20181249 Ver 1_Attachment 7 - 2007 Dwarf Wedgmussel Status Report_20181217

Dwarf Wedgemussel
�llasmiclont� heterodon
5-Year Review:
Summary and Evaluation
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
New England Field Office
Concord, NH

5-YEAR REVIEW
Species reviewed: Dwarf wedgemussel (Alasnzidon�a heterodor�)
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 GENER�L Nr ORMATION ........................................................ ...................... 3
l.l Reviewers ................................................................................................. 3
1.2 Methodology used to complete t�1e review .............................................. 3
1.3 Background ............................................................................................... 4
2.Q REVIEW ANALYSIS .......................•�---.................. .... 5
2.1 Application of the 1996 Distinct Population Segment policy ................... 5
2.2 Recovery Criteria ....................................................................................... 5
2.3 Updated Inforination and Cunent Species Status ...................................... 7
2.3.1 Biology and habitat ........................................................................ 7
2.3.2 Five-Pactor Analysis ...................................................................... 1 I
2.4 Synthesis .................................................................................................... 13
3.0 RESULTS---� ........................................................................................................... 14
3.1 Recommended Classification ...................................................................... 14
3.2 New Reco�°ery Priority Number .................................................................. 14
3.3 Listing and Reclassification Priority �Iumber ............................................. 14
4.0 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE ACTIONS ............................................ 15
5.0 REFERENCES ........................................................................................................ 16
SignaturePage ...................................................•----...................._..._.....---------•--................_... 19
Appendix1 ........................................................................................................................... 20
2

5-YEAR REVIEW
Dwarf wedgemussel l Alacsmidont� heterorlon
1.0 GENERAL INFOI2MATION
1.1 Reviewers
TechniCal revie�vers:
Barry Wicklow, St. Anselm's College, 603-641-7160, BWicklownanselm.edu
Dick Neves, Virginia Polytechnic and State University, 540-231-5927;
mussel�vt.edu; William Le11is, USGS, WLcllisn,USGS. ov
Lead Region3l or �ieadquarters Office:
Region 5, Ivts. Mary Parkin, (6 ] 7) 876-6173, Nlary_Parkin@f�vs.gov
Lead I+ield Offce:
New England Field Office, Ms. Susaiina von Oettingen, [phone], ext. 22,
Susi_vo nOett i ngen@f��s. aov
Cooperating Field Offices:
New York Field Of�ce, Ms. Robyn Niver, [phone],
Robvn �iver a>f��s.�ov
Pennsylvania Field Office, Mr. Robert Anderson, [phone],
RoUert M Andersonnae,fws.��,ov
New Jersey Fie1d Of�ice, Ms. Annette Scherer, (609) b46-9310,
Annette Scllerer(��fws.�oy
Chesapeake Bay Field Offce, Mr. Andy Moser, 410-573-�537,
And �Moser(a�,fws.gov
Virainia Fie]d Office, Mr. Mike Drummond, [phone],
Mike Drummond(a�,fws.gov; Ms. Cindy Kane, (804) 693-669�,
Cindy_ KaneCa�fws.gov
Asheville Field Office, Mr. John Fridell, [phone],
.tohn Fridell�fws.gov
Cooperating Regional Office: Region 4, Kelly I3ibb, 404-679-7132
i.Z Methodology usecl to complete the review
The dwarf wedgemussel 5-year review was conducted as an individual effort by the
recovery lead biologist for the @warf wedgemussel (DWM). Ali Service Cield office a�id
state natural resource agency personnel responsible for the recovery of this species were
coi�tacted for up-to-date iilformation on occurrences, threats and recovery activities.
USGS bioloaists and other academics conducting res�arch on tlle DWM were also
contacted. The current recovery plan is 14 years out of date; therefore, the information

that ��as provided by the state and Service biologists, primarily as reparts and other g�ray
literature, is the principal basis for this status review_
1.3 Background
1.3.1 FR Notice citation announcing initiation of this revie�v:
71 FR 20178 (April 21, 2006): Notice of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
and Plants; Initiation of a 5-Year Review of Nine Listed Species: the Purple Bean
(Yillosa perpzrrpurecr), Clubshell (Pleu�oben�a clava), Northem Red-bellied
Cooler (Pseu�'emys rarbrivenlr�is bungsi), Roanoke Logperch (Percrna y�ex),
Swamp Piztk (Helonias bullala), Northem Riff�eshell (Eproblusrna torulosa
rangian�r), Flat-spired Threetoothed Land Snail (Trivc���sis plarysayoides},
Puritan Tiger Beetle {Cicindela purilana), and Dwarf Wedgemussel {Alasmidonlct
he�erodon),
1.3.2 Listing liistory
F'R notice: Deterrnination of Enciangered Status for the D��arf Wedge
Mussel; 55 FR 9447 9�451
Date listed: March i 4, ] 990
Entity listed: Species
Classifieation: Endangered
�.3.3 Associated rulemakings: None
1.3.4 Review �istory:
The DV��M was iticluded in a cursory S-year review conducted for all species
listed before 1991 (56 rR 56882). No other 5-year reviews have been conducted
f4r this species.
13.5 Species' Recovery Priority Nvmber at start of 5-year review:
The RPN for the dwarf wedgemussel is S, indicative of a species wifh a high
degree of threat and �o�� recovery potendal.
1.3.6 Recovery Plan or Outline
Name of ��tan: Dwarf wedge mussel (Alasrniclaz[a hetei-odnn) recovery plan
Date issued: February 8, 1993
a

2.0 REVIEW ANALYSiS
2.1 Application of the 1996 llistinct Population Segment (DPS) policy
2.1.1 Is the species under revie�v a vertebrate? �Io, the species is an invertebrate;
therefore, ilie DPS policy is not applicable.
2.2 Recovery Criteria
2.2.1 Does the s�ecies ha�re a final, approved recovery plan contain�ing objeciive,
measurable criteria? Yes.
2.2.2 Adequacy of recovery eriteria
2.2.2.1 Do the recovery criteria refleet the best available and most up-to-date
informa�ion on the biology of the species aad its habitat? No.
2.2.2.2 Are alI of ihe 5 listing factors that are relevant to the species
addressed in the recoveryr criteria? No.
2.2.3 List the reeovery criteria as they appear ia the recovery plan, and discuss
how each criterion has or has not been met, citing information:
1993 Reeovery �lun Criteria
In ordea� fo rec�assify the DWM as tlu-eatened from endangered, this criterion must
be znet:
The following populations of the DWM must be shown to be viable (a
population containing a sufficient number of reproducing adults to maintain
genetic variability, and annual recruitment is adequate to maintain a stable
population): Mainstem Connec�icut River (NHNT), Ashue�ot River (NH),
Neversink River (NY), Upper Tar River (NC), Little River {NC), Swift Creek
(NC}, Turkey Creek (NC), and six other rivers/creeks representative of tlle
species' ran�e.
Thrs cricerioJz has been p�r/ia/ly mel.
Viable populations have been found in the mainstem Connecticut Ri�er and
Ashuelot River.
Tn order to remove the DWM from the federal list of threatened and endangered
species, the following criteria mtist be met:
2. At )east l0 of the rivers/creeks in Criterion l must suppori a widely dispersed
viable populatio�� so that a single catastropliic evez�t in a given river will be
unlikety to result in the total loss of that river's population.

3. Tlie rivers in Cz�iterion 2 sl�ould be distributed tl�u-oughout the species' current
range with at least two in New EnDland (NH,VT,MA,CT), one in New York.
auld four south of Pezuasylvania.
4. All populations referred to in Criteria l througt� 3 must be protected from
present and fareseeahle anthropogenic and natural threats that could interfere
with their survival.
These cYiteria have no� been me�, and in so�ne cases ha��e become irrelevant,
as discussed belou�:
Since the Recovery Plan was released, the definition of "site" or "occurrence"
is no longer clear. Some of this is due to the discovery of large, contiguous
stretches of river hosting scattered occurrences of d�varf �vedgernussels tllat
function as one "population". For example, three large (10+ miles),
continuous stretches of the main stem of the Connecticut River in New
Ilampshire should replace the stretch referred to in the Recovery Plan as
containing a few "occurrences". Specific sites or stretches of river identified
in the Recovery Plan as critical to recovery a.�ad essential far maintaining
viable populations no longer coincide with new location information.
Furthermore, the criteria are vague in quantifying how large or inclusive the
viable populations need to be, how separate from other populations (in order
to ametiorate catastrophic events), and what constitutes protection of the
haUifat ar►d populations from present and foreseeable threats. The Tar River
watershed appears to be stable; t�owever, the criterion identifying the Upper
Tar River as a site for conservation does not speci�y if this includes the Upper
Tar River watershed or merely the single site documented in ille Upper Tar
River (Appendix 1).
It is likely that the criteria developed for the 1993 Recovery Plan may never
be achieved. Criterion 1 will most likely never be met, based on recent
development activity within the Neuse River watersl�ed and predicted
outcomes of reservoir construction projects on tributaries containing dwarf
wedgemussel poputations. In 2006, the Swift Creek (part of the Neuse River
��atershed) was the fo�us of a biological opinion on the construction of a
water treat�nent fa.cility (USFWS 2006). The already diminishirig population
of fhe DWM in this watershed may be fi�rther impacted in the future due to
increased development pressure as a result of the expanded water treatmer�t
facility if proeective zoning ordinances are not sfrictly implemented.
Recent survey data for the Little River (another tributaiy of the Neuse River)
indicate that ihere are few if any individuals remaining in the one known site.
In view of the fact that fhe DWM poputations in diese two rivers are
declining, it is higl�ly wnlikely that Criteria 1, 2 and 3 will be met_
0

2.3 Upclated Information and Current Species Status
2.3.1 Biology and Habitat
The DWM is found solely in Atlantic Coast drainage streams and rivers of various sizes
a»d moderate current. It rang�s from New Hampshire to North Carolina, in small creeks
to deep rivers in stable habitat c��ith substrates ranging f��om mixed sand, pebble and
gravel, to clay and silty sand. Tn the souther�i portion of its range, it is ofte�l found buried
under logs or root mats in shallow water (USFWS 1993), whereas in the northern portion
of its range, it may be found in firm substrates of mixed sand, gravel or cobble, or
embedded in clay banks in water depths of a few inches to greater than 20 feet (Ficlttel
and Smith 1995; Gabriel 1995; Gabriel 1996; Nedeau and Werle 2003; Nedeau 2004a,
2004b, 2006a}, Its z-eproductive cycle is typical of other freshwater mussels, requiring a
host fisll on which its larvae {glochidia) parasitize and metamorphose into juvenile
mussels. The DWM is not a long-lived species as compa��ed to other �reshwater mussels;
life expectancy is estimated at 10 to 12 years {Michaelson and Neves 1995).
2.3.1.1 Nevv informatioa on the s�ecies' biology and life history:
Fish host specres:
Since t]Ie release of the l 993 Recoveiy Plan, a number of fish species have been
positively identified as hosts for the DWM. Michaelson and Neves (1995)
confirmed the tessellated darter (Elheostvmce olmsledi), Jol'uuly darter (E. nigi•u�n),
and mottled sculpin (Cotlus buirdi) as host fish for DWM in the southern part of
its range. Wicklow (in Ne�v Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan 2005) con�rmed the
slimy sculpin (C. congatus) and juvenile and parr o�the Atlantic salmon (Salmo
sala�•) as host fish for DWM in New Hampshire. Currently, there is an ongoing
study to evaluate host specificity among geographically distinct populations of
DWM on the Delaware River, as well as a few seiected sites within its ran.ge
(White and Ferreri 2005). The study will examine geographic variation in host
fish specificity for the tessellated dai-ter and the potentiat role that acquired
immunity to glochidia may play in host specificity, and will idenfify other fish
species either currently or historically presenE i�l the Delaware River Basin that
are capable of serving as hosts for the DWM.
Rep��oduclive chronolo�:
The DWM is considered to be a long-tenn brooder. In general, DWM glochidia
may be released between March and June, with peak release times varying from
south to north. Michaelson and Neves (1995} documented the reproductive cycle
of the llWM from North Carotina and observed that DWIv� spawn i�i late summer,
become gra�rid in September, and release gtochidia in April. Wicklow (in New
IIamps)lire Wildlife Action Plan 2005) observed glochidia release beginninD in
March and continuing through June in the Ashuelot River in New Hampshire. In
a study of DWM reproduction in the Mill River, Massachusetts, McLain and Ross
(2005} observed that most glochidia were rel�ased in April and May.
7

Reproductive output appears to be correlated with local population aUundance.
McLain and Ross (2005) documented t�at sites with the highest abundance oF
aduit DWM also demonstrated the highest proportion of gravid females,
glochidial density, host in.fection, and density of juvenile musseis.
2.3.1.2 AbuAdan�e, population trends, demographic features, or
demographic #rends:
IIecause a portion of a DWM population is found below the sabstrate, population
estimates must take into account undetected mussels. Where the DWM is found
in lo�� densities, population estimates may have large margins of error due to
u�ldetected mussels. Few intensive, statistically viable surveys have been
conducted on DWM populations, especially in the southern portion of ifs range.
Strayer e� al. (l 996} cond�ucted a range-wide assessment of the D WM in 1994.
Twelve of the largest (at that time) DWM populations were surveyed and density
estimates calcula.ted. A nuinber of these populations have been resurveyed
primarily using catch-per-unit effort techniques. Populations in the southern part
of the DWM range appear to be declinzng or tlleir status is uncertain (Table 1}.
"1'able 1. Population der►sities at study streams 1996 and follow-up survey data_'
Stream
Connecticut River,
I� f-Ul/T
Ashtielot River, NH
Neversink [Ziver, NY
Mclntosh Run, M�
Ac�uia ereek, VA
---- - � - ._ ..............
Po River, VA
....._— ..............................._- --- -
Tar River/Shelcon Creek,
Number of
study reaclies
0
Density Index
(no/rn2) 1996 {Strayer
e� al. 1996)
0.03 (0.1-O.OS)
7 0.04 (0.02-0.06)
6 0.44 (0.02-0.06)
s
�
0.407 (O.Q03-O.dt}
0.01 �0.003-Q.03
............... _.._...................
0.03 ro.a � -a_as
1'ost 1996 catch-per-unit-
efforts and presence/absence
Present. Addirional
populations found, some of
which may exceed densicies
found in 1996
-_ ___ �._ --
Present. Densiry estimates of
two locations sampled in 2004
and 2006 range from 0.3 I to
1.257 (Nedeau 2006c). Sample
sites overlapped Strayer el al,
(1996) sites. Additional
subpopulation found
downriver of surve�ed areas,
T.........._
Present, populations aFfected
by 2005 floods. Statos
uncertain.
_.__ — _. —
Present, no chan��
_ ........ . _�.
No live animals seen since
2003. Populatian belie�red to
be in decline (Watson B, pers_
comm. 2007).
Prese��t iii very low numbers
no cnaneea to
Z Tne survey methods are noi co�nparable, this table merely indicates w�liether a perceived change in the
populations has been observed since the 1994 intensive surveys ��ere undertaken.
0.03 �a_oi-o._o
'3

- ........................_—.._............................................................ - - --............................�....................... P P -._._ �.....,..,,.....
NC o ulation.
�. _ _....,.
-----........_._._._ _ ................—............._
Crooked Creek, N�C 2 p Present? i live animal found in
2000 survey, status unknown.
__ ........ _ ..................................................................................._. _........_............._ ._............................ ------ - ---- -........ .—......._..._
Little River �IC 3 _ 0.03 (0-0.06) __ __ Absent, 4_found in 2004
— > ......._ _ _._..... . . - — — � ........_
Swift Creek, NC � 2 p Present, 3 ariimafs found in
_.._— .................................................................... 2402
--�---- .. . ..................______...................... — --._.....__... ........ .._ ...._._ .................—.._....._.._
Turkey Creek, NC 3 0 Absent, 0 found �n 2005
-- - _
. ....— . . ..
Present? Population viability
Moccasin Creek, NC 3 0 unknown, presence based only
on s ent shells
Reproducing DWM populatio��s are often hard to detect when densities are very
low or surveys are single-day, catch-per-tunit efforts. Evidence of reproduction
(young mussels} was found at sites where DWM �vere documented by Stra��er et
al. ( l 996) even though some of the populations u�ere considered to have low
densiti�s.
Reproduction has bee�l documented for the largest populations in New
Ha�npshire, Massachusetts, Connectacut, and New York (Appendix l). During
translocation of DWM out of a proposed bank stabilization project in the
northernmost segment of the Connecticut River population, the l�ighest density of
any know�n DV��M population was z•ecorded within the project area as well as the
translocation site {Gloria T. and B. Wicklow 2001; Nedeau el ul. 2003; Nedeau
2004a}.
2.3.1.3 Genetics, genetic variation, or trends in genetic variation:
T. King (USGS) and associates have been investigating the genetic structure of
DWM �vith a focus on determining the genetic relatedness of disjunet populations
witl�in the Delaware River watershed and among watershed.s, including the
Connecticut River (NI-I), the Delaw�ue River (NY and PA), the Potomac Ri�rer
(VA and MD) and the Tar River (NC). Preliminary infonmation suggests that:
(l ) there are observable population sfructure differences among the isolated
populations in the Delaware River watershed, and (2) ra�Igewide, northern and
southen� regions are distinguishable, although the level of genetic divergence is
limiied (King el al., in litt., 2006).
2.3.1.4 Taxonomic classification or changes in nomenclature:
Preliminary research also indicates that there is some question as to the
phylogenetics of tl�e Anodvnlinae, the subfa�nily in which the DWM is found
(King e� al., in li!!., 2006.). Further phylogenetic review of the DWM a�ld other
species within the,4nodontinue will be necessary to conrnn the current
nomenclattire of DWM.

2.3.1.5 Spatial distribution and trends:
Runge information:
At one time, this species was recorded from 70 localities in 15 major drainages
ranging from North Carolina to New Bi-unswick, Canada. Since the 1993
Recovery Plan, a number of new locations have bee�l discovered and �t atunber of
known localions are possibly no longer extant (Appendix 1).
Based on preliminary information; the dwarf wedgemussel is currentiy found in
15 major drainages (Table 2), comprising approximately 70 "sites" (one site may
ha�re multiple occtu-rences). At least 45 of these sites are based on less than five
i«dividuals or solely on spent shells (see Appez�dix 1). The only known
occurrence in New Brunswick, Canada (Petticodiac River) appears to be bistoric;
no live mussels or spent shells were found during a 1997 survey (I�anson 1998).
Table 2. Dwarf wedgemussel inajor drainages.'
State Maja- Qrai��ag� County
NI-'l Upper Connecticut River Coos, Ciras'=ton, SuIlivan, Cliesl�ire
VT Upper Connecticut Ri��er �ssex, Orange, Windsor,
Wi ndham
N1F� Middle Connecticut River Hampsliire, Hampden
CT Lower Connecticut River Hartford
NY Middle Delaware Orange, Sollivan, Delaware
NJ Mid81e Delaware Warren, Sussex
PA Upper Delaware River Wayne
MD Choptaiik River Queen Anne's, Caroline
MD Lower Potomac River St. Mary's, Charles
MD Upper Chesapeake Bay Queen Anne's
VA Middle Potomac River Stat%rd
VA York River Louisa, Spots��lvania
VA Chowan River Sussex, Nottoway, Lunenburg µ
NC Upper Tar River Granville, Vance, Franklin, Nash
NC Fishing River WarXen, Franklin
NC Contentnea Wilson, Nash
I��C Upper Neuse Johnson, W�ke, Orange
The mainstem of the Connecticut River in New Hampshire and Vermont is
considered to have the largest remaiziing DWM population, consisiing of three
distinct stretches of sporadically occupied habitat segmented by hydroelectric
da�ns. It is estimated that there are hundreds of thousands of DWM scattered
within an a�pro�imate 75-mile stretch of the Connecticut River. The Ashuelot
' The I S major drainages identified in Table 2 do not necessarily correspond to the original drainages ideniified
in tlle 1993 ]tecovery Plan alrJ�ough there is considerable overlap. Watersheds are based on USGS and EPA
Catalopiiing U�iits, see http://water.usgs.,ov/G1S/huc name.html and
I�rt�_-icf��ui�.zpa•�ov/surf/locate/i�ndex.cCm.
10

River in New Hampshire, the Farmington River in Connecticut, and the
Neversinl< River in New York l�arbor large populations, but these number in the
thousands only. The remaining populations from New Jersey south to North
Carolina are estimated at a fe�� individuals to a few hundred individuals.
In summary, it appears that the populations in North Carolina, Virginia, and
Vla��yla��d are declining as e��idenced by low densities, lack of repraduction, or
inability to relocate ar�y DW1�I in follow-up surveys. Populations in Ne�v
Hampshire, Massachusetts, and Conneciicui appear to be sfable, while the status
of populations in fhe Delaware River watershed affected by the recent floods of
2005 is i�ncertain ai this time.
2.3.1.6 Habitat or ecosystem conditions:
Ve�y Iittle research has been done on DWM habitat. This is a wide-ranging
species that may be found in a variety of habitats and watet' deptbs. McLain and
Ross (2005) assessed habitat in tlle Mill IZiver, Massachusetts, and Nedeau
(2002, 2005, 2006a, 2006b) provides habitat descriptions for surveyed
populations in the Connecticut, Ashuelot, Johns, and Farmii�gton Rivers in New
Hampshire and Co��necticut. However, there has not been an assessment on the
amount, distribution or suitabiliry of existing habitat for this species.
2.3.2 Five-Factor Analysis (threats, conservation measure5, and regulatory
mechan isms)
2.3.2.1 Present or threatened destruction, modification or curtailment of its
habitat or range:
The 1993 Recovery 1'lan identified four primary faciors responsible for the
declii�e of the dwarf wedgemussel: impoundmenfs, potlution, riverbank
atteration, and siltatiors (USFWS 1993). �11 of these factors continz�e to impact
D WM populations. Since fhe species was Iisted, one new impoundmeni
(Buckhorn Resen�o3r, NC) and construction of a water treatment facility and
reactivation of an historic impounded water supply (Benton Water Treatment
Plant Project) in Nortl� Carolina may impacf dwarf wedgemussel populations
within the Neuse River Sasin if protective �neasures, primarily zoning restrictions,
are not strictly iinplemented. Increased deveiopment within the Neuse River
Basin is anticipated as a result of the additional water supply availability for the
City of Raleigh and sun�ounding communities. Indireet impacts from construction
of the additional water supplies may include water quality degradation from
associated upla��d development in fhe form of suburban and industrial run-off,
river flow alteration, and fi•agmentation of a small population into two isolated
subpopulations (as a result of the Buckhorn Reservoir). Prelimirtary data from
North Carolina indicate a general decline in Neuse River Basin populatio��s due to
habitat loss, modification andlor destructian {A. Rodgers, North Carolina 4�rildlife
Resources Commission, emai] dated 9/7/OS).
ll

Strayer e� al. (1996) speculated tl�at many DWM populations, particularly in the
southern portion of the range, may be threatened by low densities, small ranges.
and linear siructure (i.e., an entire population in one stream with no possibility of
refuge from catastrophes or stochastic events). Low-density populations may lead
to a loss of productivity due ta reproductive impediments (e.g., the distance
between ir�ussels being too great} or loss ofgenetic variability. The Mill River in
Hatfield and Whately, Massac}�usetts is an example of a river with a dwarf
wedgemussel population patchily distributed over an approximate 16 mile stretcll.
The most reprodtictsvely robust patch is limited to a small si�•eteb (< 1 mile)
making it e�tremely vulnerable to a catastrophic event (Gabriel, M. pers. comm.
2007). The remaindez� dwarf wedgemussels are sparsely scattered and may
demonstrate a reduced capability to reproduce as indicated by McLain and Ross
(2005).
Agricuiturai run-off llas been identified as a signi6cault threat to DWM
populations in Massachusetts, Maryland, and North Carolina. Tn 2001, more than
25 dwarf wedgeznussels and hundreds of other inussels (including state-listed
species} were killed in the Mill River, Massaclausetts, by waste run-off from a
s�nall far�n (Hucicery, P. Mass. Division of Fish and Wildlife, pers. coanm. 2001).
2.3.2.2 Overutilizatioo for commercial, recreational, scienti�c, or
educational purposes:
Not applicable.
2.3.23 Disease or predation:
"Chere is documented evidence of site-specific predation that could impact small
localized populations. However, there is littie literature correlating predation or
disease to a specific population impact or decline. Currently, disease and
predation do nof pose an imminent or serious t,hreat to the DWM as a species.
23.2.4 Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
Overall, the protections provided by the ��idangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended, are adequate to prevent a rangewide decline of DWM populations,
althouah the �SA allaws for i�icidental take that lias resulted in declines of local
populations, particuiarly in the soutliern portion of ti�e range. Regulations otl�er
than t11e ESA are not adequate to protect the species from decline, but tllis does
not pose a threat as long as the species is listed.
2.3.2.5 Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence:
Recently, severe flooding in the Delaware and Neversink Rivers in Pe�insylvania
and New York, respectively, resulted in the destruction of occupied habitat and
12

loss of dwarf wedgemussels. Surveys conducted at two sites on the I�teversink
River below a datn in Cuddebackville, New York, derived abundance estimates
ranging from 60 to 500 d�varf wedgernussels per site (Cole e� al. 2004) prior to
2005. Severe �looding in the spring of 2005 scoured the river chanr►el and
deposited coUble in al least one of ihe sites previously surveyed. Resurveys in
2005 of the two sites conducted after the fload event detected one fresh dead
dwarf wedgemussel and no live mussels (Cole and White 2006). Surveys in 200b
indicated Yhat the DWIvt poputation in the Neversink River was adversely affected
by flood events, although some live mussels were detected (W. Lellis, USG5,
email dated 10/25/06)_
2.4 Synihesis
Since the dwarf wedgemussel wras listed in 1990, new and significantly large populat�ons
in the Conuecticut and Delaware River watersheds have been, discovered. The species
should be considered stable in khe northern extent of its range in New Hampshire and
Connecticut, based on population numbers and extent of occupied habitat. However,
little riverine babitat is protected, and the populations remain vulnerable to water quality
degradation.
Although a fe�v nev�� sites have been discovered in North Caro]ina, Virginaa; Maryland,
and New Jersey, the prognosis for DWM recovery in the southern portion of its range is
not as positive. A nuinber of sites in Maryland, Virgiiiia and North Caroliva appear to be
extirpated or in severe decline. J. MeCann (e�nail 5/25/06), in a summary of DWM for
ivlaryland, noted that the nwnber of occurrences has doubled from four to eight since a
2002 recovery meeting. Nonetheless, only fotir occurrences may be considered viable;
one occurrence has declined dra�natically for unknown reasons, two occurrences may be
extirpated, and two are questionable and, if extant, may comprise very small populations.
A 2Q0� report on the status of the DWM in Virginia states that there are only 14 zecords
for DWM, nine of �vhich were resurveyed. Of the nine surveyed sites, six sites had
documenied observations of sl�ells or live animals since 1995, although only two sites
��ere recoi�firmed dw�ing siuveys conducted between 2002 and 2004 (Cltaza12005).
Little riverine habitat adjacent to e;ctant populations is protected other ihan by state
shoreline protectioi� regulations or local land use regulations. Development of adjacent
up�ands contizlues to be a significant and �ervasive threai to southern populations.
Alfhough the U.S. extent of tfle range remains fhe same as when the species was listed,
ti�e New Brunswick, Canada, population appears to be extirpated. No new populations
were discovered during recent surveys of New Brunswick; therefore, �anada may no
lo�i�er be considered as part of the species' current range.
The DWM should cQntinue to remain listed as endanget�ed, as the definition of thz�eate�ned
has not been met, and it continues to be threaiened throughout its range, althougl� the
threat level is generally more severe i�� the southern portion of the species' range.
Declining populations ai�d loss of viable habitat in the southern portion of its ra�ige do not
�3

compe»sate for the extensive; but geographically-limited populations found in New
Hampshire. Without significant recovery activities targeied at southern populations, it is
unlikely the species can be downlisted in the near future, since there is a real possibility
of range contraction.
3.0 RESULTS
3.1 Recommended Classification: No change is needed. Retain as endangered.
3.2 New Recovery Priority Number:
The RPN of 5 should be retained. The dwarf wedgemusset still faces a high
degree of tlu�eat throughout its range, and its recovery potential is low given its
population status in the southern portion of its range.
3.3 Listing or Reclassification Priority Number: Not applicab]e.
4.0 RECOMMENDATIOI�'S FOR FUTURE ACTIONS
Reco»��nendativn: Revise recovery plan.
A significant amount of life history and population distribution and status information has
been collected since the release of the 1993 Recovery Pla�� for the DWM. Much of the
information is unavailable to the general public, since it is found in reports to the Service
or state agencies and in other gray literature (presentation abstracts, personal
communications). A revised recovery plan will be the nexus for releasing current
informafion, and it may be used to update state fact sheets and assist in developing future
pertinent research.
Since additional viable occurrences in Connecticut, New York, Pennsylvania, and New
Jersey have been discovered, they should be faken into consideration in revised criteria.
Based on preliminary genetic inforcnation, revised criteria should center on management
units that reflect the genetic relatedness of the populations. Moreover, a consistent
definition for "site", "occurrence", and "population" should be developed and applied in
order to compare daia within a location and between locations.
Reconznzendations for specific �•ecovery actions:
1. Complete population genetic analyses, determine correct taxonomic nomenclature.
2. Complete ongoing state-wide population surveys in North Carolina and Virginia,
assess population status in these states.
14

3. Identify high priorifiy populations needed for the recovery of the species (af recovery
plan revision does not proceed quickly).
4. Develop habitat protection strategies for high priority populations.
5. Encaurage and suppo��t publicaiion of gray literature in peer-reviewed joumals.
6. Develop accuraEe fact sheets for the DWM (outreach).
7. Resurvey Neversink and Delaware Rivers to assess impacts from severe flooding in
200� and 2406 and establish new baselines for future comparison.
1S

5.0 REFCRENCES
Cllazal A. C. 2005. Status of seven Atla��tic Slope mussels in the Piedmont and Coastal Plain of
Virginia. Natural Heritage Technica� Report OS-09. Virginia Department of Conservation and
Recreation, Division of Natural Heritage. Richmond, Virgiiiia. 45 pp plus appendices.
Cole, J. C., B. S. White and C. �1pse. 2004. A quantitative assesscnent of freshwater mussels
(Biva]via:Unionidae) in the Neversink River prior to the Cuddebackville Dam removal.
Report to The Nature Conservancy, Cuddebackville, New York 16 pp.
Cole, J. and B. S. W11ite. 2006. An assessment of Freshwater mussels in the Neversink River
following removal of the dain at Cuddebackville, NY and a severe spring �1ood event. Repo�
to The Nature Conservancy, Cuddebackville, NY. 12 pp.
Ficl�tel, C. and D. G. Smith. 1995. The Freshu�ater Mussels of Vermont. Nongame and Natural
Heritage P��ogram, Vennont Fish and Wildlife Department. Teclv�ical Report l8. 53 pp.
Gabriel, M. 1995. Freshwater mussel distribution in the rivers and streams of Cheshire,
Hillsbarougl�, Men-imack and Rockingham, Counties, New Hampsl�ire. Reparl submitted to
U.S. Fisl� and Wildlife Service, New England rield Office and New Hampshire Fish and
Game Department. 60 pp.
Gabriel, M. 1996. 1996 Monitoring of the dwa�-f wedgemussel (Alasmidanta heterodon) in the
Ashuelot and Connecticut Rivers, New Han�pshire. Report submitted to The Nature
Conservancy, Eastern Regional Office, Boston, Massachusetts. 27 pp.
Gloria, T. and B. Wiciclow. 2QOl , Unpublished report. A third im�estigatio;i of the survival of
dwarf wedgemussels for tlie relocation project on the Connecticut River, Route 2
stabilizaiion project, Lunenburg, Vermont. Report to the Vetmont Agency of Transportation.
Montpelier, Vermont. 24 pp,
Hanson, M. J. l 998. March 24. Re: status of d��arf wedgemussel [personal email]. Accessed
March 2�, 1998.
Huckery, P. 2001. Mill River Alasnziclonta helerodon {Dwarf Wedaemussel) die-off in Whately,
MA, Meniorandum to S. von Oettingen, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Concord, NH. 1p.
King, T., K_ Sl�a��, M. Cackles, C. Morrison and S. von Oettingen. 2006. phylogeographic
discontinuity ii� the endangered dwarf �vedgemussel (Alasmrdonta Izete��odon). Abstract for
2007 Freshwater Mollusk Conservation Society Symposium. 1 p.
Leliis, W. A. 2006. Email to S. von Oettingen, USFWS New England Field Office, Subject:
Dwar� wedgemussel in upper llelaware. Dated 10/25/2006.
�

McLa'sn, D, and M. R. Ross. 2005. Repz•oduction Uased on local patcli size of Alasmidonta
heterodon and dispersal by its darter host in the 11�fill River, Massachusetts, USA. Jour. N.
Am. Benthol, Soc., 24(1}:139-147.
Micliaelson, D. L. and R. J. Neves. 1995. Life History and habitat of tl�e endangered dwarf
wedgemussel Ala.rn�idon�a helerodon (Bivalvia:Unionidae). Jour. N. Am. I3enthol. Soc.
1 a:324-34Q.
Nedeau, E. J. 2002. Dwarf wedgemussel (Alasmidontn he�erodon} survey near the Fort at No. 4
on the Connecticut River. Unpublislled report submitted to the Connecticut River Joint
Commission, Charlestown, New Hampshire and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Concord,
New Hampshire. 6 pp.
Nedeau, E. J. 2004a. A�'ourth Investigatioi� of the Survival of Dwarf Wedgemussels
(�ilas�r�idon�cr he�erodon} for the Relocation Project on tlle Connecticut River, Route 2
Stabilization I'roject, Lunenburg, Vermont. Unpublished report submitted to the U.S. Fisl�
and Wildlife Service, Concord, New Hampshire. 7 pp.
Nedeau, E. J. 2004b. Quantitative survey of dwarFwedgemussel (Alasmidonfia heterodon}
po�ulations dowiistre�n of the Surry Mountain Flood Conirol Dam on the Ashuelot River_ .
Unpublished report submitted to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Concord, New
Hampshire. 12 pp.
Nedeati, C. 2005. Farmingto�l River Freshwater Mussel Survey: Canton to Windsor. Unpt�blished
report submitted to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Concord, New Hampshire. 26 pp.
Nedeau, �. 2006a. Characterizing the Range and Habitat of Dwarf Wedgemussels in the "Middle
Macrosite" of the Upper Connecticut River. U�tptiblished report subn-►itted to the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Setvice, Concord, New Hampshire. 6 pp.
Nedeau, E. 2Q06b_ Dwarf Wedgemussels (Alasmidonta heterodon) in the Farmington River.
Unpublished report submiited to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Concozd, New
�Iampshire. 15 pp.
Nedeau, E. 2006c. Quantitative Study of the Freshwater Mussel Communiry Downstream of the
Surry Mountain Flood Control Dam on the Ashuelot River. Unpublished repori prepared for
U.S. Army Corps of En�ineers, Otter Brook/Surry Mow�tain Lakes, Keene, NH and U.S.
rish and Wildlife Service, New England Fie]d Office, Concord, NH. 19pp.
Nedeau, E.J., M. Ferguson and S. Werle. 2003. Quantitative survey of the dwarf wedgemussel
(Alasmidonta heterodon) an the Con.�lecticut River near Lunenburg, Verinont. Report
prepared for the Vermont Fish and Wildlife Departix►ent and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
1 b pp.
17

Nedeau, �. J. a�Id S. Werle. 2003. Freshwater Mussels of the Asl�uelot River: Keene to Hinsdale.
Unpublished report submitted to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Concord, New
Hampshire. 50 pp.
Rodgers, A. 2005. Email to D. Suiter, USFWS Raleigh F0, Subject: Dwarf wedgemussel
recovery data call. Dated 09/07/2005.
Strayer, D. L., S. J. Spragt�e and S. Claypool. 1996. A range-wide assessment of populations of
the dwarf wedgemussel Al�smidonta heterodon. J. N. Am. Benthol. Soc. 1 S(3):308-317.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1993. Dwarf Wedge Musse1.41asmidonla heierodon Recovery
Plan. Hadley, Massachusetts. 52 pp.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Sei-vice. 2006. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Opinion on the
proposed Dempsey E. Benton Water Treatment P1ant, Wake County, North Carolina. Raleigh
1=ield Office, Raleigh, NC. 38 pp.
Wllite B. S. a�ld C. I'aola Ferreri. 2405. Evaluation of fish host suitability for the dwarf
wedgemussel Alasmidonta heterodon (Bi�ralvia:Unionidae) in the upper Delaware River
basin, Progress reporf for the National Park Service, Beach Lake, PA. 6 pp.
Wicklow, B. 2005. in New Hampshire Wildl ife Action Pla�i. New Hampshire Fish and Game
Department, 11 Hazen Dr., Concord, NH, 03301. pp. A26-A35.
�:

U.S. FISH AND W1LllLIFE SERVTCE
5-YEAR REVIEW ofAlasrrziclonta heterodon (Awarf wedgemussel)
Current Classification: Endangered_
Recommendation resulting from the 5-Year Review: No change needed.
Appropriate List'sng/Reclassification Priority Nuraber, if appl�icabie: Not applicable.
Review Conducted By: Susi von Oettingen, New England Field O#�ce
FIET,D OFFICE APPROVAL:
Lead Field Supervisor, Fish and Wildlife Service
Approve
REGIONAL OFFICE APPROVAL:
G���Lead Regional Direetor, F�st� and � i' l�fe Service
�' ,
Approve
- . � F'.� I. ;�
y^
���erating Regional Director, Fish and Wildlife Service
�Concur po Not Concur
Signature_ �-- -�--��
Date � ��%' �
Date 7• 2 d,��
Date � �,� �
l9

Appendix 1

1 awarF Wedgemussel 5ite Data 211fi1�007
5tate County P:9�er Wa:ersMe[i f�+:. Ri�er Lengih Last O#�s. L2st 5iarvey 1Vurnk�er sheRs ai site (live or dead) ihreats
•••----••:••-••••--••--••---�.••--•••----•••••J--•••••--•-••••---J•••----••••----•••- •-----•••„ -•-•••--------••••-----•..-•- ---------.•••••••
�NHlVT 'Sulai�anlWindsor- g:onnecti�uf Ri�er IConnecticut Ri�er 7�:t miles 2002 - 2��4 (seleet Charlestowr� sun.eyed `-i0+ observed during han![ incremenlal loss due to bank
Windham,VT srtes} in 20Q4 stabilization project in Chariestown stabilization
[about 4�0 m of ri�erbank], 2 I��e at
� Rockingham site
�NNM� GraRon�ndsor
and Qrange
�NHNT CooSlEsSex
NH COOS
Vf Wrrici's�r
NH Cheshire
�Conne�ticut Ri�er �Connecticut Ri�er � 14 mile +1-
�Connecticut River ;Connecticut Ri�er �'f5-98 miles
�Johns Kiver
Biack River
Ashuelot River
�Lonnecticu[ R��er �4 sites
�Conne�kicut Rrver � 1 mde
iConnecti�ut Ri�e� I _ ! Tiiles
i
20Q6 2pQ5 - 2006 2065 - 1 li�e at site 9, 5 li�e and 2 incremental loss [fue to bank
� shells at site i0; shoft duration stahilizaiion
snorkel surveys, 2005 - i 2 additional
sites found. Most sites with �1 in[i
�found
2001- 2005 {select 1.Le�nenburg 2002 and 1. Relacation project, o�er 500� li�e � incremental loss due to bank
isites] 20Q4; tiwm estimated at sile near stabilizativn
2.Northum6erland Lunenberg; {2} a quantitatFve suroay
2004 well upstream of stabiiization project
estimated populati�n sixe of o�er
Ifi006 in a small area and
�extrapalation to large area yielded
lestimaies of 1DO,D0
2�Ob� 2a06� 5U+ o�er 4 sites
i 998� � 1ive, 6 shells
STP �nd mills imp�Ct w2ker
quality. Near oonfluence with Ct
R., part of Ct. R. south population
2Q05 Quantitati�e sur�e+; �n �? C+�, though pnmary sur�ey was lmpacts from goif course and
�2004; qualitat+ve ii�uantitati�e (systematic random urban run-ofF, development, water
survey in 2005 to find sampling with muitiple random starls �quality degredation; flood con[ral
gra�id females for i& dou�ile sampling, using p.25rr�2 dam aperations; se�ere flooding in
resea��h on iquadratsJ. Population estimate of October 2pD5
reproduction 989 and 464 for 2 50-m rea�hes
NI I Cheshire �AshueFot Ri�er IConnecticut F�iver �& t miME .'001-2004
I I I I I
NH Cheshire 5. Br�nch IConnecticut Raver �.5 t mtles 2005
�Ashuelot Ri�er
20174 2fl01: 13 li�e at 5 d�fferent si;es,
�2DD4: 2 li�e upstream of West
ISwanxey Dam (none ohserved
prior}, a�d approximakely 45 INe
taward upper end of the
impoundment in a--1 mile reach
using ad�l:i�e cluster sampiing
1985 6 G�e dwm, material taken fnr
genetic analysis
Keene S7P copper loading?, water
qual�ty degredation, erosion,
upri�er oontamination [near 101
b�idge in Keenej,
roadlde�elopment run-oif; e�entuai
dam remo�al
Road run-off, agrieultural run-ofF,
sedimentation, de�eiopment
1

2
State County fa:��r
------------_. �._�. �..--------------
I MA � Hampshue iulill Ri�er
�hNhately &
r iaifield}
� MA Hampshire
IMA Hampshire
�MA +rlampden
CT
�� i
CT
CT
Hartford
Harfiord
� Hartford
� hiartfard
� ° F{�Pii.3r#
NY flrat�ge
Runnir�g
GutteNBroad
Brook (trit]utar�es
to Mill R.)
�Mill Ri�Er
�FoR Ftiver
Dwarf Wedgemussel Site Data 7J1512007
Wafershed �� Est Fiiver Length Last flbs. L�St 5ur�ey Num�er shells at sike [li�e ar dead} T�reats �
�--- -------------------------•--------------.____--- ...--- ---_------•••--__________-_-_r_�-------------------------------------------- — ------
Connecticut Ri�er 18 t mi4es 1997 - 2001- 2a�5 2D05, 2��1, i li�e 2005: first specimen [1) tocated Agricultu�al run-off, Iocalized die-
dWM downstream of below Hatfield �am, 2001: 476 �off in 2DD1 due to ammonia from
dam in poRion oi Mill upri�er of dam in Ha�el[i and cattie ru�-off, 6ank erosion, water
y Ri�er ihat is � Whately wilhdrawal from upstream water
� essent�ally the �supply reserooirs, Cea�er act��ity,
Connecti�ut River li�estock access to river
f��odplain
�Connecticut Ri�er 0.2 miles � 1999� 1988�i3+ indi�iduals �Agicul[ure upstream
o�currenc�; 2.5
rniles habitat
IConnecticut Ri�er 0.2 miles
OCCurr@nCE, 1.2
miles habitat
� Connecti�u� River 2.8 miies
I accurrence; —8
miles ha6itat
I Muddy Broak , Cannecticut Rrver 3 f miles
F�odunk Ri��r Connecticut River � Unknown
�'hilo Brook Connectic�t Ri�er Unknown
Stony Brook Connect��ut Ri�er l#�i�known
Fars^:�[�n ��rinecticut Ri�e! Ura�r�wrl
°IMe�ersa�k R;.� r�!aware ftiwer I5 miles -
Cuttybackville Dam
io contluence
I PA 11VY Wayne {PA}, E�elaware River '3�1�°;�are i3i�e� :� rr�es
Sullivan [NYJ,
I Detaware (NY}
I !
�ooa, 2005
1998 199Y 9i1!�8; i adult female, 1 old adult Upslream dredging af Paradise
ishell; 1996 & 1994: shells obser�etl Pond
one �4 yrs. old; 1973: 4 gravid
Ifemales, tadult maie.
2pp2�i 2002 2�02: i fi�e; 26D1. 2 live; 1988� nanei ---
fou�d; 1984: 2 1i�e; 'f980: 2 males;
' 1976, '74, &'S2: total of 8 found.
]99� •--- t live
1997; 2006�7 shelis, 2 live {1997j, � dwm in �evelopment, water qual�ty
2000 rfegredatian,
1891 �2 shells
1005� 2005 1 ii�e in 3-hour suniey near a bridge onoge replacement; urhanizatiar°i
slated for repaacement. 1 st re�ord in �
5tony 8rook in 24 years.
T 2005 1 li�e + 2 shells in 2D00; 12 liar� � 9 water quality degradatipn, rip2rian
shell in 2005, ineluding 3 i li�e in 45 development; VWVfP, bank
minutes at a site in A�on. 4 sites erosion, rapid urbanization
aiiogether, se�arated by se�eral
miles
2�.}5 2��5 5urveys dt�ne in 2DD5 at selected �am remo�al7 Sedirnenta!�o!E.
sites following flooding in 20D5 se�ere flood e�ents
�ndicate that at least one to two
locations ha�e �ery few in[ii�i[ivals
remaining.
2°�}5 �`�00 - snorkel survey 206C1- 13 li�e and 4 shells found dl ? a:;tered hydrology, s1ltati�sn,
of entire stretch; 2D02 isites during snorkel sur�ey; 2�i]� - nutrienf enrichment
quadrat survey of i2 li�e found at d sites during
indi�idual sites �uadrat surveys
�

3
5tate Covnty Ri�er W�tersneci
PA Wayne � aelaware R��er �3elaware River
NJ �� Warren i�equest Ri�ee Lse;aware Ri�er
hl3 Sussex i Paulins Kill Ri�er � ueiaware Ri.+er
!VJ 5ussex C3elaware Ri�er T I �elaware Ri�er
NJ Sussex �ia' F3rook []t�aware Riue!
I iND
Queen
Anne'srfalbot
First reporied in 9 979 at densities of sediment and nutnent problems;
0.5-3lm2, During i9&1-1999, at least suburba� sprawi; upper part of
i Ii�e a�dlor dead A,h were found watershed ditched and
during 91 af'f4 surveys; sunreys channeli�ed.
�aried greatly in intensity,
techniques and extent Max #ii�e
found = 74 b
M❑ Queen An�e'sl Long Marsh Ditch -I? ucicahoe Ri�er �5 6.!� �
Caroline [Mason 6ranch]
i I
1N❑ Charles � i�anjemoy Creek f'vtvmac Ri�er -- 3 km
MD Sf. Mary's ��I+Icln[osh Run IPotomac Ri�er --4 km
� I �
dwarf Wedgemussel Site Data 211612��i
_ ... _
Fst. Ft+v�r L�ngth Las[ t35s. Last Survey 1Vumfaer sheils at site {live or [fead} Threat5
I— --_______-----°------•- -----____•- — •--- =---------•-----------
-----------•--------- -----------------------
15 mi�es {incl. NY} �2DD1? 2fl09- 5D.6 miles of i3 li�e 4 shells found at 3 sites in siltation, nutrient enrichment,
n�er sur�eye[f 2400, 1 dwm found in ZOD1 invasive species, altared
hydrologY
� 3 Tila 2?��v :? *ve, some spent shelis i
�approx. b rniles 2000� i59 li�e ahserved
�'aint la�atir.7 ��J1 2D09 '� ��+nr; 5ewage treatment plant,
urbanization
1 1 itiik� �606 20p3- entire stretch i 35 live ind;viduals f�++�r�l iw �7� , Recreational fshing, agnculture in
�from Peters Valley to mostly from upper port±��� Gi i i mile lower system.
Qelaware River 6y stret�h around Wallpa�}c Center 2D0�
snorke{ li�e found in 2DD6
�orw�F� Greek I f uck�noe Ri�er I--4.8 km I t 994 -� 99g etG2lSe�ere de�une. Pvssibiy extirpated �hronFc agricu�turai-related
9932I 2Q02 Severe decline. Passihly ext�rpat�d 5tream channe9 d�tched and
First reported in 1985 when "se�era " channelized; chranic agricuitural-
were found From i-S li�e andlor related sediment and nutrient
dead were found during 7 surveys in problems, suburban sprawl.
1989-97; sur�eys �aned greatly in
intensi[y, extent and technic}ue. Las!
live obs = 1992, 5 found. �!o dead or
I
20051
zoo�'
2005 Among top 3 heterodon streams in �5uburhan sprawl, illegal trash ��
M[i. First reported in 1991 w�en 2 dumping
live and "se�eral" dead were found.
From 2-5 live found during 4 sun�eys �
�n �992-97; surveys �aried greatly i��
intensity, extent and technique.
Intensi�e surveys during 2001
��cE�;�a � os i
2p05�Among top 3 heterodon streams in Suburban sprawl, livestock graz�ng
Md. First reported in 'f 9T0 wfi�en 1 in floodplain, sandlgra�el mining in
dead indi� was found. From 0-'f3 li�elwatershed.
found during i 0 surveys in i 983-97;
surveys �aried greatly in intensity,
extent and technique. Popuiation
�size astimated at 900 �n 1994.
Intensi�e survey I
� - . . .3 �

4 dwarF Wedgemussel 5ite ❑ata Z11612�d7
� Staie ,f �urYX �i4es Watershed €st. i�+ver Lenqlh Last L7�5. Last � �rve'!; �h:arr�T 5h�lis :at site {li�e or de�d�i T`Y��eats �� �
- ----- ---=------ ; --------- . ._ ____----------------------------••-_____.__.�.________------__�--u---- ---------------_________._�
Mp rt�ueen Anne's E3rawns Branch 5outneast Creek � 4 km 2D02 2D04 Among top 3 heierodon streams ir! � Suburban spr�wi, agr�Culturai
fVld. Best known population on �•unoH, groundwater withdrawal for
delmarva Paninsula. Mean of 1.2 'agric and residential use, lack of
� I � li�e11,7 dead per 700 m of s[ream �watershed forest eover and
I � I length; mean stream width = 3.8 m. ripar�an bGfiers - 3a-35°/o forest
,cover
MD C�ueen Anne's ��ranny Fmley ��outheasl Creek •da (si�gle 2Q�� 2003 '. old I+ve specirnen founC. Su6urban sprawl, agriculturai
I oranch 'specimeny rUnofF, groundwater w{thdrawal for
agric and resideniiaE use, lack of
� watershed forest ca�er an[i
, nparian 6ufiers - 30-35°/a forest
I ' r,o�er.
'MD Queen Anne't llnnamed }.r.n �outheast Creek � D.*+cm 200"� 200:s i ii.vel1 dead found. ;5uburban sprawi, agncuftural
�rder trib oi runoN, groundwater withdrawal for
ISoutheast Cr agnc and residential use, la�k af
i I i � Iwatershed forest co�er and
+riparian bufFers - 3D-35°Io forest
�:over.
iND Queen Anne's i4lnnamed 2nd iSoutheast Creek 7 i km 2�05� 20D5 Tatal i6 livel'fD dead found in two �5uhurba� sprawl, agri�ultural �
order trib of Three 1 d0-m long sections. Intensi�e � runoff, groundwater withdrawal fvr
Bridges Branch I in�entory ai entire watershed to agric and residential use, lack of
or,cur during summer 2Da8. wa[ershed forest co�er and
� riparian 6ufiers - 30-35°/o forest
� � co�er.
VA ;Stafford �Aquia Creek �Potomac Rrver r� milss 2063� 2003i2 I��e12 shells{1938]; 1 dead shelf Development. 5pill'?
I�,oikected, no li�e spec. obs.(2fl03]
VA StaTford Aquia Creek Potomae Ri�er �D � mi NE of 3l2711992 '� total of fi9 iive spe�imens were
S�cic4more Comer; � �ound at this site between
6etvreen C�'26l1992 and 0812 711 9 92
confluence oF
Cannon Creek with
❑n���� r�oo�
VA 5tatfo�d Aquia Creek �oioma� River � m� ot tfl14119�L`
GarrlSom•Ille,
.�. . ._ .. -- - - � -_ __.. _ _. .. . -- — ---_ �r�o.wns��?am_49�:... �.�_. .. ---- -
VA Stafford �n.,�ia Creek Potomac River 2 mi W of ! 1�1311990
Garcison�ille,
upslre�m to
i;a��r�vn Creek
ryNl� �AI�T .
iiH , Stafford � Rappahannock R � Rappahannock Ci,2u krn i 994�
� — � .
� live,
�003I4 �d�e, 12 she19s - 1930, 2D03 - na
mussels
1 frestl dead - S:!•uBstionable rECord
�

5
Siate Co��'+iy R.i�er Wate�heo
I�VA ��CulpepperlFauqu�er I Mountian Run � Rappahanno�k
VA i�range !Blue Run Rapp�hannock
�VA SpatsyVvania +�i i�oy�e� +'nn�c
IVA 5podsyl�ania �r. River KorF.
VA � Spotsylvan�a � Po Ri�er j YarEc
I VA � 5polsyivania � po Fii�er ; York
VA I Lou�sa I So�th Anna River wnr��c
VA � I_oussa i South Anna River � York
� VA � LOUEsa � SOuth Anna R�+er � York
� VA ISussex . I h7ottoway Ri�er ! Chawan
VA NottowaylLunenhur I hlottoway Ri�er f:nuwan
9
�N[.. �Gra��ille Tar River � i ar �
�headwaters}
hl� Ig S,irr�lie t;.uu Creek �Tar
�NC� �Gran�iue �5heito� Creek �Tar
�
I
� Fox Creek �Tar
fGranville Co, Tri6
' t_� Sheltan Creek}
NC Vance Ruin C�eek [7nh iTar
�� Ta6hs Creek}
I
NG �Vance �7��bs Craek T.ar
NC SN�t�r7lFT�[1kIIR. ShOG{.L� CC�$k T�r
NC � �Warrenl�r2nkiin Lt�F� ShpcCO T��r
Gr�eK
Dwarf Wedgemussel Site Data 2116J2007
... _ _ . .
�:st. f3iv�r Lengih ;. asi 06s. Last 5urvey Nurnher staelfs at s+fe (live or dead) 7hreats
- ------�-------------------- ---------- ---- -- - __ _--_____� ---------------------------
. -_.- _-_- _._ _ ._ „_ - --- . ,------ ----- . ----- - - --- ______ _ __.____
3�7.6 km 1919 1999 Unkn.- questiana6le record
14.5 km �N❑ �C�uestionable record
�6.25 km 1�2�� �Unkn. — _ —
;:i.25 km 26�tJ 200d 3 Ii�ellsh�Ml abs. In. 36.5 Survey
I I'�ours
9 03 20�3� 2003 7 li�e o6served [1999}; 9 1i�e13
swel'S obs. In 15 survey hours � �
' km 1995 7995 1 li.+e spec cv�le�ted
Q� 197�i 19 o i�T �1�C. �Ehc i
6.23 '. J: t' 199� �°J a�e, 1 reliCt _�^ �
� 0.14' 1972 1972 �nidden shell
�0.11 km 199SI T 1996 a live �.
0 21 'i`�95 1995:Aprox. 5 ind. C011ectedlobs during o I � �
� � construction project sur�ey, 1
collecteci in 1994
F'oint ICoation �i999 2QQ4 O�hea�er acti�ity, sil�icukture,
residential de�elopment
3 reach �urveys, t9306 2Qfl5��0 ii�e 2t�d 2 SheiVs total {3 siles in sr�aVV stream, Ii�eslocEc, bea�er
plus {1] �1pDm reach 2QQ4, 8 li�e, 1 shell]; [400m reach in'acti�ity, si�vicuiture
2005 , 2 li�e, 1 shell}
7 reaches surveyed 2005 2005 98 total observed since 1999 all �n {beaver acti�ity, sil�iculture,
I since 'f 998 same general reach ;54 live were residential de�elapmentJ; Iow
observed at 2 sites in 20Q4 ; 44 live water, low �.0.{0.38} a�d thick
obsen.ed in 2005 �n same reach a�gae due to poss+bfe nutrient
i enrichment
�4 rea�hes �20�5 �2�05 at new sites �3 {�WM found at 2 sites not
[Last observed at pre�iousiy surveyed} but oWM nvt I
prewously surveyed #ound at site where they ha�e b$en
sites was 1995} found historically
5km stretch [7 20051 Point surveys along 5 i li�e, 2 shells � Degraded ha6itat, 6ea�er acti�ity,
s+tes}, 2 other reach km stretch headwaters are urbanizing, 2005
surveys and 2QQ2 extremely low water,
Ponl where OWM found m 2005
had 0.0. of 3.25
T �Reach s�rveys
Reach surveys,
��aa�,
� Reach surveys, 8D{3
m
2pU' «7U4� 2 ii�e
20Q9� 200� -
2QOCE 2065� i IiVe
�8 beaver a�ti�ity, silviculture
heaver acti�ity, siiviculiure?
5

6 �warf Wecigemussel Site Data 211612��7
_ - . . - - - --- .. _ .... . ... ....... .... ... ... . . .
5tate G9unfy ��ver walat�hed Fst. River Length �ast Obs. Lasi Survey Number s'hells ai site {live or dea�j Threats
--------•--•----•-.�.._--------- -------------------------------------------•--•-•-----•------••------------------- _-- ------------_�_____._�-----------------------------
NC WarrenlFrank!ir� Isinglass Creek Tar Reach survey 2005 2Q05�3 li�e {1 li�e12 shells in 1999, 3 live bea�er activity, silviculture
{Farmeriy dn 2D05}
lJnnamed Trib to
Shocoo Creek]
�NC Gvatren Maple Bra�ch �Tar
�!C y'Warrdi! �Long 8ranch � T�r
'MC �i8�lha �tr� H�r� C'e-*k Tar
�NC Franklin ICedarCreek Tar
�NC •rranKi3n
I h!C � Franklin
N'.: �+lasr�
I
� :�. Ha€4fax
�r� Halif�x
�fC VdiisonlNAx.r:
HC
Reach survey
paach 5u�vey
�teaeh Survey
NIA
�rooKed Creek Tar
� Fox Creek 1 ar � NIA
I [Frankiin Co.J
�1+�rY Cr�ek '�-a�' •�IA — -
F;ocky 5wamp �Jeuse
�C�eek
IRocky Swami�i I"J�:��
Creek
r �.-�c�+y Creek ���
�NashlWilsonlJohns !Mflccasin Creek Neuse
vn
�
I NIA
�few miles
�
T 2U]5 2063 R 6�small stream, beaver acti�iry,
sil�iculture, emergency bridge
replaceme�t, gra�el road ta be
pa�ed
��3� 7r'35I 1 Low wat�r arG D.Q. Stream was
�dry upstream of bridge access
point and extremely Iow
�downstream af bridge. D.�. in
pools was 4.0
- 2o�s zp�� ,� n —.___
19� Last surveyed in 2003 [J - Note 7he 401 site is the only , potential 6ndge replacemenUrepai�
at point sites, four place whre a li�e OWM has been i impacts
additionaf si#es reco�ered
surveyed
2�ODi 1UrJ�� 1 li�e -Survey in 2DD0 was not a Sign. declines, much bea�er
�mussel sun�ey but a hab�tat activrry, heavy sediment laad,
assessment af bridge 3 years after Hurncane Fran damage, much of
��onstruction. Assesment did yield creek surveyed on foot in 1996
Ione li�e DWIN.
2Q05 2�5 3 li�e found at sites not surveyed n+luch bea�e� acti�ity, urhan�zation
before. IVo DWM found at sites of stream corndor
Irvhere DWM pre�iously observed. �
9��� 1995 1 sheil; New sites surveyed in 2004 T�rrt�r harvest ir� suobasin. new
and Q were observed hlote Sites threats unknown
iwhere she11 obsen.ed in 1992, na�e
not been sun�eyed since 1995.
iSS��� 3 survey staGons, ia5t � i 4ive �e�er acti�ity,
surveyed 1597
_ L��. , �v
?�� 2005, not a13 sites �� � '
where DWM
pre�ipusly found vrere
sun.eyed
� 20�4jShells found at a site �2 shears
not pre�ously
surveyed. Dther sites
need to be
resurveyed.
�

7
State Courty F2i�er Wat�rshed
IVC I Johnsr�nlVlla4ce � Litt9e Ftive� �� Neuse
NC .l�h �son �uNalo Gr�2k Neuse
� � I I
A!C Johnson � Swift Creek Neuse
I I � �
NC White Oak C���* Neuse
� NC ' Johnson � Middle Creek Neuse
� �
NC �'�ar•ge �n0 9�i�er I rle�se -T
❑warf wedgemussel Site ❑ata 211fi12�07
E:st. R hra� L�[!� �25i �t�. Last Survey Numb�r shells at site [li�e or d��d] Threats
-- • r ------ - ----•---------------------------------_�__-==------------�---
� site 2004 20041 01 Much bea�er acti�i�y, heavy
sediment load, Hurricane Fran
c�amage,
'� sinns 799A�?�04 (1998 sites �a�e � ^� �l 7�egraded hab;tat, bea�er acSiSRftir,
not heen resurveyed), ��eadwaters are uri�anizing,
�5 new s�tes surveyed
� behveen 2DDi-20D5}
�5 miies
M
�lIA
NIA
F�o;nt 9acaL�an
I
2402�3 Ii�e obser�ed in
2a02 in a poinf sur�ey
{not surveyed
nistorically}
;�� :���3; two pa�nt
!samples in 20D1, �
� 2km surveyed in 20D3
9n reach where DWM
found in 92'
1992i 42 sites surveyed in
2D�3 ;n Middle Creek
$asin; 1 D other s�tes
suroeyed between
200'f-20D5 �
! 995 Point surveys, In Ci -A dam was remo�ed witnin Ena
20D4, 20D5, 20G6; �ti�er 5tate Pa�k Invasion of
�ristoric sites hydnlla observed in Eno Ri�er 5tate
resurveyed where F�ark.
�shell was Found in
1995
3 Urban growth in suhbasin, regular
raw wastewater spills, 6ea�er
acti�ity, heavy sediment Ioad,
Hurricane Fran damage ta riparian
handat, hea�y sed, load,
0 C]ev�lopmeni pr�ssare was }usi
6eginning in 20D3, bea�er dams
present
0 Oe�elopment from Carey, Apex,
Holy Springs, and Morrissvdle;
CumulatNe and seoondary impactsi
from muni�palities to Middle Creek �
basin
7