'�a{ +� � f• �� � �` � �� �i . , e .
: :f
� i �•� � 4 ' `�,.. � p a ��
� � �1 j : � 1
�� `� � f~ t '�Y � •
� �� � `�` � � y ' f � .i
av� �+� �c�F � �• • ' ,a. * -�k s
_ • i�sM � •
_ �1 ,p ' � • �. , _ a .� .
.�•.�.
• � � • r �-
'j a '.r :. ' �. _ � � _ - �
.��g_— `�T—'t a _" '--___�-_" r-__
� �
�,iai II,��niRw�ord ��sars drorr9�0i�f `-
D I�JC
� TY�I �� �iCL'all� r�pH
- 5�vi� �ocayevrw ¢iK'��OiSi � � � Y++"m
ttl�C 10 � F �G y�ar� � �
4x p� B�sn+a � r�-iS }�r�
� Id�d y��an
- },�.r�,P 41�di�1'!
Yellow Lance SSA Report Page C138 February 2017

���rr�n�� s �� H �J � � 0 '�� rs h�d �f #h� �e�l I��° L�nc�
����r��r� ��r���� �� � � n� �� r��� Lo��ti� r� �
���
Hu� 1 o v�rrsr,�
�ce.�lcd tra'� �drs
� •
.� _
�+ „i st � '� .
t� � � � ` ,�e�,
i� ' �� � � � ¢ i�
fi �
.,
., y.
�
+ .�
�
� i ` � � .
� � '� r_�5
�: t ,�.�.
�� �
�. '
�L . �- . s
, i
�� ,� _
�ti _ ,� •F�
�:-
•� t
.- i.}
• � 1
� ZSQ� �rdrs omrenQ �,
• �! 1,��. ���91 �
� HUG iC!
� li�rr hmh
Ma�st I�e�ent Recond ��ars fnam ��1 �j
_ i.s5yss
- � 6-� y�s
- 3,11-15 y�s
� P,1fr��Sak
� 5 }� � a 1G �G I��
I I I
Ma��neade�d tx�r: 1'�1eY61�ck, Pn.a., 1J��116
�"� D��o�� N� 4�Ildfi�e R�����omml�sian and
N� WIUs�Irn o�f Nahral �derl�s
-�
-�
�C �
�
�
+�' -�`�E
f
�
Yellow Lance SSA Report Page C139 February 2017

APPENDIX D— Data for Population Factors & Habitat Elements
Total Number
#of #of # # ApproxPop ofLive
Historically Currently Historically Currently Size Individuals Approx
Population/ Occupied Occupied Occupied Occupied MU Occupancy (Abundance) or Observed Year Last Abundance Reproduction/
Management Unit MUs MUs HUC10s HUC10s % Decline Condition #live/#shell 2005-2015 Seen Condition Recruitment
Patuxent 1 1 2 1 50 M 1/3 1 2015 VL N
Potomac 1 0 1 0 100 Ql 0/1 0 1970 Ql N
Rappahannock 1 1 10 3 70 L 537/53 53 2011 M Y
York 1 1 6 1 83 VL 71/35 5 2007 VL N
James 1 1 1 1 0 H 0 2004 L
Johns Creek 1 1* 0 H 63/0 0 2004 L N
Chowan 2 1 9 3 67 L 5 2011 VL
Nottoway 7 3 57 L 1684/20 5 2011 VL Y
Meherrin 2 0 100 ¢S 2/0 0 1994 VL N
Tar 4 3 12 8 33 M M
Upper/Middle Tar 6 4 33 M 507/81 120 2016 H Y
LowerTar 1 0 100 � 2/16 0 1987 L N
FishingCkSubbasin 3 2 33 M 76/13 26 2016 L Y
SandySwiftCk 2 2 0 H 351/2143 125 2016 H Y
Neuse 1 1.� 5 3 40 M L
Middle Neuse Tribs 5 3 40 M 85/69 30 2012 L N
WaterQualitv WaterQuantitv Connectivitv
Unit
ohns Creek
Nottoway
Meherrin
iar
Upper/Middle Tar
Lower Tar
Fishing Ck Subbasin
Sandy Swift Ck
Neuse
Middle Neuse Tribs
% sites with
evidence of Current Condition
recent Reproduction - Population
�eproduction Condition Fadors
N � Very Low
N � Q
Q5� L Low
N {6 Very Low
VL Low
N VL Low
L Low
QS% L Low
N � �
H Moderate
55% H High
N � �
30% M Moderate
60% H High
L Low
N L Low
Instream Habitat
Overall Instream Habitat
Avg (Substrate)Condition- Current
Watershed combine ARA Forest+ Habitat
% Imp Watershed Impervious Conditio
Surface Surface n
5.4 L M
12.7 L L
1.7 M M
0.8 M M
H H
0.3 H H
M M
0.7 M M
1.4 M M
M M
1.6 M M
1.9 L M
0.5 M M
13 M M
L L
3.7 L L
Overell Overall
Sizeof Impaired Water Known Water AverageSt Overall
MU Sizeof Stream Major Minor Quality Flow Consecutive Quantity #of Actual#Road Road Connectivity AvgARA%
(km2) MU(mi2) Miles NPDES NPDES Condition Issues? DroughtYears Condition Dams Crossings Crossings Condition Forest
654 253 ? 3 146 L ? 2007-2008 H 20 571 286 M 44
403 156 23 2 137 L Y 2007-2008 M 33 919 919 L 44
3621 1398 77 11 93 L ? 2007-2008 H 78 3223 322 L 44
2420 934 44 1 50 M ? 2007-2008 H 107 1406 234 l 53
H ? H H
272 105 0 0 1 H N 2007-2008 H 4 240 240 H 84
M M M
2007, 2008,
2562 1105 155 4 32 L ? 2009,2010 M 43 3094 442 L 57
2007, 2008,
621 240 34 2 16 M ? 2009,2010 M 7 676 338 H 53
M L M
2403 928 38 3 102 L Y 2005-2010 L 52 1723 287 M 54
324 125 4 1 16 M N 2005-2010 M 4 244 244 H 17
1052 406 14 1 23 M Y 2005-2010 M 3 420 140 H 52
705 272 5 0 21 H Y 2005-2010 L 25 431 216 M 44
L L L
2052 792 94 6 124 L Y 2005-2012 L 89 2308 462 L 34
Yellow Lance SSA Report Page D140 March 2017