20190883 Ver 1_More Info Received_20190819

Homewood, Sue
From:
Diandra Hyman <[e-mail]>
Sent:
Monday, August 19, 2019 2:07 PM
To:
[e-mail]; Homewood, Sue; [e-mail]
Cc:
Mark Fisher; Daniel Peplinski; Terry Shelton ([e-mail]); George Lankford;
Tim Savidge
Subject:
[External] RE: Request for Additional Information: Eden Remediation Junction Basin
sewer and Smith River siphon, Rockingham County; SAW -2019-01088
(UNCLASSIFIED)
Attachments:
WK Dickson Smith River Protected Aquatic Species Survey Report-Draft-8-19-19.pdf
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you verify. Send all suspicious email as an attachment to
[e-mail]
"T=
Please find attached, for review and comment, the Draft Aquatic Survey Report for the Smith River Phases 14 and 15 of
the Eden Remediation Project.
Let me know if you have any questions or need further information. I believe this is the last outstanding item needed for
permitting these phases.
Thanks,
Dee
Diandra (Dee) Hyman, PE
Project Manager I Water & Wastewater Services
WK Dickson & Co., Inc.
919.256.5656 (o) 1 267.229.4898 (m)
1929-2019 1 CELEBRATING 90 YEARS OF SERVICE
From: Diandra Hyman
Sent: Wednesday, July 31, 2019 7:13 PM
To: Bailey, David E CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>; Homewood, Sue
<[e-mail]>
Cc: Mark Fisher <[e-mail]>; Daniel Peplinski <[e-mail]>; Terry Shelton
([e-mail]) <[e-mail]>; George Lankford <[e-mail]>
Subject: Request for Additional Information: Eden Remediation Junction Basin sewer and Smith River siphon,
Rockingham County; SAW -2019-01088 (UNCLASSIFIED)
David & Sue —

I have listed comment responses to Phases 14 & 15 of the Eden Remediation Project below and attached the revised
figures and drawings. Please let me know if you have any questions or need additional information. I will be following
up with the aquatic survey hopefully by early next week.
Thanks!
Dee
Diandra (Dee) Hyman, PE
Project Manager I Water & Wastewater Services
WK Dickson & Co., Inc.
720 Corporate Center Drive
Raleigh, NC 27607
Office: 919.782.0495
Direct: 919.256.5656
Mobile: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
www.wkdickson.com
1929-2019 1 CELEBRATING 90 YEARS OF SERVICE
Connect with us: Facebook I Twitter I LinkedIn
From: Bailey, David E CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>
Sent: Wednesday, June 19, 2019 4:06 PM
To: George Lankford <[e-mail]>; Terry Shelton ([e-mail]) <[e-mail]>
Cc: Homewood, Sue <[e-mail]>; Mark Fisher <[e-mail]>; Diandra Hyman
<[e-mail]>
Subject: Request for Additional Information: Eden Remediation Junction Basin sewer and Smith River siphon,
Rockingham County; SAW -2019-01088 (UNCLASSIFIED)
CLASSIFICATION: UNCLASSIFIED
on
Thank you for your PCN and attached information, dated and received 5/23/2019, for the above referenced project. I
have reviewed the information and need clarification before proceeding with verifying the use of Nationwide Permit 12
(Blockedhttp://saw-reg.usace.army.miI/NWP2017/2017NWP12.pdf <http://saw-
reg.usace.army.mil/NWP2017/2017NWP12.pdf> ). Please submit the requested information below (via e-mail is fine)
within 30 days of receipt of this Notification, otherwise we may deny verification of the use of the Nationwide Permit or
consider your application withdrawn and close the file:
1. Your PCN included impacts to streams and wetlands, however these and other potential jurisdictional
boundaries have not been verified by the USACE. A field verification site visit has been scheduled with Mr. George

Lankford (agent) on 6/26/2019 to verify the locations of potential waters of the US. Please note that revisions to the PCN
and plans may be necessary depending on the results of the field verification; No additional comments were provided
from field visit.
2. Plan Sheets 14-C1 and 15-C4 indicates that rip rap will be placed at stream crossings 14-S1 and 15-S2. If this rip
rap is to be placed below the ordinary high water mark of these streams, then we would consider the impacts
permanent rather than temporary. Although we would not typically consider these impacts to be a permanent loss of
waters, we need to ensure that any rip rap placed in the stream bed would not be placed above the existing stream bed
grade. Further, the impacts would need to be changed from temporary to permanent on the PCN; Perdiscussion with
David Baily crossings 14-S1 and 15-S2 have been revised to be permanent impacts. Due to the existing conditions and
slopes of the existing banks in these crossings rip -rap would be required along the entire bank for stability purposes
after construction to prevent erosion from wash away. Revised figures 3.1 and 3.3 have been attached.
3. Further, Plan Sheet 15-C4 indicates that stream crossing 15-S2 would be an aerial crossing, however the profile
view does not show enough detail to indicate whether or not the sewer line will be placed high enough to pass high
flows and therefore not disrupt the flow and circulation of waters of the US. Please indicate the clearance between the
bottom of the pipe and the stream bed at this location. Per NWP Permit 12 General Condition 9, please explain how this
crossing is constructed to withstand expected high flows, as well as how the activity meets the condition that it must not
restrict or impede the passage of normal or high flows, given that the primary purpose of the activity is not to impound
water or manage high flows. This comment was previously addressed with a figure, however the plan sheet (15-C4) has
been revised to show the bottom of the stream bed at the aerial crossing (the 4 ft of clearance) to prevent the
question in the future and for record purposes.
4. Plan Sheet 14-C1 and others reference "DWG No. D9" in relation to the proposed stream crossing. However,
this drawing was not included in the PCN and attachments. Please provide any relevant detail sections and
specifications, including stream impact restoration and stabilization details, seeding specifications, pump around
methodology, etc;
Drawing Sheets D9 and D10 have been attached for review.
5. Given the proximity of known occurrences of Roanoke logperch and James spinymussel, as well as potentially
suitable habitat for the smooth coneflower within the project area, consultation is required with the USFWS pursuant to
Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. It is our understanding that surveys for these species in coordination with
USFWS are ongoing, and the results of these surveys will be reported to the Corps and USFWS for further evaluation
during the consultation process. Please note that the Corps cannot verify the use of a NWP until Section 7 consultation is
complete. The aquatic survey was to be underway early this week since river conditions were going to be improved
due to discharges from the upstream dam being reduced. 1 will follow up and provide an expected deliverable date, l
will also provide preliminary data if available.
Please let me know if you have any questions.
-Dave Bailey
David E. Bailey, PWS
Regulatory Project Manager
US Army Corps of Engineers

CE -SAW -RG -R
3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 105
Wake Forest, North Carolina 27587
Phone: [phone], Ext. 30.
Fax: [phone]
Email: David. [e-mail]<maiIto: David. [e-mail]>
We would appreciate your feedback on how we are performing our duties. Our automated Customer Service Survey is
located at: Blockedhttp://corpsmapu.usace.army.miI/cm_apex/f?p=136:4:0
Thank you for taking the time to visit this site and complete the survey.
CLASSIFICATION: UNCLASSIFIED

Protected Mussel & Fish Survey Report
Proposed Water Siphon Crossing
Rockingham County, North Carolina
Smith River during the survey efforts
Prepared For:
Prepared by:
324 Blackwell Street, Suite 1200
Durham, NC 27701
August 19, 2019

Table of Contents
1.0 Introduction.......................................................................................................................... 1
2.0 Target Federally Protected and Proposed Species Descriptions .......................................... 2
2.1 Percina rex (Roanoke Logperch)...................................................................................... 2
2.1.1 Species Characteristics.............................................................................................. 2
2.1.2 Distribution and Habitat Requirements.................................................................... 2
2.1.3 Threats to Species..................................................................................................... 3
2.2 Parvaspina collina (James Spinymussel).......................................................................... 4
2.2.1 Species Characteristics.............................................................................................. 4
2.2.2 Distribution and Habitat Requirements.................................................................... 5
2.2.3 Threats to Species..................................................................................................... 6
2.3 Fusconaia masoni (Atlantic Pigtoe)................................................................................. 7
2.3.1 Species Characteristics.............................................................................................. 7
2.3.2 Distribution and Habitat Requirements.................................................................... 7
2.3.3 Threats to Species..................................................................................................... 8
2.3.4 Designated Critical Habitat....................................................................................... 8
3.0 Other Target Species Descriptions...................................................................................... 9
3.1 Lasmigona subviridis (Green Floater).............................................................................. 9
3.1.1 Species Characteristics.............................................................................................. 9
3.1.2 Distribution and Habitat Requirements.................................................................... 9
3.1.3 Threats to Species................................................................................................... 10
4.0 Survey Efforts.................................................................................................................... 10
4.1 Stream Conditions at Time of Survey: Smith River ...................................................... 10
4.2 Methodology.................................................................................................................. 10
4.2.1 Fish Surveys............................................................................................................ 10
4.2.2 Mussel Surveys....................................................................................................... 11
4.3 Results............................................................................................................................ 11
4.3.1 Fish Survey Results................................................................................................. 11
4.3.2 Mussel Survey Results............................................................................................ 12
5.0 Discussion/Conclusions..................................................................................................... 12
5.1 Conclusion of Effects..................................................................................................... 13
5.1.1 James Spinymussel-No Effect................................................................................ 13
5.1.2 Roanoke Logperch-May Affect/Not Likely to Adversely Affect ........................... 13
6.0 Literature Cited.................................................................................................................. 14
Appendix A. Figures:
Figure 1: Project Vicinity & Survey Reach
Figure 2-1 to 2-4: NCNHP Element Occurrences

1.0 INTRODUCTION
The project involves the replacement of an inverted siphon under the Smith River, a tributary to
the Dan River, of the Roanoke River Basin in the town of Eden in Rockingham County, North
Carolina (Figure 1). The construction will involve a staged coffer dam across the river.
The Federally Endangered Roanoke Logperch (Percina rex) and James Spinymussel
(Parvaspina collina, JSM [formerly Pleurobema collina (Perkins et al. 2017)]) are listed by the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) for
Rockingham County and are known from the Dan River subbasin. The Atlantic Pigtoe
(Fusconaia masoni), which is known to occur in the county, was proposed for listing under the
ESA as a Threatened Species with a Section 4(d) Rule and Critical Habitat Designation on
October 11, 2018 (USFWS 2018). Additionally, the Green Floater (Lasmigona subviridis) is
being considered for listing by USFWS and is known to occur in Rockingham County.
The US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) has reviewed the proposed project and has
requested that surveys be conducted for the listed species. The suggested survey reach includes
the entire width of the river from the project footprint plus an additional 400 meters downstream
and 100 meters upstream.
Table 1 lists the nearest element occurrence (EO) for targeted species in approximate river miles
(RM) from the approximate project footprint. Data are from the NC Natural Heritage Program
database (NCNHP 2019) most recently updated in July 2019 (Figures 2-1 to 2-4).
Table 1. Element Occurrences
*: C — NCNHP Current; ** - Three Oaks Survey record not yet in NCNHP dataset
As part of the federal permitting process that requires an evaluation of potential project -related
impacts to federally protected species, Three Oaks Engineering (30aks) was contracted to
conduct fish surveys targeting the Roanoke Logperch and mussel surveys targeting James
Spinymussel. The Atlantic Pigtoe and Green Floater were also targeted in the survey efforts.
WK Dickson Smith River Aquatics August 2019
Job# 19-314 Page 1
Distance
from
EO
crossing
First
Last
EO
Species Name
EO 1D
Waterbody
(RM)
Observed
Observed
Status*
Figure
Roanoke
At
25404
Smith River
July 2007
July 2016
C
2-1
Logperch
crossing
James
November
October
37056
Dan River
5.36
C
2 2
Spinymussel
2016
2017
September
SeptemberC
Atlantic Pigtoe
170926.1ted**
Dan River
5.69
2-3
2017
2017
November
October
Green Floater
3622
Dan River
0.47
C
2-4
2000
2017
*: C — NCNHP Current; ** - Three Oaks Survey record not yet in NCNHP dataset
As part of the federal permitting process that requires an evaluation of potential project -related
impacts to federally protected species, Three Oaks Engineering (30aks) was contracted to
conduct fish surveys targeting the Roanoke Logperch and mussel surveys targeting James
Spinymussel. The Atlantic Pigtoe and Green Floater were also targeted in the survey efforts.
WK Dickson Smith River Aquatics August 2019
Job# 19-314 Page 1

2.0 TARGET FEDERALLY PROTECTED AND PROPOSED SPECIES
DESCRIPTIONS
2.1 Percina rex (Roanoke Logperch)
2.1.1 Species Characteristics
The Roanoke Logperch is a large darter with an elongate body up to 165 mm in total length. The
snout is conical or pig -like. The caudal fin is slightly emarginated, truncate, or slightly rounded.
The body is straw-colored to pale olive dorsally, pale to yellow -olive on the lower side with a
white belly; the lateral line is complete. Markings are dark olive to black with green, gold, or
blue iridescence on the side of the head and the prepectoral area. There are 8-11 lateral blotches.
The first dorsal fin has submarginal yellow or orange bands, while the second dorsal, caudal, and
pectoral fins are distinctly tessellated (Terwilliger 1991).
The Roanoke Logperch is a benthic feeder; feeding on a variety of immature insects by
overturning gravel and small rocks with its snout (Terwilliger 1991). The average life
expectancy is five to six years. Spawning occurs in April or May in deep runs over gravel and
small cobble. Logperch typically bury their eggs and provide no subsequent parental care
(USFWS 2015a).
2.1.2 Distribution and Habitat Requirements
The Roanoke Logperch can be found in larger streams in the upper Roanoke, Smith, Pigg, Otter,
and Nottoway River systems; Goose Creek in Virginia; and in the Dan, Mayo, and Smith River
systems and Big Beaver Island Creek in North Carolina. Its upstream range in the Dan and
Mayo Rivers is presumably impeded by dams (USFWS 2015a).
Due to barriers such as dams, there are currently eight discrete populations of Roanoke
Logperch. The population in the upper Roanoke River is probably the largest and most
important in the species' range (USFWS 2007).
The Roanoke Logperch occupies medium to large warm water streams and rivers of moderate
gradient and relatively unsilted substrates. Inhabited waterways have a moderate to low
gradient, and the fish usually inhabit riffles and runs with silt -free sandy to boulder -strewn
bottoms. During different phases of life history and season, every major riverine habitat is
exploited by the Logperch. Young are usually found in slow runs and pools with clean sandy
bottoms. In winter, Logperch may be more tolerant of silty substrates and may also inhabit
pools. Males are associated with shallow riffles during the reproductive period; females are
common in deep runs over gravel and small cobble where they spawn (NatureServe 2015,
USFWS 1992a).
The species is usually in low abundance. The populations are small and separated by long
segments of river or large impoundments; it is nearly always rare, never abundant (Terwilliger
1991). In addition, the Roanoke Logperch's low catchability, patchy distribution, and low
abundance make them difficult to detect. Extensive and intensive sampling by the Virginia
Transportation Research Council confirmed that Roanoke Logperch are difficult to detect even
with more sampling effort than typically is applied in general fish surveys (Lahey and
WK Dickson Smith River Aquatics August 2019
Job# 19-314 Page 2

Angermeier 2007). It wasn't until 2007, that individuals of this species were found in the
Roanoke River drainage (Smith and Dan Rivers) in Rockingham County, North Carolina
(NCWRC 2015).
Existing information on the distribution of Roanoke Logperch and habitat suitable for Logperch
is scarce and uneven in quality. Most previous surveys for Logperch focused on areas near
known occurrences and information on habitat suitability has been scarce and inconsistently
gathered (Lahey and Angermeier 2007).
The present understanding of the Roanoke Logperch range and densities indicate that all
populations extend further and are denser than previously assumed when the species was
federally listed. Populations in the upper Roanoke and Nottoway Rivers show comparably high
densities (Rosenberger and Angermeier 2002 in USFWS 2007) and high genetic diversity
(George and Mayden 2003 in USFWS 2007). The species appears to be reproducing throughout
its range, however, a poor understanding of abundance at the time of listing makes it difficult to
determine whether populations are increasing, stable, or declining over the long term (USFWS
2007).
2.1.3 Threats to Species
Roanoke Logperch populations are threatened by dams/barriers and reservoirs, watershed
urbanization, agricultural and silvicultural activities contributing to non -point source pollution,
stream channelization, roads, toxic spills, woody debris loss, and water withdrawals (USFWS
2015a).
It appears that massive habitat loss associated with the construction of the large impoundments
of the Roanoke River Basin in the 1950s and 1960s (Roanoke Rapids, Gaston, Kerr, Leesville,
Smith Mountain, and Philpott Reservoirs) was the original cause of significant population
declines of this species. These reservoir systems resulted in major disruptions in the ability of
this species to move throughout its historic range. The populations in the Roanoke and
Nottoway basins probably represent remnants of much larger populations that once occupied
much of the Roanoke and Chowan River drainages upstream of the fall line. All the populations
are small and no genetic exchange occurs among them because they are separated by large
impoundments and wide river gaps. Each population is vulnerable due to its relatively low
density and limited range.
Small Logperch populations could go extinct with minor habitat degradation. Catastrophic
events may consist of natural events such as flooding or drought, as well as human influenced
events such as toxic spills associated with highways, railroads, or industrial -municipal
complexes (USFWS 2015b).
The best known and largest population, which inhabits the upper Roanoke from the City of
Roanoke upstream into the North and South Forks, has been subjected to considerable stress
from human uses in the basin, progressively more so in the downstream direction. Although
there are no trend data available, the continued urbanization of the upper Roanoke threatens the
existing population density and abundance in this portion of the species' range (USFWS 2007).
WK Dickson Smith River Aquatics August 2019
Job# 19-314 Page 3

Water withdrawals may pose a serious threat to the species in the future as the human population
of the Roanoke River basin increases (USFWS 2015b).
Non -point sources of pollution can be a problem for the species. Large quantities of stormwater
drain from streets and lawns, carrying nutrients, oil, metals, and other pollutants into the upper
Roanoke (USFWS 1992a). Spills of toxic chemicals have occurred in the Roanoke River in
Salem and Roanoke, including 11 spills documented in the Roanoke and its tributaries from 1970
through 1991 (USFWS 1992a). One of the most destructive spills resulted from the accidental
discharge of more than 100,000 gallons of liquid manure into a tributary of the South Fork of the
Roanoke River. It is estimated that this spill killed 190,000 fish, including 300 Roanoke
Logperch (USFWS 1992a). Events such as this could be catastrophic to small, isolated
populations.
Siltation is a widespread threat to the Roanoke Logperch. Excessive silt deposition reduces
habitat heterogeneity and primary productivity; increases egg and larval mortality; abrades
organisms; and alters, degrades, and entombs macrobenthic communities (Burkhead and Jenkins
1991, in USFWS 1992a). The water quality of the North Fork of the Roanoke River is
significantly degraded by silt washed from agricultural lands in the watershed. It is probable that
the absence of the species from the upper and middle portions of the North Fork Roanoke is the
result of historical habitat degradation. Excessive siltation generated by poor agricultural and
logging practices is also a problem in the Nottoway River watershed (USFWS 1992a).
The impacts from in -stream sand and gravel -mining operations on aquatic environments and
riparian habitats are well-documented (Meador and Layher 1998, Kondolf 1997, Starnes and
Gasper 1996). These physical and biotic effects can extend far upstream and downstream from
the site of extraction (Brown et al. 1998). The recovery time of the stream ecosystem from
mining operations can be very extensive (>20 years) and total restoration in some cases has been
considered improbable (Kanehl and Lyons 1992, Brown et al. 1998). There are a number of
active and inactive mining operations in the Dan River subbasin in Stokes and Rockingham
counties.
Wide forested buffers have been identified as critical in maintaining stream type (Llhardt et al.
2000), water temperature control (Lynch and Corbett 1990), food resources (Palik et al. 2000),
and instream habitat (Semlitsch 1998) for aquatic resources. Deforestation of large magnitude in
the Dan and Mayo River watersheds may have significant effects on aquatic habitat.
2.2 Parvaspina collina (James Spinymussel)
2.2.1 Species Characteristics
The James Spinymussel was discovered in the Calfpasture River (of the James River Basin) by
T. A. Conrad and originally described as Unio collinus (Conrad 1837). Various people (See
USFWS 1990 for synonyms) have subsequently placed this species in a number of different
genera. Turgeon et al. (1988) placed the JSM in the genus Pleurobema. Perkins et al. (2017)
subsequently placed JSM in the genus Parvaspina. The taxonomic history of this species is
described fully in Clarke and Neves (1984).
WK Dickson Smith River Aquatics August 2019
Job# 19-314 Page 4

The JSM is a small mussel that is reported to reach a maximum size of 70 mm; however, a
specimen collected in the Dan River was measured at 74 mm in length (Tim Savidge, personal
observations). Larger specimens up to 89 mm in length have been collected in Johns Creek of
the upper James River basin (Tom Dickinson, personal observations). The shells of small
individuals (<40 mm) are subrhomboidal in shape with an obliquely subtruncated posterior with
widely spaced concentric striations. The periostracum is shiny and straw yellow with prominent
growth rings. Faint brownish rays are rarely present. One to three short, but prominent spines
are occasionally present on each valve. With age, the shell becomes more ovate or even arcuate,
the periostracum becomes brownish to black and any spines that were once present are lost.
Their beaks are typically eroded and only slightly elevated above the hinge line, if at all. The
nacre is white with occasional bluish suffusions. The foot and mantle of live specimens are light
orange in color (USFWS 1990, Clarke and Neves 1984, Johnson 1970). Internal anatomy is
detailed in Clarke and Neves (1984).
The JSM and the Tar spinymussel (TSM) share many morphological traits but are considered
distinct species. The TSM has been described as having intermediate characteristics between the
small, short-spined JSM and the large, long-spined Altamaha spinymussel (Elliptio spinosa)
(USFWS 1992b; USFWS 1990). Internal anatomical differences between the two species are
described in Clarke and Neves (1984). TSM can have up to 12 spines (USFWS 1992b) and tend
to have spines more often than JSMs. Clarke and Neves (1984) state most specimens of JSM
"never develop spines".
Knowledge of the reproductive biology of the JSM is limited to thesis research at Virginia
Polytechnic Institute and State University (Hove 1990; Hove and Neves 1989). Like nearly all
freshwater mussel species, the reproductive strategy of the JSM involves a glochidium that
becomes a temporary obligate parasite on a fish. Many mussel species have specific fish hosts
that must be present to complete their life cycle. Based upon laboratory infestation experiments,
Hove (1990) identified seven fish species, all in the family Cyprinidae (minnows), as potential
fish hosts for the JSM. McMahon and Bogan (2001) and Pennak (1989) provide a general
overview of freshwater mussel reproductive biology.
2,2.2 Distribution and Habitat Requirements
Previously, the JSM was believed to be endemic to the James River system, with a widespread
distribution within the basin (USFWS 1990, Clarke and Neves, 1984). When the Recovery Plan
for this species was adopted, it was believed to have been extirpated from 90% of its historic
distribution. Since its discovery in the Dan River in the fall of 2000, extensive surveys have
been conducted and a "working range" of approximately 36 miles in the Dan River in Stokes
County, North Carolina, and approximately 17 miles in the Mayo River, in Patrick County,
Virginia, and Rockingham County, North Carolina has been established.
A description of chemical and physical conditions at sites currently and historically supporting
the JSM is given in Clarke and Neves (1984) and Boss and Clench (1967). The habitat is
generally described as runs with moderate current, with sand, gravel, and cobble substrata.
Individuals from the Dan River population have been found in a variety of substrates that range
from silt/sand, to sand, gravel, cobble, bedrock crevices, and sand surrounded by boulders, and in
WK Dickson Smith River Aquatics August 2019
Job# 19-314 Page 5

a variety of flow patterns that range from slack pools to runs with moderate to swift currents
(personal observations). The hardness of the water is believed to be a significant requirement for
this species, with a minimum hardness value of >50 ppm CaCO3 (Clarke and Neves 1984).
2.2.3 Threats to Species
The cumulative effects of several factors, including sedimentation, point and non -point
discharge, stream modification (e.g., impoundment, channelization), coupled with the apparent
restricted range, are believed to have contributed to the decline of this species throughout its
range (USFWS 1990). When mussel populations are reduced to a small number of individuals
and are restricted to short reaches of isolated streams, they are extremely vulnerable to
extirpation from a single catastrophic event or activity (Strayer et al. 1996). Catastrophic events
may consist of natural events such as flooding or drought, as well as human influenced events,
such as toxic spills.
Siltation resulting from improper erosion control of various land usage, including agriculture,
silviculture, and development activities, has been recognized as a major contributing factor to
degradation of mussel populations (USFWS 1996). Siltation has been documented to be
extremely detrimental to mussel populations by degrading substrate and water quality, increasing
potential exposure to other pollutants, and by directly smothering mussels (Ellis 1936, Marking
and Bills 1979). Sediment accumulations of less than 1 inch have been shown to cause high
mortality in most mussel species (Ellis 1936).
Sewage treatment effluent has been documented to significantly affect the diversity and
abundance of mussel fauna (Goudreau et al. 1988). Goudreau et al. (1988) found that recovery
of mussel populations might not occur for up to two miles below points of chlorinated sewage
effluent. Clarke and Neves (1984) suggested that sewage and industrial pollution might have
contributed to the extirpation of the James Spinymussel from the North River in Virginia.
The impact of impoundments on freshwater mussels has been well-documented (USFWS 1992c,
Neves 1993). Construction of dams transforms lotic habitats into lentic habitats, which results in
changes with aquatic community composition. These changes associated with inundation
adversely affect both adult and juvenile mussels as well as fish community structure, which
could eliminate possible fish hosts for glochidia (Fuller 1974).
The introduction of exotic species, such as the Asian clam (Corbicula fluminea) and zebra
mussel (Dreissena polymorpha), has also been shown to pose significant threats to native
freshwater mussels. The Asian clam is now established in most of the major river systems in the
United States (Fuller and Powell 1973) including those streams still supporting surviving
populations of the James Spinymussel. Concern has been raised over competitive interactions
for space, food, and oxygen between this species and native mussels, possibly at the juvenile
stages (Neves and Widlak 1987, Alderman 1997). The Asian clam is common to abundant
within the James River. The zebra mussel, native to the drainage basins of the Black, Caspian,
and Aral Seas, is an exotic freshwater mussel that was introduced into the Great Lakes in the
1980s and has rapidly expanded its range into the surrounding river basins, including those of the
South Atlantic Slope (O'Neill and MacNeill 1991). This species competes for food resources
WK Dickson Smith River Aquatics August 2019
Job# 19-314 Page 6

and space with native mussels and is expected to contribute to the extinction of at least 20
freshwater mussel species if it becomes established throughout most of the eastern United States
(USFWS 1992c). This species has not been recorded in the Roanoke River Basin.
2.3 Fusconaia masoni (Atlantic Pigtoe)
2.3.1 Species Characteristics
The Atlantic Pigtoe was described by Conrad (1834) from the Savannah River in Augusta,
Georgia. Although larger specimens exist, the Atlantic Pigtoe seldom exceeds 50 mm (2 inches)
in length. This species is tall relative to its length, except in headwater stream reaches where
specimens may be elongated. The hinge ligament is relatively short and prominent. The
periostracum is normally brownish, has a parchment texture, and young individuals may have
greenish rays across the entire shell surface. The posterior ridge is biangulate. The interdentum
in the left valve is broad and flat. The anterior half of the valve is thickened compared with the
posterior half, and, when fresh, nacre in the anterior half of the shell tends to be salmon colored,
while nacre in the posterior half tends to be more iridescent. The shell has full dentation. In
addition to simple papillae, branched and arborescent papillae are often seen on the incurrent
aperture. In females, salmon colored demibranchs are often seen during the spawning season.
When fully gravid, females use all four demibranchs to brood glochidia (VDGIF 2014).
The Atlantic Pigtoe is a tachytictic (short-term) breeder, brooding young in early spring and
releasing glochidia in early summer. The Bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus) and Shield Darter
(Percina peltata) have been identified as potential fish hosts for this species (O'Dee and Waters
2000). Additional research has found Rosefin Shiner (Lythrurus ardens), Creek Chub (Semotilus
atromaculatus), and Longnose Dace (Rhynichthys cataractae) are also suitable hosts (Wolf
2012). Eads and Levine (2011) found White Shiner (Luxilus albeolus), Satinfin Shiner
(Cyprinella analostana), Bluehead Chub (Nocomis leptocephalus), Rosyside Dace (Clinostomus
funduloides), Pinewoods Shiner (Lythrurus matutinus), Creek Chub, Swallowtail Shiner
(Notropis procne), and Mountain Redbelly Dace (Chrosomus oreas) to also be suitable hosts for
Atlantic Pigtoe.
2.3.2 Distribution and Habitat Requirements
Johnson (1970) reported the range of the Atlantic Pigtoe extended from the Ogeechee River
Basin in Georgia north to the James River Basin in Virginia; however, recent curation of the H.
D. Athearn collection uncovered valid specimens from the Altamaha River in Georgia (Sarah
McRae, USFWS, personal communication). It is presumed extirpated from the Catawba River
Basin in North and South Carolina south to the Altamaha River Basin (USFWS 2018). The
general pattern of its current distribution indicates that the species is currently limited to
headwater areas of drainages and most populations are represented by few individuals. In North
Carolina, aside from the Waccamaw River, it was once found in every Atlantic Slope river basin.
Except for the Tar River, it is no longer found in the mainstem of the rivers within its historic
range (Savidge et al. 2011). It is listed as Endangered in Georgia, South Carolina, and North
Carolina, and as Threatened in Virginia. It has a NatureServe rank of G2 (imperiled).
WK Dickson Smith River Aquatics August 2019
Job# 19-314 Page 7

The Atlantic Pigtoe has been found in multiple physiographic provinces, from the foothills of the
Appalachian Mountains, through the Piedmont and into the Coastal Plain, in streams less than
one meter wide to large rivers. The preferred habitat is a substrate composed of gravel and
coarse sand, usually at the base of riffles; however, it can be found in a variety of other substrates
and lotic habitat conditions.
2.3.3 Threats to Species
Threats to the Atlantic Pigtoe are similar to those described for the JSM and have contributed to
the decline of this species throughout its range. Atlantic Pigtoe appears to be particularly
sensitive to pollutants and requires clean, oxygen -rich water for all stages of life. All the
remaining Atlantic Pigtoe populations are generally small in numbers and restricted to short
reaches of isolated streams. The low numbers of individuals and the restricted range of most of
the surviving populations make them extremely vulnerable to extirpation from a single
catastrophic event.
2.3.4 Designated Critical Habitat
As mentioned in Section 1.0, the Atlantic Pigtoe is proposed for listing under the Endangered
Species Act (ESA) as a Threatened Species with Section 4(d) Rule and Critical Habitat
Designation. In accordance with Section 4 of the ESA, Critical Habitat for listed species consists
of:
(1) The specific areas within the geographical area occupied by the species at the time it is
listed, in which are found those physical or biological features (constituent elements) that
are:
a. essential to the conservation of the species, and
b. which may require special management considerations or protection
(2) Specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by the species at the time it is listed
in accordance with the provisions of Section 4 of the Act, upon a determination by the
Secretary that such areas are "essential for the conservation of the species."
On October 11, 2018, USFWS proposed the Atlantic Pigtoe as a Threatened species under the
ESA. Critical habitat designation provided at that time (CFR Vol. 52 No. 186) consists of the
following:
• Unit 1 - 29 river mi (46.7 river km) of Craig Creek in Craig and Botetourt Counties,
Virginia
• Unit 2 - 1 mile (1.6 -km) of Mill Creek in Bath County, Virginia
• Unit 3 - 3 miles (4.8 -km) of the Middle James River in Fluvanna and Buckingham
Counties, Virginia
• Unit 4 - 50 river miles (80.5 river km) of the Nottoway River in Nottoway, Lunenburg,
Brunswick, Dinwiddie, and Greenville Counties, Virginia
• Unit 5 - 5 miles (8 km) of the Meherrin River in Brunswick County, Virginia
WK Dickson Smith River Aquatics August 2019
Job# 19-314 Page 8

• Unit 6 - 7 miles (11.3 km) of the Dan River in Pittsylvania County, Virginia and
Rockingham County, North Carolina
• Unit 7 - 12 miles (19.3 km) of Aarons Creek in Granville County, North Carolina and
along the Mecklenburg County -Halifax County line in Virginia and North Carolina
• Unit 8 - 85 miles (136.8 km) of the mainstem of the upper and middle Tar River as well
as several tributaries (Bear Swamp Creek, Crooked Creek, Cub Creek, and Shelton
Creek), in North Carolina
• Unit 9 - 8 miles (93.3 -km) of Sandy/Swift Creek in Granville, Vance, Franklin, and Nash
Counties, North Carolina
• Unit 10 - 85 miles (136.8 km) in Fishing Creek, Little Fishing Creek, Shocco Creek, and
Maple Branch located in Warren, Halifax, Franklin, and Nash Counties, North Carolina
• Unit 11 - 30 miles (48.3 km) of the Lower Tar River and Fishing Creek in Edgecombe
County, North Carolina
• Unit 12 - 60 river miles (95 river km) in four subunits including Flat River, Little River,
Eno River, and the Upper Eno River
• Unit 13 - 61 river miles (98.2 river km) in five subunits including Swift Creek, Middle
Creek, Upper Little River, Middle Little River, and Contentnea Creek, in North Carolina
• Unit 14 - 6 miles (9.7 km) of habitat in the New Hope Creek in Orange County, North
Carolina
• Unit 15 - 10 river miles (16.1 river km) in Randolph County, North Carolina, including
the mainstem as well as Richland Creek and Brush Creek
• Unit 16 - 40 miles (64.4 km) of Little River in Randolph and Montgomery Counties,
North Carolina
The project crossing is located 12.5 RM away from proposed critical habitat Unit 6 (RR1)
(Figure 2-3).
3.0 OTHER TARGET SPECIES DESCRIPTIONS
3.1 Lasmigona subviridis (Green Floater)
3.1.1 Species Characteristics
The Green Floater was described by Conrad (183 5) from the Schuykill River in Lancaster
County, Pennsylvania. This small mussel species has a thin, slightly inflated, subovate shell that
is narrower in front, higher behind. The dorsal margin forms a blunt angle with the posterior
margin. The shell is dull yellow or tan to brownish green, usually with concentrations of dark
green rays.
3.1,2 Distribution and Habitat Requirements
The Green Floater occurs along the Atlantic slope from the Savannah River in Georgia north to
the Hudson River in New York, as well as in the "interior" basins (New, Kanawah, and
WK Dickson Smith River Aquatics August 2019
Job# 19-314 Page 9

Wataugua Rivers) of the Tennessee River basin. It has experienced major declines throughout
its entire range. Based on preliminary genetics research, the southern populations of the Green
Floater (Tar -Pamlico, Neuse, and Yadkin/Pee Dee River Basins) appear to be genetically distinct
from populations from the Roanoke River to the north and west (Morgan Railey and Arthur
Bogan, North Carolina Museum of Natural Sciences, 2007 Personal Communication). Further
research is needed to determine if these differences warrant classification of the southern
populations as a distinct species. It occurs in small size streams to large rivers, in quiet waters
such as pools, or eddies, with gravel and sand substrates.
3.1.3 Threats to Species
Threats to the Green Floater and many other species are similar to those described above for the
James Spinymussel (Section 2.2.3).
4.0 SURVEY EFFORTS
Surveys were conducted by 30aks personnel Tim Savidge (Permit # 19-ES0034), Tom
Dickinson (Permit # 19-ES00343), Lizzy Stokes -Cawley, and Nathan Howell on July 29, 2019.
4.1 Stream Conditions at Time of Survey: Smith River
The survey reach consisted of a moderate gradient sequence of primarily riffle and run, with
areas of Blackwater below bars and woody debris. The channel ranged from 20 to 30 meters wide
with variably stable to unstable banks two to four meters high. Substrate was dominated by deep
deposits of unconsolidated sand in the lower portion of the reach, transitioning into areas of
gravel and cobble dominated riffle and run habitat towards the upper extent of the reach. Fine
sand, silt, and woody debris accumulations were present in pools and depositional margins. A
moderate amount of woody debris was present along stream banks. A narrow natural buffer
bordered the reach from surrounding gold course and residential land use.
4.2 Methodology
4.2.1 Fish Surveys
Visual surveys targeting Roanoke Logperch were conducted first, from approximately 1,312 feet
(400 meters) downstream of the proposed project footprint, through the approximately 100 ft (30
m) project footprint, to approximately 328 feet (100 meters) upstream for a total distance of
approximately 1,740 feet (530 meters) (Figure 1). Areas of appropriate habitat were searched,
concentrating on the habitats preferred by the target species (cover objects). The survey team
spread out across the river into survey lanes. Visual surveys were conducted using mask/snorkel
overturning rocks and debris in these areas. The species was not observed during these surveys.
To supplement this effort, electrofishing surveys were also conducted for 1,907 seconds of
shocking time. The fish surveys were conducted within the reach using one Smith Root LR -24
backpack electrofishing unit, dip nets, and seine netting. All habitat types in the survey reach
(riffle, run, pool, slack -water, etc.) were sampled, with special attention given to transition areas
between habitat types where fish congregate in response to the instream sampling efforts.
WK Dickson Smith River Aquatics August 2019
Job# 19-314 Page 10

Relative abundance reported was estimated using the following criteria:
➢ (VA) Very abundant > 30 collected at survey station
➢ (A) Abundant: 16-30 collected at survey station
➢ (C) Common: 6-15 collected at survey station
➢ (U) Uncommon: 3-5 collected at survey station
➢ (R) Rare: 1-2 collected at survey station
It should be noted that relative abundances of particular species can be affected by survey
methodologies and site conditions. Thus, some species, particularly those that are found in
deeper pools and runs and those that can seek cover quickly, may be under -represented at a
sample site. Electro -fishing and netting times also vary depending on daily survey conditions
and other variables, making direct site comparisons difficult.
4.2.2 Mussel Surveys
Mussel surveys were also conducted from approximately 1,312 ft (400 meters) downstream of
the proposed project footprint, through the approximately 100 ft (30 m) project footprint, to
approximately 328 feet (100 meters) upstream for a total distance of approximately 1,740 feet
(530 meters) (Figure 1). Areas of appropriate habitat were searched, concentrating on the stable
habitats preferred by the target species. The survey team spread out across the creek into survey
lanes. Visual surveys were conducted using glass bottom view buckets (bathyscopes). Tactile
methods were employed, particularly in streambanks under submerged rootmats. All freshwater
bivalves were recorded and returned to the substrate. Timed survey efforts provided Catch Per
Unit Effort (CPUE) data for each species. Relative abundance for freshwater snails and
freshwater clam species were estimated using the following criteria:
➢ (VA) Very abundant > 30 per square meter
➢ (A) Abundant 16-30 per square meter
➢ (C) Common 6-15 per square meter
➢ (U) Uncommon 3-5 per square meter
➢ (R) Rare 1-2 per square meter
➢ (P-) Ancillary adjective "Patchy" indicates an uneven distribution of the species within the
sampled site.
4.3 Results
4.3.1 Fish Survey Results
A total of 23 species were located during the combined efforts (Table 2), including two North
Carolina Special Concern species, Riverweed Darter (Etheostoma podostemone) and Cutlips
Minnow (Exoglussum maxillingua).
WK Dickson Smith River Aquatics August 2019
Job# 19-314 Page 11

Table 2. Fish survey results in Smith River
Scientific Name
Common Name
Relative Abundance
Amblo lites cavi cons
Roanoke Bass
C
Ameiurus nebulosus
Brown Bullhead
A
Cyprinella analostana
Satinfin Shiner
C
Etheostoma abellare
Fantail Darter
C
Etheostoma podostemone
Riverweed Darter
U
Exo lossum maxillin ua
Cutli s Minnow
R
H entelium nigricans
Northern Ho sucker
U
H entelium roanokense
Roanoke Ho sucker
U
Le orris auritus
Redbreast Sunfish
A
Le orris macrochirus
Blue ill Sunfish
A
Luxilus albeolus
White Shiner
A
Luxilus cerasinus
Crescent Shiner
U
L thrurus ardes
Rosefin Shiner
C
Micro terus dolomieui
Smallmouth Bass
C
Micro terus salmoides
Largemouth Bass
U
Nocomis le toce halus
Bluehead Chub
C
Notro is chiliticus
Redlip Shiner
R
Notro is hudsonius
S ottail Shiner
C
Notro is procne
Swallowtail Shiner
C
Noturus insi nis
Margined Madtom
C
Percina peltata
Shield Darter
U
Percina roanoka
Roanoke Darter
C
Scartom zon cervinus
Black Jum rock
C
4.3.2 Mussel Survey Results
A total of 8.0 person hours of survey time were spent in the reach, during which the mollusk
species in Table 3 were found. The Eastern Elliptio found was represented by relic shell located
in a sand deposit. The majority of habitat within the survey reach consisted of unconsolidated
sand, with large accumulations of silt, which is generally poor habitat for freshwater mussels,
especially the three targeted species. High quality physical habitat was present in the upper
portions of the survey reach; however, no mussels were found.
Table 3. Freshwater Mollusks in Smith River
Scientific Name
Common Name
Abundance/
# live CPUE
Freshwater Mussels
CPUE
lli do com lanata
astern Elli do
Relic
Freshwater Snails and Clams
Relative
Abundance
Corbicula uminea
Sian Clam
A
eptoxis carinata
JCrested Mudalia
I P -C
5.0 DISCUSSION/CONCLUSIONS
The targeted Roanoke Logperch, James Spinymussel, Atlantic Pigtoe, and Green Floater were
not found during the surveys. The results indicate that the study area supports a diverse fish
WK Dickson Smith River Aquatics August 2019
Job# 19-314 Page 12

fauna typical of lotic habitats in the Roanoke River Basin. This portion of the Smith River does
not appear to support viable mussel populations, as no live freshwater mussels were found during
the survey. The Eastern Elliptio, a widespread and common species was represented by relic
shell fragments only.
5.1 Conclusion of Effects
Conclusions of project related effects to the two federally protected target species are provided
below. The USFWS is the regulating authority for Section 7 Biological Conclusions and as
such, it is recommended that they be consulted regarding their concurrence with the findings of
this document.
5.1.1 James Spinymussel-No Effect
The James Spinymussel is not known to occur within the Smith River and the closest record of
the species is 5.36 RM downstream in the Dan River. Given the lack of records and the apparent
absence of mussel fauna within the project area, adverse effects to the James Spinymussel are not
expected to occur.
5.1.2 Roanoke Logperch-May Affect/Not Likely to Adversely Affect
While the Roanoke Logperch was not observed during the survey efforts, high quality habitat
conditions were present in the upper portion of the survey reach. The Roanoke Logperch has
previously been reported in the Smith River including within the survey reach and should be
assumed to be present. However, habitat conditions in the location of the inverted siphon and
proposed coffer dam (shifting sand and large amounts of silt) are generally of poor quality with
respect to the Roanoke Logperch. The only portion of the Smith River within the survey reach
that is likely to support the species is approximately 100 meters upstream from the proposed
impact location. While it is possible that individuals of the species may pass through the section
of the river where the proposed construction will occur to access suitable habitat further
downstream, the passage would likely occur during higher flow events. Installation of the coffer
dams will not take place during high flow events. While the construction of the coffer dam is not
expected to trap migrating Roanoke Logperch, it cannot be entirely discounted. Thus, a
conclusion of "No Effect" is not warranted.
WK Dickson Smith River Aquatics August 2019
Job# 19-314 Page 13

6.0 LITERATURE CITED
Alderman, J.M. 1997. Monitoring the Swift Creek freshwater mussel community. Pages 98-107
in K.S. Cummings, A.C. Buchanan, C.A. Mayer, and T.J. Naimo, eds. 1997.
Conservation and Management of Freshwater Mussels II Initiatives for the future.
Proceedings of a UMRCC symposium, 16-18 October 1995, St. Louis, Missouri. Upper
Mississippi River Conservation Committee, Rock Island Ilinois. 293 pp.
Boss, K. J. and W. J. Clench. 1967. Notes on Pleurobema collina (Conrad) from the James
River, Virginia. Occas. Pap. Mollusks (Mus. Comp. Zool., Harvard) 3 (7):45-2.
Brown, A.V., M.M. Lyttle, and K.B. Brown. 1998. Impacts of gravel mining on gravel bed
streams. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 127:979-994.
Burkhead, N.M. and R.E. Jenkins. 1991. Fishes. In: Virginia's Endangered Species, proceedings
of a symposium. Karen Terwilliger (ed.). McDonal and Woodward Publishing Company,
Blacksburg, VA. 672 pp.
Clarke, A. H. and R. J. Neves. 1984. Status survey of the James River spinymussel Cathyria
collina, in the James River, Virginia. A report for Region 5 of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service. 32pp.
Conrad, T.A. 1834. New freshwater shells of the United States, with coloured illustrations; and a
monograph of the genus Anculotus of Say; also a synopsis of the American naiades. J.
Dobson, 108 Chestnut Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 1-76, 8 pls.
Conrad, T.A. 1835. Monography of the Family Unionidae, or naiades of Lamarck, (fresh water
bivalve shells) of North America, illustrated by figures drawn on stone from nature. J.
Dobson, 108 Chestnut Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 1:1-12, plates 1-5.
Conrad, T. A. 1835-1840. Mono,raphy of the Family Unionidae, or naiades of Lamarck, (fresh
water bivalve shells) or North America, illustrated by figures drawn on stone°from
nature. 108 Chestnut Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: J. Dobson.
Eads, C.B. and J.F. Levine. 2011. Refinement of Growout Techniques for Four Freshwater
Mussel Species. Final Report submitted to NC Wildlife Resources Commission, Raleigh,
NC. 15pp.
Ellis, M.M. 1936. Erosion silt as a factor in aquatic environments. Ecology. 17:29-42.
Fuller, S.L.H. 1974. Clams and mussels (Mollusca: Bivalvia). Pages 215-273, inC.W. Hart and
S.L.H. Fuller eds. Pollution Ecology of Freshwater Invertebrates. Academic Press, New
York.
Fuller, S.L.H., and C.E. Powell. 1973. Range extensions of Corbicula mandensis (Philippi) in
the Atlantic drainage of the United States. Natilus. 87(2):59.
WK Dickson Smith River Aquatics August 2019
Job# 19-314 Page 14

George, A.L. and R.L. Mayden. 2003. Conservation genetics of four imperiled fishes of the
southeast. Final Report to the U.S. Forest Service.
Goudreau, S.E., R.J. Neves, and R.J. Sheehan. 1988. Effects of sewage treatment effluents on
mollusks and fish of the Clinch River in Tazewell County, Virginia. Final Rep., U.S. Fish
and Wildl. Serv. 128 pp.
Hove, M. 1990. Distribution and life history of the endangered James spinymussel, Pleurobema
collina (Bivalvia: Unionidae). M.S. Thesis. Virginia Polytech. Inst. And State Univ.,
Blacksburg, Virginia. 113pp.
Hove, M. and R. J. Neves. 1989. Life history of the James spinymussel. In: North Carolina
Wildlife Resources Commission. 1989. Population status, distribution, and biology of
the Tar River spinymussel (Elliptio (Canthyria steinstansana Johnson and Clarke), in
North Carolina. Final Report to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Johnson, R. I. 1970. The systematics and zoogeography of the Unionidae (Mollusca:Bivalvia) of
the southern Atlantic Slope region. Bull. Mus. Comp. Zool. 140(6):263-449.
Kanehl, P., and J. Lyons. 1992. Impacts of in -stream sand and gravel mining on stream habitat
and fish communities, including a survey on the Big Rib River, Marathon County,
Wisconsin. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources Research Report 155, Madison.
Kondolf, G.M. 1997. Hungry water: effects of dams and gravel mining on river channels.
Environmental Management 21:533-551.
Lahey, A.M. and P.L. Angermeier. 2007. Range -wide Assessment of Habitat Suitability for
Roanoke Logperch (Percina rex). Virginia Transportation Research Council.
http://www.virginiadot.org/vtrc/main/online reports/pdf/07-cr8.pdf
Llhardt, B.L., E.S. Verry, and BJ. Palik. 2000. Defining riparian areas. Pages 23-42 in E.S.
Verry, J.W. Hornbeck, and C.A. Doloff, eds. Riparian management of forests of the
continental eastern United States. Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, Florida.
Lynch, J.A., and E.S. Corbett. 1990. Evaluation of best management practices for controlling
nonpoint pollution from silvicultural operations. Water Resources Bulletin, 26(1):41-52.
Marking, L.L., and T.D. Bills. 1979. Acute effects of silt and sand sedimentation on freshwater
mussels. Pp. 204-211 in J.L. Rasmussen, ed. Proc. of the UMRCC symposium on the
Upper Mississippi River bivalve mollusks. UMRCC. Rock Island IL. 270 pp.
McMahon, R.F. and A.E. Bogan. 2001. Mollusca: Bivalva. Pp. 331-429. In: J.H. Thorpe and
A.P. Covich. Ecology and Classification of North American freshwater invertabrates.
2nd edition. Academic Press.
WK Dickson Smith River Aquatics August 2019
Job# 19-314 Page 15

McRae, Sarah. 2017. Fish and Wildlife Biologist, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Raleigh, NC.
Personal communication regarding target species.
Meador, M.R., and A.O. Layher. 1998. Instream sand and gravel mining: environmental issues
and regulatory process in the United States. Fisheries 23(11):6-13.
NatureServe. 2015. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application].
Neves, R.J. 1993. A state of the Unionids address. Pp. 1-10 in K. S. Cummings, A.C. Buchanan,
and L.M. Kooch, eds. Proc. of the UMRCC symposium on the Conservation and
Management of Freshwater Mussels. UMRCC. Rock Island IL. 189 pp.
Neves, R.J., and J.C. Widlak. 1987. Habitat ecology of juvenile freshwater mussels (Bivalvia:
Unionidae) in a headwater stream in Virginia. Amer. Malacol. Bull. 1(5):1-7.
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (NCDEQ) - Division of Water Resources.
2018. 2018 North Carolina 303(d) List.
https:Hfiles.nc.gov/ncdeq/Water%20Quality/Planning/TMDL/303 d/2018/2018-NC-303-
d--List-Final.pdf
North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP). 2019. Biotics Database. Division of Land
and Water Stewardship. Department of Natural and Cultural Resources, Raleigh, North
Carolina. July 2019 version.
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) 2015. Roanoke Logperch.
https://www.ncwildlife. org/Learning/Species/Fish/Roanoke-Logperch#2521717-detailed-
information
O'Dee, S.H., and G.T. Waters. 2000. New or confirmed host identification for ten freshwater
mussels. Pp. 77-82 in R.A. Tankersley, D.I. Warmolts, G.T. Waters, B.J. Armitage, P.D.
Johnson, and R.S. Butler (eds.). Freshwater Mollusk Symposia Proceedings Part I.
Proceedings of the Conservation, Captive Care and Propagation of Freshwater Mussels
Symposium. Ohio Biological Survey Special Publication, Columbus.
O'Neill, C.R., Jr., and D.B. MacNeill. 1991. The zebra mussel (Dreissena polymorpha): an
unwelcome North American invader. Sea Grant, Coastal Resources Fact Sheet. New
York Sea Grant Extension. 12 pp.
Palik, B.J., J.C. Zasada, and C.W. Hedman. 2000. Ecological principles for riparian silviculture.
Pages 233-254 in E.S. Verry, J.W. Hornbeck, and C.A. Doloff, eds. Riparian
Management of Forests of the Continental Eastern United States. Lewis Publishers, Boca
Raton, Florida.
Pennak, R.W. 1989. Fresh -water invertebrates of the United States, protozoa to Mollusca Third
Edition, John Wiley & Sons, Inc. New York, 628 pp.
WK Dickson Smith River Aquatics August 2019
Job# 19-314 Page 16

Perkins, M.A., N.A. Johnson, and M.M. Gangloff. 2017. Molecular systematics of the
critically -endangered North American spinymussels (Unionidae: Elliptio and
Pleurobema) and description of Parvaspina gen. nov. Conservation Genetics (2017).
doi: 10. 1007/s 10592-017-0924-z
Railey, Morgan and Arthur Bogan, North Carolina Museum of Natural Sciences, 2007 Personal
Communication
Rosenberger, AE., Angermeier. PL. 2002 Roanoke Logperch (Percina rex) Population Structure
and Habitat Use Final Report.
Savidge, T. W., J. M. Alderman, A. E. Bogan, W. G. Cope, T. E. Dickinson, C. B. Eads,S. J.
Fraley, J. Fridell, M. M. Gangloff, R. J. Heise, J. F. Levine, S. E. McRae, R.B. Nichols,
A. J. Rodgers, A. Van Devender, J. L. Williams and L. L. Zimmerman. 2011. 2010
Reevaluation of Status Listings for Jeopardized Freshwater and Terrestrial Mollusks in
North Carolina. Unpublished report of the Scientific Council on Freshwater and
Teresstrial Mollusks. 177pp.
Semlitsch, R. D. 1998. Biological delineation of terrestrial buffer zones for pond -breeding
salamanders. Conservation Biology 12:1113— 1119.
Starnes, L.B., and D.C. Gasper. 1996. Effects of surface mining on aquatic resources in North
America. Fisheries 21(5):24-26.
Strayer, D. L., S. J. Sprague and S. Claypool, 1996. A range -wide assessment of populations of
Alasmidonta heterodon, an endangered freshwater mussel (Bivalvia: Unionidae). J.N.
Am. Benthol. Soc., 15(3):308-317.
Terwilliger, Karen. 1991. Virginia's Endangered Species, pp. 395-397, 785-788.
Turgeon, D. D., A. E. Bogan, E. V. Coan, W. K. Emerson, W. G. Lyons, W. L. Pratt, C. F. E.
Roper, A. Scheltema, F. G. Thompson, and J. J. Williams. 1988. Common and scientific
names of aquatic invertebrates of the United States and Canada: Mollusks. Am.
Fisheries Soc. Spec. Publ.16. Bethesda, Md. 227 pp.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water. NPDES facilities by permit type.
NPDESPERMIT_WMERC. Accessed July 2019.
https://watersgeo. epa. gov/arcgis/rest/services/OWPROGRAM/NPDESPERMIT_WMER
C/MapServer
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1990. James Spinymussel (Pleurobema collina)
Recovery Plan. Newton Corner, Massachusetts, 38 pp.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1992a. Roanoke Logperch (Percina rex) Recovery Plan. Newton
Corner, MA.
WK Dickson Smith River Aquatics August 2019
Job# 19-314 Page 17

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1992b. Tar spinymussel (Elliptio (Cathyria)
steinstansana) Recovery Plan. Atlanta, Georgia. 34 pp.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1992c. Endangered and Threatened species of the
southeast United States (The red book). Prepared by Ecological Services, Div. of
Endangered Species, Southeast Region. Government Printing Office, Wash. D.C. 1,070
PP.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1996. Revised Technical/Agency Draft Carolina
Heelsplitter Recovery Plan, Atlanta, GA: 47.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2007. Roanoke Logperch (Percina rex). 5 -Year Review:
Summary & Evaluation. Prepared by Virginia Field Office, Gloucester, Virginia.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2015a. Roanoke Logperch.
http://www.fws.gov/raleigh/species/es_roanoke_Logperch.html. Accessed June 23,
2016.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2015b. Roanoke Logperch.
http://www.fws.gov/northeast/pdf/RoanokeLogperch.pdf. Accessed June 23, 2016.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2018. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and
Plants; Threatened Species Status with Section 4(d) Rule and Critical Habitat Desgnation
for Atlantic Pigtoe. 50 CFR 17:83 FR 51570, 51570-51609. Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-
2018-0046.
Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries (VDGIF). 2014. Atlantic Pigtoe
Conservation Plan. Bureau of Wildlife Resources. VDGIF, Richmond, VA. 31 pp.
Wolf, E.D. 2012. Propagation, Culture, and Recovery of Species at Risk Atlantic Pigtoe.
Virginia Tech Conservation Management Institute, Project No. 11-108. 55pp.
WK Dickson Smith River Aquatics August 2019
Job# 19-314 Page 18

APPENDIX A
Figures
WK Dickson Smith River Aquatics August 2019
Job# 19-314 Page 19

Oil- ! �
4 W KlJos W W, A -K r �.
❑ ST D ST
�
T_ r 4 f
V.
- J `• _ ..
* _ AV s
x I
Alf
OR
`rOQ
SRlDGE S( LYNRUj y
*P%EER/*e A Prepared For.
%DICKSON
SIDE
Survey Reach
Approximate Project Footprint
k Streets
Aquatic Species Survey
Proposed Water Siphon Crossing:
Smith River
Vicinity Map
Rockingham County, North Carolina
Date. July 2019
Scale: 0 100 200 Feet
I�J�J
Job No 19-314
Drawn By.
Checked By
KMS
TS
Figure

N
Road
w
EaS� ab
0
a�R SG
c
9 NC 14 CreeknMolter/Coors
� Brewery
amilton HYllS Nc 87 Roosevelt Street r 1
r US 31
4
ld Xd NC 77
Costfeet Meadow Summit e l
fWA60
poi
CenVal Area FrrFoorr
ourch Strew
a '
i WestMeab ,,East �fe Ofwe
Stf�et t 5tadt�m
t i EaS � I
�PBovlevard _i 6ypsrSrdU4Dr ive ''1 °' •}
EO ID: 25404
QO Y
P e
_ C
ce 'PP
Wei%�rt95 H�9t`waY • .}
Eden
a
tansa"et ---- Bears],a•�
z r
n i
US 311 C•
' NC 14 �f
NC 87 i
NC 770 s
. � 1p•
Glennfarm E -
Approximate Project Footprint
,,,0r,*on Highway? Sauratown Esrar
Survey Reach
Whipporrwill Pp3 NCNHP Element Occurrences
Hills Dan River G
Roanoke Logperch
EE�/,t'^ A Prepared For.
[! aVF _k
N/b�3t�1`�a
Aquatic Species Survey
Proposed Water Siphon Crossing:
Smith River
NCNHP Element Occurrences:
Roanoke Logperch
Rockingham County, North Carolina
Date August 2019
Sca�_ 1.000 2, C00 Feet
1 r 1
Job No.: 19-314
Dravm Bk
MS
Checked BTS
Figure
2-1

EE�/ti^ A Prepared For.
[! ^P,' aVDICKSON
*V31i#
Aquatic Species Survey
Proposed Water Siphon Crossing:
Smith River
NCNHP Element Occurrences:
James Spinymussel
Rockingham County, North Carolina
Datle� August 2019
Scab_
2,000 4,000 Feet
1 r 1
Job No.: 19-314
Dravm By:Ms
N
---
----
----- ROCKINGHAM COUNTY
_-----------— ---
i
i
i
EO ID-. 37056
f
poan�.f-
F
Pow
us 311 Eo'I
NC 770
_ -
` NC 700
-
NC 770
- -
1 '
US 311
• NC 14
NC 87
NC 770
'1
NC 14
US 311
NC 87
NC 770
Approximate Project Footprint
Survey Reach
NCNHP Element Occurrences
James Spinymussel
County Boundary
EE�/ti^ A Prepared For.
[! ^P,' aVDICKSON
*V31i#
Aquatic Species Survey
Proposed Water Siphon Crossing:
Smith River
NCNHP Element Occurrences:
James Spinymussel
Rockingham County, North Carolina
Datle� August 2019
Scab_
2,000 4,000 Feet
1 r 1
Job No.: 19-314
Dravm By:Ms
Checked By
Figure
2-2

EERI fe Prepared For
AwA
%DICKSON
`�NIb330*
'N
Judy er'a
M.- 0
273 m 'A
ROCKINGHAM COUNTY
NC770
170926.1 ted
Aquatic Species Survey
Proposed Water Siphon Crossing:
Smith River
NCNHP Element Occurrences and
Proposed Critical Habitat:
Atlantic Pigtoe
Rockingham County, North Carolina
Date August 2019
Scale_
0 0,5 1 Mlles
1 r I
Job No.: 19-314
Dravm BkMs
Checked BTS
U5311
fan
NC 14
`
NC 87
■
EERI fe Prepared For
AwA
%DICKSON
`�NIb330*
'N
Judy er'a
M.- 0
273 m 'A
ROCKINGHAM COUNTY
NC770
170926.1 ted
Aquatic Species Survey
Proposed Water Siphon Crossing:
Smith River
NCNHP Element Occurrences and
Proposed Critical Habitat:
Atlantic Pigtoe
Rockingham County, North Carolina
Date August 2019
Scale_
0 0,5 1 Mlles
1 r I
Job No.: 19-314
Dravm BkMs
Checked BTS
Figure
2-3

S311
X 135
'r
NC 87
1N'errtWL:.Itf,
EE�/ti^ A Prepared For.
[! %DICKSON
*V31i#
INC 14
Aquatic Species Survey
Proposed Water Siphon Crossing:
Smith River
NCNHP Element Occurrences:
Green Floater
Rockingham County, North Carolina
Date August 2019
Scale: 0 0.5 1 Miles
I � 1
��+
Dravm Bk
N
1;
r
1
1
i
h
F
------ ----
ROCKINGHAM
COUNTY ----'------------
—
i
NC 1 ,
US 311
NC 87
INC 770
r�
US 311NC
70
EO ID -3622 '
NC 7070
N C 700
I
,
U5311
_
1
1 1
Eden _ NC 14
1 NC 87
NC 770
;
S311
X 135
'r
NC 87
1N'errtWL:.Itf,
EE�/ti^ A Prepared For.
[! %DICKSON
*V31i#
INC 14
Aquatic Species Survey
Proposed Water Siphon Crossing:
Smith River
NCNHP Element Occurrences:
Green Floater
Rockingham County, North Carolina
Date August 2019
Scale: 0 0.5 1 Miles
I � 1
Job No.: 19-314
Dravm Bk
Checked BTS
Figure
2-4